5
1
vote
Article Rating
Open Thread
60 Comments
May 5, 2024 3:11 am
Yesterday got a lot of attention in swedish media about the so called “temporary heat” in a otherwise cold spring but statistics shows it’s still far from the warmest 4th of may since 1859, interesting that extra water vapor from hunga tonga and El nino still can’t break some records from the 1930-1959 era.
https://ibb.co/Try86pN
May 5, 2024 3:19 am
A summary of a recent speech by Ed Miliband, who will, in November, most likely be the Minister responsible for UK energy.
Delivered at the launch of the Green Alliance’s Net Zero Policy Tracker on March 19, 2024
Any danger to the UK posed by climate change is trivial compared to the danger posed by Ed Miliband in charge of its energy.
Ed Miliband’s speech on climate and energy, delivered at the launch of the Green Alliance’s Net Zero Policy Tracker on March 19, 2024, emphasized the critical importance of the upcoming election in addressing the climate crisis and transitioning to clean energy.
Key points from his speech include: Urgency of the climate crisis: Miliband highlighted the alarming rate of global temperature increases, with last month being the warmest February on record and 2023 being a record-breaking year for temperature. He warned against becoming complacent in the face of these disturbing trends.
Renewable energy as the cheaper choice: Miliband noted that renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels, with solar costs falling by almost 90%, battery costs by 80%, and offshore wind costs by 70% over the decade
. This shift makes renewable energy not only cleaner but also more economically viable.
Energy security and independence: The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has demonstrated the risks of relying on fossil fuels, leaving countries at the mercy of petrostates and dictators
. Clean power offers a route to energy security and independence.
Economic transformation: Climate action presents an opportunity for economic transformation, with the potential to create up to 17 million new jobs globally by 2030
. This shift is not just a long-term moral duty but also a means to deliver prosperity to the current generation.
Labour’s commitment to clean energy: Miliband reiterated Labour’s ambition to make Britain a clean energy superpower, with plans for a decarbonized power system by 2030, no new North Sea oil and gas licenses, and the establishment of a publicly owned energy generation company, Great British Energy
. Labour also aims to invest in community energy, a National Wealth Fund, and a British Jobs Bonus to encourage manufacturing in industrial heartlands and coastal communities.
Critique of the Conservative government’s inaction: Miliband criticized the Conservative government for its lack of progress on climate policies, accusing them of inertia and of stoking division over the UK’s net zero target
. He argued that the government’s failure to invest in renewables, home insulation, and energy efficiency is leading to higher bills and undermining national energy security.
Appeal to Conservative voters: Miliband made a direct appeal to Conservative voters who are concerned about the party’s shift away from climate action, emphasizing that Labour’s approach is not only pro-environment but also pro-security, pro-prosperity, and pro-jobs
. He positioned Labour as the party that can deliver a clean energy future, lower bills, and energy security.
Overall, Ed Miliband’s speech emphasized the urgent need for climate action, the economic benefits of transitioning to clean energy, and Labour’s commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower.
And nothing Miliband proposes to do will make a dent in reducing CO2.
CO2 will increase despite whatever the Western world does, because China and India and dozens of other nations are going to increase their CO2 output which will overwhelm any reductions by the Western world.
So Miliband will be destroying the UK’s economy by trying to reduce CO2 for no good reason.
How long will Western politicians continue with this CO2-is-dangerous delusion? Answer: Until the money runs out.
This is the reason that I’m canvassing for the Reform Party, the only party that is taking a more pragmatic approach to energy security, the environment and Net Zero.
Not really.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
Labour majority 294 in the base case, and no seats at all for Reform, despite being forecast to get 12% of the votes. The Liberals forecast to get 10% of the votes and 60 seats.
Voting for Reform isn’t done because you hope to get enough MPs to make a difference to Parliament. Its done to send a message.
You can use the site to see the consequences of some swings. Generally to get a decent number of MPs Reform will have to get share of vote above 20%. Is it possible? Yes, but not very likely. Though they are rising in the polls.
And if it does, the Conservative worst case could easily be below 50 seats, and Labour majority well over 300.
However you look at this, the UK is in for some years of serious pain as the Net Zero program unravels. It will unravel further and faster with Miliband in charge of energy, but even under a Conservative government which is only slightly more moderate its headed for blackouts.
May 5, 2024 3:36 am
Needing a laugh I turned to the student rag. I wasn’t disappointed. The world [st]health organisation has some alarming news
“Using a gas stove increases nitrogen dioxide exposure to levels that exceed public health recommendations, a new study shows. The report, published Friday in Science Advances, found that people of color and low-income residents in the US were disproportionately affected.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/03/gas-stoves-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution
Identity politics every time.
According to the Guardian’s report:
That means even if a person avoids exposure to nitrogen dioxide from traffic exhaust, power plants, or other sources, by cooking with a gas stove they will have already breathed in three-quarters of what is considered a safe limit.
Still within safe limits then.
Results are based on measurements and assumptions throughout the modeling chain.
I call a crock on the POC being “disproportionately” effected.
POC are generally less wealthy than WHITES, so live in houses that have less insulation and older windows. Those homes allow more infiltration of FRESH air and easier dissipation of ANY products of combustion of gas stoves. Also they are less likely to have AC so more likely to OPEN THEIR WINDOWS.
BTW, natural gas, Methane, is CH4. Products of combustion, H2O and CO2. Is the stove increasing the NO2 from .0001 parts per billion to .00011 parts per billion?
Like the EPA, every time they develop a new measurement device that detects lower quantities of a substance, they reduce the “hazard threshold” accordingly.
May 5, 2024 3:55 am
About detection and attribution of the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate system, please see this post by Judith Curry from 2013. She quotes Edward Lorenz extensively.
One particular point stands out about using models for statistical attribution,
“This somewhat unorthodox procedure would be quite unacceptable if the new null hypothesis had been formulated after the fact, that is, if the observed climatic trend had directly or indirectly affected the statement of the hypothesis. This would be the case, for example, if the models had been tuned to fit the observed course of the climate. Provided, however, that the observed trend has in no way entered the construction or operation of the models, the procedure would appear to be sound.“
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/words-of-wisdom-from-ed-lorenz/
So what? The models are indeed tuned to fit the “observed course of the climate.”
What about the claimed attribution? “Unacceptable”.
(Note – not all the links in Dr. Curry’s post are active.)
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere
The RE in atmosphere is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and what grows on the surface and in water.
Calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900, as the temp of the entire atmosphere, which is overstated, but helps simplicity.
The RE ratio would not be much different, if complex analyses were used, such as how the three items vary with altitude and temp. The complex approach would subtract from both REs, leaving the ratio intact.
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2. How CO2 performs that role, the A-to-Z process, will keep many academia folks busy for many years.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm, i.e., blaming CO2 for global warming is an unscientific hoax.
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
.
1) Worldwide, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 16.1 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 6.3 kJ/kg
2) Tropics, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 27.2 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 43.3 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
Worldwide, enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241 kJ/kg CO2 @ 289 K = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air.
.
RE In 2023; 16 C; 423 ppm CO2
World: (16.1 + 6.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1.161 x 10^5 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.4%, 27.9% and 0.69% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 40.6
Tropics: (27.2 + 43.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1,448 x 10^5 EJ.
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.5%, 61.2% and 0.22% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 279.4
The Tropics is a major RE area, almost all of it by WV. At least 35% of the RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
.
RE in 1900; 14.8 C; 291 ppm CO2
World: (14.8 + 5.8 + 0.106) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1.066 x 10^5 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.5%, 28% and 0.51% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 54.7
The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.089
This reference to Lorenz seems to me to miss two important points.
1) What seems most important is not that we can detect a human-caused influence on temperature, but rather when we can detect a truly worrisome effect. Recall that some amount of warming is almost undeniably beneficial.
2) The idea of using statistics in a acceptance/rejection sort of test, that is letting statistics answer either of the questions “what should we believe?” or “how strong is this evidence?” is not appropriate because we don’t know what form the distribution(s) of weather phenomena follow. Maybe the true distribution has much fatter tails than what we assume.
Thanks for your reply. Notice that IPCC AR4 describes detection and attribution in statistical terms (below.) The key point of my post is that Lorenz considered a statistical test from theoretical considerations (i.e. by incorporation in a model) to be a sound approach only if the model has not itself been “tuned” to past observations.
May 5, 2024 6:16 am
https://www.cnn.com/england-uk-sewage-poop-beach/index.html
Is this an example of how governments spend finite resources chasing solutions to problems that might not exist while ignoring the basic services required for health and safety of citizens today?
I’ve often suspected that budgets for essentials suffer at the expense of “fighting” climate change.
May 5, 2024 6:19 am
From the good folks at The Daily Sceptic:
As the World Takes Off, Net Zero Britain Stays Grounded
All around the world new airports are being built and existing airports enlarged in countries which appear to realise that the supposed ‘climate crisis’ and the need for Net Zero are just a load of nonsense.
The article lists several airports including, Dubai International, Noida International (India), Bangkok’s main international airport, Manila Bay in the Philippines, etc. undergoing massive, multi-billion dollar expansions. The end of air travel? I think not!
May 5, 2024 7:20 am
I recently made a post in the Telegraph newspaper about Physics, Thermodynamics and the Climate crowd. I will post a slightly expanded version here for comments, which may be interesting to others. I expect to receive some negative comments but here goes:
The climate change discussion is based on GCM, general circulation models, which are flawed in a very fundamental way. I will explain the problem in fairly simple terms for readers. The unfortunate condition found in GCM is that heat (energy) may flow from cold to hot making the temperature difference larger. This is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, which is that bodies (usually in contact but this is not the limiting case) under adiabatic conditions (effectively 100% insulation) will in time achieve the same temperature. This definition shows that heat can only flow from hotter to colder objects, gases etc. The idea of any back radiation from CO2 in the higher part of the atmosphere to the Earth surface (or any object on it) must be false. All the heat which rises in the atmosphere (losing energy to do so) so cooling must lose this heat to space (very cold, about 4k) and cannot lose any to the hotter Earth. The only way that heat can be moved from cold to hot is by means of a mechanical device which uses energy, for example a heat pump.
The discussion of GCM models usually contains references to absorption bands and other completely irrelevant facts, because all gases become warmer due to incoming radiation (the sun) and can only cool by radiating (or conducting) energy to a cooler entity. The absorption bands only define what frequency of IR can increase the temperature, and are otherwise nothing to do with the discussion. The fact which is always forgotten is that the atmospheric temperature gradient falls rapidly as height increases to about -30C at 10,000m, and a lot of this cooling is due to expansion of the rising hot gas as the pressure falls (Boyles Law). So CO2 at any height is basically cooler than the surface, and will always rise as above cooling as it goes.
The question then is simple, does a GCM model represent the actual energy flow in the atmosphere? You will notice I have mentioned no “feedback” factors, positive or negative, no back radiation or other funny tricks. The only thing which controls temperature is the level of radiation of all frequencies that are absorbed by anything, and how quickly heat may be lost upwards in the atmosphere.
We know that the major controller of upward heat (energy) is clouds, by observation of night time temperature changes when and if they are present. The mechanism of this is like a greenhouse, interruption of upward heat flow by slowing / stopping the air, leading to higher ground temperature. It seems to me that this simple explanation covers everything from observation, and would allow most things to be calculated quite accurately. The reasons for each of the statements I have made get increasingly complex, but are normal undergraduate material for Physics and Chemistry.
One passing thought which may amuse some is that following GCM model physics I may heat my house by having a large glass tank of CO2 in every window space, which will be heated by the sun, and send heat into my house by radiation, whatever the internal temperature is. Who needs a heat pump? Why will this not work? It is the GCM back radiation model. From above you know exactly why!
This could be a “story tip”!
I will make one other point. GCM depends on radiation only as convection is complicated so forgotten. Heat transfer by convection or conduction is generally much larger than that by radiation in gases, so why no convection? Above is basically the convection model, and requires no free parameters to model fully. GCM is full of them, called fudge factors.
I agree with your comment, one engineer to another.
Radiation from a colder part of the atmosphere will be at longer wavelengths, beyond the narrow CO2 molecule window, but within the wide WV molecule window, which will absorb a part of those photons, with the rest of photons colliding with the vast quantity of other air molecules. These are very low energy photons
A photon of the green color is 27 times more energetic than a 15 micron photon
We need more STEM types involved in these discussions
All processes, radiation, conduction, convection, evaporating, condensing, precipitation within the atmosphere are in the net direction of warm to cold, including transport of energy from the warm Tropics to colder areas of the earth.
A certain quantity of heat is retained, on a more or less steady basis, within the atmosphere, aka enthalpy, which can be calculate, and the role of dry air, water vapor and CO2 can be determined. See my above comment for details.
“We need more STEM types involved in these discussions”
I just saw a news report saying only seven percent of Chicago’s eight graders were proficient in science.
Let’s hope this is just a Democrat Blue State problem, but even if it is limited to Democrat Blue States, it is still a huge problem for our society if half the population is clueless about important issues.
Every time I see the acronym STEM, I’m annoyed. I’m an older engineer still practising and was a student when Sputnik 1 was launched. The space age turned a bright light on engeneering for the first time. So admired was the engineer that scientists began to encroach on the profession. The best example is the oxymoron “rocket scientist”. Er .. that would be rocket engineer!
In TV ads dish soap and a host of other mundane products boosted their flair by being “engineered’. to do this or do that. Today you read about so many scientific breakthroughs (Ozzies call them ‘disruptive technoligies) in connection with new energy discoveries, batteries, fuels decarb gizmos etc. many of which at a glance can be seen to be impractical or out of sight costly.
Lets look at STEM. It was introduced in the 60s by the NSF I believe.
Science Technology Engineering and Math.
Engineers will notice that technology IS the products of engineering!!! “S” comes first, followed by “T”, separating technology ftom “E” Engineering, as if in some heirarhical order and then “M”. Engineering essentially does science (applied) and math to design technology. Just saying.
Hey Real Engineer, so your simplification of heat transfer physics is losing you some points, IMHo. I don’t think anyone with a physics or engineering background should/would claim heat flows from cold to hot (instead of hot to cold) EVER, as you claim GCM’s do. Photons of various energies leave atoms and flow both to surfaces that are hotter or colder….From an engineer’s perspective, they aren’t “heat” until they are absorbed. The resultant large scale physical laws are such that what we recognize as “heat” only naturally flows from hot to cold. The commonly used “back-radiation” can be considered a shortcut in the math to do all those photon energy integrations based on the temperatures of the bodies at either end of the photon transfer.
Other points…
..agreed, GCMS have many, even hundreds of fudge factors that have to be entered so that the solutions to attempt to match Navier – Stokes equation for “past climates”. The post and pre-docs who write those models don’t want to lose their government funding don’t generally want to admit the glaring inaccuracies inherent with their approach.
Yes, I am a “clouds” guy too, I think that clouds generally control the planet’s albedo, (plus rain on the surface) to about half way between the albedo of ocean water at .1 or the moon at .3 and Venus’s total cloud cover albedo of .7. They reflect hundreds of watts of incoming sunlight or let it through to the surface if they aren’t present. The surface of our water wetted planet then warms up, evaporating more water, making more clouds hours or days later, yes… by convection…but all heat leaves our planet by radiation…..
I didn’t say that the final heat doesn’t leave as radiation, but the important bit is the temperature difference between the top of the atmosphere and space is about 200k! Remember that the power radiated depends rather heavily on this difference, but this is usually not even mentioned. I am not at all sure that the Navier-Stokes equation is the problem either, and you are still thinking of incoming radiation and clouds as shielding, which it cannot be! There is 20,000 feet at least above clouds if not more most of the time, so this part of the atmosphere is still heated by the sun, and if you believe the CO2 idea, will radiate the Earth at some point at 1/2 intensity which is not true because it is still much colder than nearly all of the surface. Essentially I am pointing out that everything is much more complex than many would believe, and MILES away from any of the computer models. Radiation is not and cannot be the only energy transfer mechanism (I have used heat because it obviously relates to the temperature which people are used too) and energy does not directly have a temperature. I agree that water is the only significant temperature control and it is obvious how it works.
An interesting simile is available to all who ever cook. Take a nasty water injected pork chop, put it in a baking tin and in the oven at 200C. The meat will not brown at all until ALL the excess water has evaporated, keeping the meat at around 100C until gone. Then it brown quickly as expected from the 200C temperature. Just like Venus in fact, not water, massive heat! Earth does not lose water, it just circulates nicely, more if anywhere gets hotter, less if cooler, but not so obviously as the meat.
This definition shows that heat can only flow from hotter to colder objects, gases etc. The idea of any back radiation from CO2 in the higher part of the atmosphere to the Earth surface (or any object on it) must be false. All the heat which rises in the atmosphere (losing energy to do so) so cooling must lose this heat to space (very cold, about 4k) and cannot lose any to the hotter Earth.
McKenzie, nearby, takes a whack at this mistake too, but radiation as individual photons knows nothing about temperature and so cannot be affected by your view of the second law. Temperature is a macro concept that depends on an ensemble of atoms in equilibrium with a radiation field. In a macro sense radiation cannot effect net transfer from cold to hot, but in the micro sense it can.
Now this is not to defend GCMs which to my understanding might not conserve energy closely enough for attribution, and might also violate the second law. Someone prove to me otherwise.
I think this is a quibble of the smallest nature. Real Engineer uses the word “heat” three times and “hotter” twice and the only radiation he mentions is coming from CO2 high in the atmosphere.
If you have any evidence that a CO2 molecule radiates from high in the atmosphere energy that would be “heat” compared the surface please provide it.
Evidence that CO2 radiation isn’t “heat”.
A quibble of the smallest nature that betrays a misunderstanding of the second law — a big quibble!
I note that in your criticism of my comment you failed to mention the word “temperature” once which was the central issue of the “real engineer” beef. Please provide proof that radiation from any source, CO2 molecule or otherwise, cannot originate on a molecule in a cold environment and end on one in a warm environment. In other words, please provide proof that molecules or photons can tell temperature.
OK. Take a large Furnace, and put a chunk of steel inside. Heat the furnace to 1000C. The flames die back but the steel gets no hotter than 1000C although there is a great deal of radiation from the walls at 1000C which have a much greater area. Why does the steel piece not get hotter? Do the same in a vacuum furnace and you get the same result! Which photons travel from cold to hot? Why none! You see experiment is much more powerful than twisted thinking. I suppose you want a mechanism, well OK? As soon as the steel gets to 1001C it radiates photons back to the walls so the temperature stays at 1000C. That is the second law in action. Now do you see that your claim if false? A single surface molecule might get slightly hotter, but then in both radiates and convects more heat away. You seem to expect a bulk effect rather than a single molecular one. but this NEVER happens.
all gases become warmer due to incoming radiation (the sun)
You need to understand what GCMs actually do. They don’t claim the sun warms atmospheric gases. Here’s a link to get a better understanding of the greenhouse theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
The reason this description is wrong is a lot more complex and takes a lot of work to understand.
“This definition shows that heat can only flow from hotter to colder objects, gases etc. The idea of any back radiation from CO2 in the higher part of the atmosphere to the Earth surface (or any object on it) must be false.”.
All objects (a molecule is an object) radiate, if they are at a temperature above absolute zero.They have no knowledge of where other objects are. The Earth, for example, radiates in all directions regardless of where the sun or other planets or asteroids are. The radiation continues in a pretty straight line until it hits another object. When it hits another object, that object is heated if the radiation is absorbed. Some of Earth’s radiation hits the sun, and is absorbed. Radiation from Earth therefore heats the sun.
But now you need to look at the other direction. Just as radiation from Earth heats the Sun, so radiation from the sun heats Earth. And because the sun is so much hotter than Earth, the amount of heat received by Earth from the sun’s radiation is a lot more than the amount of heat received by the sun from Earth’s radiation. Now, when you look at the totals, you can see that the net flow of heat is indeed from the hotter to the colder object.
There is no mechanism whatsoever by which no radiation can ever flow from a colder object to a hotter object. Could the colder object say ‘O my goodness, there’s an object over there that looks hotter than me. I won’t send any radiation in that direction.”. Does the radiation say “O my goodness, I’m headed towards an object that looks hotter than the one I came from, I’d better put the brakes on or swerve.”. Does the sun say “O my goodness, there’s radiation coming towards me which I’m pretty sure has come from an object that’s colder than me. I’ll have to reflect it instead of absorbing it.”.
I think you nailed it. One neophyte claimed that upon receiving radiation from the Earth, the Sun would reflect it. Since photons do not carry thermometers with them, there is no way that the Sun would know the temperature of the sending radiator. The act of reflection requires that the reflector first “absorbs” the radiation. That would violate their stupid assumption.
That is not quite how optics work either jim! I have made NO suggestions that photons must know the temperature of the absorbing body, forget temperature, just consider total energy transfer. Then you will see that it doesn’t matter. I think you didn’t read my posts very carefully. The CO2 nonsense is simply WRONG! Whilst a molecule MAY vibrate more if heated, adding any energy will increase this. We will say it got hotter, but the effect of this is to radiate more energy (higher frequency) so that it cools. It is a balance, that is all.
I read your posts sufficiently. And your view of “optics” is flawed. As for temperature of a gas, that definition comes from the Kinetic Theory of Gases. People misstate it, but a more correct statement is: “temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy of the average velocity of a gas particle.” As an engineer, you should immediately notice that temperature (as in Kelvin) does not equal energy (as in Joules). So the statement you often hear that temperature is equal to the average kinetic energy is nonsense.
Comment says:”All objects (a molecule is an object) radiate, if they are at a temperature above absolute zero.”
I don’t think that statement is valid for gases. If it was then FLIR would not have to have the below on their site.
Because OGI cameras visualize gas as a lack of infrared energy, they can only image gases that absorb infrared radiation in the filtered bandpass: gases that don’t absorb IR in the filtered bandpass won’t be visible. For instance, noble gases such as helium, oxygen, and nitrogen cannot be directly imaged.
The only gases that need to be accounted for are CO2 and WV. Even then CO2 has an emissivity of near zero at atmospheric temperatures and pressure.
The camera will not see them because the wavelength is outside its sensing range. Again it is more complex than expected by simple answers. For example, the atmosphere generates random noise (at a pretty low level) which is found by radio receivers of very high sensitivity. Connect an aerial to a suitable device and the noise level rises. At UHF the level is about -160dbm*sqrt BW, where BW is the receiver bandwidth. We live with this random noise everywhere all the time, but most people don’t even know it is there. It is from solids, liquids and gases, and it limits all kinds of electronics for example.
Again, the Second Law only applies to isolated systems. The Universe is considered to be an isolated system, and the Second Law applies to the Universe as a whole. When they discuss the Second Law for closed or open systems, they always include the surroundings. A system plus its surroundings is an isolated system. When you compute the entropy of a system, you must also include the entropy of the Universe. The entropy of the Universe increases for all irreversible processes, however the entropy of a closed or open system may decrease–as long as the total entropy of the Universe increases.
Your statements aren’t correct thermodynamics. Presenting one example does not a theory make.
Laws are not proven theories. That’s complete nonsense.
May 5, 2024 7:25 pm
Need a really good writer to pen a piece that shows that the Liberal government of canada itself does not believe in the carbon tax.
They say the tax will and is changing our habits even though with the other side of their mouth they say it’s too small to effect standards of living or inflation, but it cannot be both.
But their real sin is quoting various economists who support the carbon tax but leave out the rest, that these economists also say get rid of all mandates, caps targets etc. But of course they pile on more.
If you believe the carbon tax works then there is no need for an all EV mandate by 2035, the tax is supposed to do that.
Endless policies that clearly state they don’t believe in the tax.
Axe the tax, Poilievre is right again.
May 6, 2024 7:59 pm
Omg, Vietnam is going to bake and evaporate:
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-vietnam-temperature.amp
Every station set a record on the same day!
Anyone else thinking rice crispies baked fresh at the field?
May 7, 2024 5:08 pm
Everyone with a Facebook account needs to post a congradulations message to Mark Zuckerberg on his May 14th 40th birthday. Special congratulations should go to his self gifting himself the 387ft diesel powered Mega Yacht “Launchpad”.
