Guest essay by Ed Hoskins
Using data published by the IPCC on the diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentrations and the latest proportional information on global Man-made CO2 emissions, these notes examine the potential for further warming by CO2 emissions up to 1000ppmv and the probable consequences of decarbonisation policies being pursued by Western governments.
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration. Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.
IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2].
 |
The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv. The following simplifying diagram shows the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100ppmv up to 1000ppmv and the significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the biosphere:
§ Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2. This is essential to sustain photosynthesis in plants and thus the viability of all life on earth.
§ A further ~100 ppmv was the level prior to any industrialisation, this atmospheric CO2 made the survival of the biosphere possible, giving a further 5.9% of the CO2 Greenhouse effect.
§ Following that a further 100ppmv, (certainly man-made in part), adding ~4.1% of the CO2 effectiveness brings the current level ~400 ppmv.
§ CO2 at 400pmmv is already committed and immutable. So CO2 has already reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere.
Both sceptics and the IPCC publish alternate views of the reducing effect on temperature of the importance of CO2 concentration. These alternates are equivalent proportionally but vary in the degree of warming attributable to CO2.
The IPCC have published views of the total effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas up to ~1200ppmv, they range in temperature from +6.3°C to +14.5°C, shown below:
There are other views presented both by sceptical scientists and CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre. What these different analysis show the is the amount of future warming that might be attributed to additional atmospheric CO2 in excess of the current level of ~400ppmv. Looking to the future in excess of 400ppmv, wide variation exists between the different warming estimates up to 1000ppmv, see below.
A comparison between these estimates are set out below in the context of the ~33°C total Greenhouse Effect.
This graphic shows in orange the remaining temperature effect of CO2 up to 1000ppmv that could be affected by worldwide global decarbonisation policies according to each of these alternative analyses.
Some of the IPCC data sets shows very large proportions of the temperature effect attributable solely to extra CO2. The concomitant effect of those higher levels of warming from atmospheric CO2 is that the proportion of the total ~33°C then attributable the water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is displaced so as to be unrealistically low at 72% or 54%.
It has to be questioned whether it is plausible that CO2, a minor trace gas in the atmosphere, currently at the level of ~400ppmv, 0.04% up to 0.10% achieves such radical control of Global temperature, when compared to the substantial and powerful Greenhouse Effect of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere?
There are the clearly divergent views of the amount of warming that can result from additional CO2 in future, but even in a worst case scenario whatever change that may happen can only ever have a marginal future effect on global temperature.
Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~13% of the future warming potential of CO2 up to the currently unthinkably high level of 1000ppmv.
So increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can not now inevitably lead directly to much more warming and certainly not to a catastrophic and dangerous temperature increase.
Importantly as the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions can only be so minor, there is no possibility of ever attaining the much vaunted political target of less than +2.0°C by the control of CO2 emissions[3].
Global Warming advocates always assert that all increases in the concentration of CO2 are solely man-made. This is not necessarily so, as the biosphere and slightly warming oceans will also outgas CO2. In any event at ~3% of the total[4] Man-made CO2 at its maximum is only a minor part of the CO2 transport within the atmosphere. The recent IPCC report now admits that currently increasing CO2 levels are probably only ~50% man-made.
On the other hand it is likely that any current global warming, if continuing and increased CO2 is:
§ largely a natural process
§ within normal limits
§ probably beneficial up to about a further 2.0°C+ [5].
It could be not be influenced by any remedial decarbonisation action, however drastic, taken by a minority of nations.
In a rational, non-political world, that prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.
If it is so:
· concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be mostly discounted.
· it is not essential to disrupt the economy of the Western world to no purpose.
· the cost to the European economy alone is considered to be ~ £165 billion per annum till the end of the century, not including the diversion of employment and industries to elsewhere: this is deliberate economic self-harm that can be avoided: these vast resources could be spent for much more worthwhile endeavours.
· were warming happening, unless excessive, it provides a more benign climate for the biosphere and mankind.
· any extra CO2 has already increased the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
· if warming is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development, especially so for the third world.
De-carbonisation outcomes
To quantify what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization by Western economies, the comparative table below shows the remaining effectiveness of each 100ppmv tranche up to 1000ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five diminution assessments.
The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv to 1000 ppmv.
The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.
However it is extremely unlikely that the developing world is going to succumb to non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions. So it is very likely that the developing world’s CO2 emissions are going to escalate whatever is done by developed nations.
These figures show that whatever the developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be either immaterial or more likely even beneficial. The table below assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation is reduced universally by some 20%: this is a radical reduction level but just about conceivable.
These extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating western nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:
§ the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and likely impending cooling.
§ the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
§ the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
§ normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
§ normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
§ that participating Europe as a whole only accounts for ~11% of world CO2 emissions.
§ that the UK itself is now only about ~1.5% of world CO2 emissions.
As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the miniscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.
The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[6].
Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014[7]:
“Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”
Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5[8]:
“Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.”
and paraphrased “doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures to control climate.”
As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling[9] over the last seventeen years or more, the world should fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling[10] rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent warming[11].
References:
[1] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
[2] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/why-global-warming-alarmism-isnt-science-2.php
[3] http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/ccctolpaper.pdf
[4] http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
[5] http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
[6] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html
[7] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275
[8] http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/28/uk-parliamentary-hearing-on-the-ipcc/
[9] http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3436241/the-inescapable-apocalypse-has-been-seriously-underestimated.thtml
[10] http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm
[11] http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
@agfosterjr: “And of course Singer is justified when he deplores the atrocious physics of those skeptics who argue that CO2 cannot in principle warm the earth”
If there were no negative feedback process, the 3 W/m^2 reduction of OLR for doubled [CO2] would, by increasing ‘forcing’, reduce net surface IR by the same power. To maintain constant convection, evapo-transpiration and IR, the surface would rise in temperature by 1.2 K.
However, strong negative feedback by the water cycle must reduce this temperature rise to zero, on average. Any competent engineer sees how the control system works. Only the atmospheric scientists and poor physicists who believe in photons shooting out at the S-B rate would persist i the dumb IPCC argument….:o)
Kristian:
You are still missing the larger point. Whether you regard radiative heat transfer as resulting from the differential of two opposing radiative power fluxes, or as a single unidirectional thermal flux, you end up with the same result in energy balance calculations. It simply does not matter.
To put numbers on it (the precise values are not important), whether you regard the radiative transfer between the earth’s surface and atmosphere as the difference between 396 W/m2 radiative power flux upward from the surface and 333 W/m2 radiative power flux down from the atmosphere, or simply as a 63 W/m2 upward thermal flux, your energy balance works out the same.
If the atmosphere were completely transparent, you would get the same result whether you considered it 396 up and ~0 down radiative power fluxes or just a 396 up thermal flux. In either case, there would be a resulting heat transfer flux of 396 W/m2 upward, which is far more than the earth/atmosphere system receives from the sun, so present temperature levels could not be maintained.
This has been pointed out to you many times, and yet you continue to hijack thread after thread with what is (at best) semantic nitpicking.
@curt: you have got the wrong end of the stick.
Only the 63 W/m^2 is real. However, the real scam is to assume a single -18 deg C OLR emitter at 5-6 km. This does not exist and the assumption (Kirchhoff’s Law) that there is a DOWN negative flux in the two stream approximation increases energy input by 40% over reality.
There’s another sam in hind-casting. The enhanced GHE does not exist. Negative feedback by the water cycle reduces CO2-AGW to zero.
Matthew R Marler says: August 12, 2014 at 10:36 am
“This is no mystery, but the author ought to clarify exactly how the obtained the 87% figure.”
It’s not just the 87%. The first table has several %s. In the text we have 77%, 5.9%, 4.1%. Below the green block figure, there is a whole table of them. The blue column table has a % in each column. But no-one knows what they mean.
The mystery is that anyone takes the essay seriously.
AlecM 10:54am: “Trick: heat and enthalpy are different.”
Concur. And the top post is correct. To understand this difference in science, please go back to the combustion experiment I posted 8:30am: “Consider the combustion of hydrogen mixed in oxygen in an insulated, sealed container. A chemical reaction occurs, and the temperature of the reaction products is higher than that of the initial gas mixture.”
Consider two ways of describing that ~adiabatic combustion of hydrogen and oxygen: 1) the temperature and enthalpy is higher following combustion; 2) heat is generated.
Notice the difference between these two descriptions. The first is a concrete statement about a measurement that can be made directly with a thermometer. The second is abstract, invoking a paranormal hypothetical quantity that doesn’t exist in nature, forcing a struggle to be defined in at least 17 ways in this thread alone that can at best be inferred indirectly only from temperature measurements. In science, description 1) is best.
Saying that a temperature increase is a consequence of metaphysical “heat generation” is word jazz (prevalent on blogs), not a physical explanation. From 1LOT the total energy of my container is constant, and hence rearrangements of molecules in combustion result in a decrease of internal PE (remember this is energy associated with separations between atoms), which must be compensated for by an increase of internal KE, manifested macroscopically by a temperature increase. There is also a p*V increase so total enthalpy is affected and, really, enthalpy is the conserved quantity. There is no “heat” term in the equation for enthalpy.
”…heat is…molecular vibration and translation”
Heat from AlecM is now: this definition # 18), the struggle continues & grows. As I wrote above to you 10:24am, NO, “That form of energy would be kinetic energy not heat.” Get a quorum of molecules together and a thermometer will measure their temperature from “..molecular vibration and translation”. Temperature is not heat.
It is very easy to deal with the defn. of heat: Heat does not exist in nature. Curt is correct banish what does not exist from concrete science discussion.
*****
matayaya 12:13pm: Yes as the thick dance of couples (of all atm. species) at the surface goes ever higher, the couples & singles thin out and the newborn & older single photons have easier time to escape the dance unmarried.
@matayaya: what you must realise is that because CO2 and H2O atmospheric IR emission switches off surface IR emission in the same bands, there is zero surface IR energy to have to pass the slalom.
The real GHE would be from the OLR effect, but it is exactly offset by atmospheric processes involving the water cycle.
Once you see how this works, you are really attracted to the ideas of intelligent design!
AlecM 1:12pm: ”To maintain constant convection, evapo-transpiration and IR, the surface would rise in temperature by 1.2 K.”
No. Convection is not conserved. Neither is paranormal, hypothetical, non-existent heat. Total system energy (enthalpy) is conserved by 1LOT.
”Only the atmospheric scientists and poor physicists who believe in photons shooting out at the S-B rate..”
And Max Planck. The folks you mention apply Planck distribution successfully as he wrote specifically it is applicable to a surface with an atm. above. The atm. scientists and physicists only get into trouble with his nature when they consider radiating objects not having positive radii and diameters on the order of the wavelength of interest. As he wrote in his original paper, diffraction is ruled out & is negligible for earth system, not the moon system.
Trick: “Notice the difference between these two descriptions. The first is a concrete statement about a measurement that can be made directly with a thermometer. The second is abstract, invoking a paranormal hypothetical quantity that doesn’t exist in nature, forcing a struggle to be defined in at least 17 ways in this thread alone that can at best be inferred indirectly only from temperature measurements. In science, description 1) is best.”
Although I agree with you about temperature’s being “a measurement that can be made directly with a thermometer,” there is a subtle difference among temperature definitions that DeWitt Payne and Paul Birch seized upon a couple of years ago to derail my attempt to set Dr. Brown straight, as you and I have tried to a couple of times now, about what I’ve come to think of as the Brown-Eschenbach Law of Conservation of Lapse Rate (the “B-E Law”).
I am particularly mindful of that at the moment because, frustrated at the failure by scientists among this site’s readers to point out how bizarre the B-E Law is, I submitted a proposed post laying the statistical mechanics out myself a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, Mr. Watts spiked the piece, dismissing Velasco et al. as “junk.”
@Trick: heat is kinetic energy. Learn it.
The average translational energy of a freely moving particle at temperature T is 3kBT/2 where kB is the Boltzmann constant.
@Trick: I meant constant sum of heat loss from the surface by convection., evapo-transpiration and radiation. This is conservation of energy.
[I thought I was pedantic!]
Curt says: August 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm
“You are still missing the larger point. Whether you regard radiative heat transfer as resulting from the differential of two opposing radiative power fluxes, or as a single unidirectional thermal flux, you end up with the same result in energy balance calculations. It simply does not matter.”
I agree. I’ve supported Kristian’s insistence that the flows cannot be separated, so that the back flow can’t act as a power source. They have to be coupled for a proper entropy accounting. But as a practical matter computing separate fluxes has been done since Boltzmann, and works perfectly well for figuring heat transfer. It certainly isn’t peculiar to climate science.
When Kristian wants to define flux from h as
(2) P/A = εσ(Th^4 – Tc^4)
the immediate query is, what is c? eg for the atmosphere. And how do you define Tc? It just isn’t helpful.
AlecM 1:56pm: “@curt: you have got the wrong end of the stick. Only the 63 W/m^2 is real.”
The top post title is ok. For what you write to be natural, the atm. would not be radiating at all (zero.zero). However all matter at all temperatures radiates at all frequencies at all times. Just look at the Planck distribution to confirm this is true; the Planck distribution formula is never zero.zero at any temperature or any frequency interval for gas, liquid, solid, plasma.
“…a single -18 deg C OLR emitter at 5-6 km. This does not exist…”
This is not in dispute; the atm. radiates at all its temperatures at all heights; that a certain atm. height above ground happens to be -18C is perfectly natural. It is referred to in texts as effective not actual emission height.
“Negative feedback by the water cycle reduces CO2-AGW to zero.”
Prove it. You will make the evening news. This is the actual dispute.
******
Joe Born 2:23pm: As a vet of that discussion, Velasco ~1996 (one molecule) has been superseded by Verkley 2004 (total column of molecules) then Akmaev ~2006 (precision added to Verkley) papers which is the last I looked into that discussion, not sure if more work has been done. Try working with those updated papers for WUWT – google will work for you.
I can’t thank you enough for this……
“I think my argument is better than his, because he has to explain how CO_2-driven warming will increase the water vapor warming by increasing the water vapor concentration while increases in water vapor at the current dynamical equilibrium temperature decrease the temperature — on average — or else the climate would have a runaway warming catastrophe from positive feedback in the water vapor greenhouse channel. His argument presumes a knowledge and ability to compute all of the nonlinear phenomena associated with the water cycle in the climate in models that are too coarse grained to even represent much of that dynamics. Indeed, it is generally acknowledged in many published papers that we don’t really know how to compute or account for the water cycle — what is used in the models is basically a coarse grained approximate guess, a guess that then has to be empirically balanced against other gain and loss terms as a guess in the reference period and that might not work outside of it.
My argument does not. It relies only on the observation that the climate empirically is locally stable against water vapor fluctuations because if it weren’t we’d be Venus — a positive fluctuation would grow instead of shrink if the average feedback past the set point were not negative, including all of the computable and non-computable effects of everything else.
rgb “
Trick: “Velasco ~1996 (one molecule) has been superseded by Verkley 2004 (total column of molecules)”
Velasco et al. argues from statistical-mechanics first principles, and I’ve gone through the math. Verkley does not. I’ve seen nothing in the math (except one harmless typo in an integration limit in its predecessor paper) that gives me any reason to drop it in favor of a thermodynamics treatment. My experience is that thermodynamics makes smart people say dumb things.
Incidentally, Velasco et al. applies to any number of particles, so your reference to “one molecule” is unclear.
AlecM 2:25pm: “@Trick: heat is kinetic energy. Learn it.“
None of this subtracts from the top post. NO, heat is not kinetic energy measured by temperature which is not heat. KE exists in nature thru conserved 1LOT enthalpy, heat does not. If heat were KE, there would be plenty of heat in the oceans but on inspection find there is zero heat in the oceans & plenty of (KE + PE + p*V) = conserved enthalpy.
Rub your hands together vigorously. Feel the temperature increase. The mechanism by which the temperature of your hands increased is beyond our understanding based on the kinds of macroscopic measurements that are possible. Simply using word jazz and calling this mechanism generation of heat adds nothing to our understanding.
In fact, that subtracts from our understanding by deluding us into thinking that we have explained what we observed whereas all we have done is invoke a nonexistent paranormal nonentity “heat”. At the macroscopic level, all we can say is that one hand exerts a force on the other through a distance, resulting in working, which raises the internal energy of both of them, and this is manifested macroscopically by a temperature increase.
I surmise a retort saying generation of heat is just a short way of summarizing this process. An equally short scientific way is to say that temperature increases.
For a critical discussion of the confusing and contradictory uses of the word “heat”, see Zemansky 1970: The Physics Teacher, Vol. 8 pp. 295-300. If you take the time to read the seminal papers by our illustrious predecessors like Max Planck, J.C. Maxwell, you will be moved by the clarity and individuality of their writing, both of which seem to be banished from blog comments at times.
******
Joe 4:46pm – My point is discussing a more recent paper might get you in the door at WUWT to open that Pandora’s box again.
I won’t go further except to quote this from Velasco 1996: “The following microcanonical single-particle distributions for an f-dimensional ideal gas in a gravitational field have been derived…” m is the mass of one particle and then the paper discusses adding N particles to infinity using mostly word jazz. Verkley uses eqn.s and Akmaev completely eliminated the word jazz.
rgbatduke says:
August 12, 2014 at 9:21 am
Thanks for another very informative post.
Trick says:
August 12, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Are you saying there is not such thing as heat? I suggest you define it first, though you might find it difficult to define the nonexistent. And this:
“The mechanism by which the temperature of your hands increased is beyond our understanding based on the kinds of macroscopic measurements that are possible.”
What rubbish. Benjamin Thompson abandoned Caloric Theory on account of his observation of cannon boring friction–and he measured the “heat” produced. Where do you come up with all this crap? –AGF
Trick: “using mostly word jazz.”
Not quite sure what that means. I went by the equations, not the verbal characterizations.
Mathematically, Velasco et al. (in the Roman et al. paper they reference) compute as a function of a first particle’s altitude and momentum the size of the phase space permitted to the subsystem consisting of all the other particles. That gives the relative density of the probability that the first particle will have that momentum at that altitude. Since there is no reason to suppose that the probability-density function thus determined for one one particle is any different from any of the others, that function gives the molecular-population density as a function of altitude and momentum and thus the mean kinetic energy as a function of altitude.
No need to keep track of those treacherous tacit assumptions that plague thermodynamic treatments, which is what Verkley and Akmaev are. So I find Velasco et al. the most persuasive.
looncraz says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:12 pm
“It’s hard to ignore the Vostok ice core showing a half million years of temperature and CO2 running in relative tandem. It’s a stretch to say it is coincidence.”
====================================================
Where did that come from (date/time–Yahoo destroyed by Firefox search tool)?
You’re right of course–that’s why I ask: why do CO2 and CH4 track in the cores? I see no possibility other than that they are forced by a common agent: temperature, or rather, albedo/ice sheet extension. –AGF
Nick Stokes: I’ve supported Kristian’s insistence that the flows cannot be separated, so that the back flow can’t act as a power source. They have to be coupled for a proper entropy accounting. But as a practical matter computing separate fluxes has been done since Boltzmann, and works perfectly well for figuring heat transfer. It certainly isn’t peculiar to climate science.
I like that.
agfosterjr 6:45pm: “Are you saying there is not such thing as heat?”
Yes. Unequivocally. Very irreverently. And also I note the diminishing influence of increasing carbon dioxide on surface mean temperature; CO2 increasing has NO effect on heat as heat does not exist in nature. When you read someone writing “heat” just substitute “energy” to see if they are making sense.
“What rubbish”
True, the Count dissed heat existed as caloric also & measured the “mean temperature of the water” from the kinetic energy of the molecules on his 4 mercurial Fahrenheit thermometers; Ben did NOT measure heat. There is no such thing as heat. Very thankfully this was not important as The Count still was able to give us the drip coffee pot. His “cold rays” have been discontinued in science also along with heat.
To make sure no stray radiation came in, he closed the shutters (admits opening them only for a moment! to read the thermometers) & eliminated “currents of air”.
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/94/77.full.pdf+html
Interesting story though about the cannon boring. Clifford Truesdell tells us from where The Count’s interest stems. The Austrians boring cannons (in vats of water) for the French to use on the Germans created quite a public stir when it was first noticed that water could be boiled without fire during the turning process. The public came from far around to watch the marvelous vats boiling of water with no fire for energy input. Meant no more gathering wood for fire!!
It may have been the Count spoiled things by irreverently pointing to the horses out back turning the lathe. No free energy; the crowd disbursed back to gathering wood and posting blog comments.
Trick says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:34 pm
But how can you say heat does not exist if you don’t know what it is? Tell us what it is (or is not, if G Smith will forgive me), so that we can decide for ourselves. Something like ‘heat’ –a four letter word without meaning which people used to believe in before the earth froze. If there is not such thing as heat then there must be no such thing as warmth or warming either, so that you can disprove global warming simply by proving there is no such thing as heat. This too should make the evening news. –AGF
Go for it AG; I’m way too long in the tooth to worry about a little cow poop being slung around in my presence. But please try to use MY words, when you quote me.
Remember; other words, have other meaning.
Two notable groups of parasites, are famous for trying to put “other words” into people’s mouths.
NorthEastWestSouth “reporters” are the commons types, and lawyers are the royalty of the species.
But count me in your camp AG, as believing that “heat” (noun) really does exist; but damn little of it between here and the sun.
Now you can’t even count on solar charged particles or meteoric dust to bring us any heat; remember, for a charged particle to get here from the sun, it has to follow a rather restrictive path to get here. But “heat” will waffle around so much, we’ll all be dead, before it finds its way to the earth.
But the big bang radiation, still makes it here; thumbing its nose at the second law scofflaws; it must get lonely on the trip.
I do like your polarizing sun glasses by the way !
I’ve been had. I’m gonna hit the sack.
“””””…..“The mechanism by which the temperature of your hands increased is beyond our understanding based on the kinds of macroscopic measurements that are possible.”
What rubbish. Benjamin Thompson abandoned Caloric Theory on account of his observation of cannon boring friction–and he measured the “heat” produced. Where do you come up with all this crap? –AGF …..”””””
Sic him AG; personally my hands contain a whole lot of water; there’s not much to me except a lot of water, and a few spoons of cheap chemicals. That’s why some people say I’m all wet.
Well that water does like to warm me, when I’m out in the sun. Don’t get much caloric from basking in the CO2, sans the sun though. Is that bad grammar, lexicologically speaking, of course ?