Unthreaded
Radical rodent
To quote Paul Gaston
"CO2 is thermodynamically incapable of influencing the global temperature. Calculations are as follows to prove it:"
The problem for Mr Gaston and others is simple.
The observed warming takes energy. On the basis of the measured energybudgetbout 93% goes into the ocean and the rest into ice melt and atmosphere. As I said, Paul Gaston's figure for the atmosphere is about correct, but only a few % of the overall figure.
Since he accepts the warming, but denies that it it is the CO2 greenhouse effect doing the warming, I would hope that he can say where the energy is coming from.
Entropic man
Entropic man: not sure where you get the idea that there has been any suggestion that there has not been enough energy coming in to achieve the observed warming, as there obviously has been, else there would be no warming. My understanding from the figures is that, no matter how much warming the CO2 molecules absorb, there is still not enough to raise the atmospheric temperatures by any significant amount. It is like trying to raise the temperature of a bath-full of water by dropping the occasional red-hot needle into it; you ain’t gonna do it!
Anyhoo… take it up with the scientists who published the papers, or with Paul Gaston, who has been informed of the posting, so hopefully be able to answer you better than I will (and, hopefully, will keep the identity of my informer quiet, as he is an otherwise nice man).
Radical Rodent
Market Forces
When taxpayer funded subsidies to lucrative Unreliable power companies and schemes are cut, they go bust.
Ed Miliband thought he should be Prime Minister because he understood economics and market forces.
golf charlie
Radical rodent
About 5% of the total absorbed energy warms the atmosphere, so the 5*10^19J/year for warming the atmosphere quoted by your source is quite reasonable.
The measured imbalance between incoming energy and outgoing energy is 0.7W/M^2,, equivalent to 3*10^22 J/year worldwide.
That is also the amount of energy needed to expand/warm the oceans as observed. The agreement between the two suggests that the figure is reasonable.
Suggesting that there is not enough energy coming in to achieve the observed warming is mistaken.
Entropic man
Yet more studies to get your teeth into: http://principia-scientific.org/two-new-studies-destroy-climate-crisis-greenhouse-gas-carbon-claims/
That'll shake up a few avid believers.
Radical Rodent
AK, instant results are partly the result of computers detecting a trend and then acting on it, sometimes erroneously. Those actions then create more of a trend and the computers can act again. Few companies can entirely hide its activities from the markets and even the event of an announcement causes ripples in the stock price. Zero movement of shares would be most suspicious because it would indicate the markets know all the details.
TinyCO2
Here are some interesting figures from a Paul Gaston (all other details unknown. Any obvious typos edited; others highlighted):
CO2 is thermodynamically incapable of influencing the global temperature. Calculations are as follows to prove it:
Atmospheric Masses
Total Atmospheric Mass. 5.15e+18 kg
N2 = 3.886705e+18 kg
O2= 1.1948e+18 kg
CO2= 2.369e+1k5 kg - (Typo? Perhaps 2.369e+15 kg)
Specific Heat Capacity (kJ/kg K)
N2 = 1.039
O2 = .915
CO2 = .819
using Q = cp * m * dT
to change temp + .01 K
N2. Q = 4.038645e+16 kJ
O2 Q = 1.093242e+16 kJ
therefore to raise 98.67% of atmospheric mass would
require 5.131887e+16 kJ to raise their temperature
0.01 degree K (1 degree K = 1 degree Celsius )
again using Q = cp * m * dT
we can calculate conditions required to raise that much
potential energy
5.131887e+16 = .819 * 2.369e+15 kg * dT
dT = 26.450149 K
okay then change the mass
5.131887e+16 = .819 * m * .01
m = 6.26604e+18 kg
Remember from above the total mass of the atmosphere at present is 5.15e+18 kg
I believe this indicates the lack of significant potential for CO2 to contribute to global warming by the present theory of Greenhouse Gas infrared activation of dipole moments to generate enough energy.
Radical Rodent
Jun 4, 2017 at 9:58 AM by Ross Lea
The interview with Ed Milliband, following that excellent Helmer interview, is best to avoid: it couldn't have been worse!
I thought the American liberal left were bad, and he managed to include an electioneering party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party as well, with the BBC oink hardly protesting at the hijacking.
Robert Christopher
Clipe. tiny
"Someone kindly explained", wrongly? Sell high, buy low. It's simple."
I'm glad you added the question mark because your explanation fails to explain the coincidence. Furthermore the common aphorism only works if an investor has perfect knowledge. What usually occurs is that shares are sold in a falling market (to avoid further losses) and are purchased in a rising market (to avoid having to pay more for them). This doesn't explain the relationship between announcement and market response either.
"If the markets know that a discovery is about to be reported, the markets often speculate about the size of it. If they've guessed it right or over estimated, the shares often fall."
Agreed but the operative word here is "if". Regulatory bodies look very unkindly at companies that leak information to influence share prices. More importantly, the size of a discovery is rarely known when first announced and normally requires months of additional drilling in order to be established. What I was commenting upon was a near instant response of the market.
Supertroll
Radical rodent
I was rereading your Paul Gaston post.
His calculation of the energy required to produce atmospheric warming looks about right. I did something similar a few years back and IIRC my numbers were similar.
There is nothing about the source of the energy, just the bald statement that CO2 is not enough.
To make that statement he must have information on the actual contribution to the energy imbalance from CO2 and other sources. Perhaps you could ask him to put up a link here so that I can see his numbers.