tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post6967897181004487472..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why the AGW "Hot Spot" Won't HappenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-77873906279973157982013-11-14T19:12:55.093-08:002013-11-14T19:12:55.093-08:00Werner Brozek says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:12 am
W...Werner Brozek says:<br />November 13, 2013 at 9:12 am<br />We have all of this talk about huge numbers of Hiroshima bombs and about all of the 10^22 Joules the oceans are taking up. But when converting to degrees C, there seems to be almost nothing left as was pointed out in this article. I will illustrate the facts in another way.<br />I will use Figure 5 and assume it is true.<br />According to this diagram, the total heat increase is about 25 x 10^22 J over about 55 years.<br />The total mass of the ocean above 2000 m is 48% of the total mass of the ocean.<br />The total mass of the ocean is 1.37 x 10^21 kg.<br />The specific heat capacity of ocean water is 4000 J/kgK.<br />Applying H = mct, I get a change in t of<br />25 x 10^22 J/(0.48 x 1.37 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/kgK) = 0.1 K. Is that correct? If so, it would take over 100 years for the top 2000 m to go up by 0.2 C. Is that supposed to be a problem for us?<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/comments-on-stefan-rahmstorfs-post-at-realclimate-what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#comment-1474228<br /><br />Vince Causey says:<br />November 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm<br />“Applying H = mct, I get a change in t of<br />25 x 10^22 J/(0.48 x 1.37 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/kgK) = 0.1 K. Is that correct? If so, it would take over 100 years for the top 2000 m to go up by 0.2 C. Is that supposed to be a problem for us?”<br /><br />I doubt it. This is the second law of thermodynamics at work – the entropy is increasing. Useful heat is being degraded into a more diffuse, low grade form.<br /><br />It’s like taking a red hot poker and dropping it in a bath of cold water. The heat of the original red hot poker can be used to do some work, but once the heat is transferred to the bath, the temperature becomes that of the bath, whose temperature has risen by only a tiny amount.<br /><br />The important point is that the heat, once diffused to a lower temperature, can never result in a subsequent rise in temperature, which would be contrary to the first law. Therefore, any heat, once sequestered by the oceans, can never reverse its thermodynamic pathway, and reheat the atmosphere to the temperatures that caused it to be absorbed in the first place.<br /><br />It is an admission that the problem (if it ever existed), is being solved by nature once and for all.<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/comments-on-stefan-rahmstorfs-post-at-realclimate-what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#comment-1475425Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19864010846721396272013-10-15T17:04:52.957-07:002013-10-15T17:04:52.957-07:00http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/low-informatio...http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/low-information-reporters-and-even-lower-information-scientists/#comment-88610MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-60453274418160177832013-08-20T17:24:08.599-07:002013-08-20T17:24:08.599-07:00http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=c...http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=277&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_August_17_2013MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-48506747957111080012010-07-06T11:48:34.692-07:002010-07-06T11:48:34.692-07:00Anonymous, thanks I have changed to "energy&q...Anonymous, thanks I have changed to "energy"MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50732571166502763112010-07-06T11:41:00.638-07:002010-07-06T11:41:00.638-07:00Its good to bring out the fact that radiative prop...Its good to bring out the fact that radiative properties are not shut off.<br /><br />...."The cooler room does radiate heat to the warmer coffee, but it does not raise the temperature of the coffee since the net vector is always one-way from hot to cold; it just slows the rate of cooling.".....<br /><br />However it might be better to use energy instead of heat in the sentence above.<br />Heat has a special meaning in thermodynamics and is characterised with the ability to do work.<br /><br />The proponents of AGW seem to think that heat only (or mainly) travels by radiation.<br />They then accuse sceptics of totally ignoring radiative properties.<br />This gives their position a semblance of science as they calculate the radiative transfer equations.<br />The hot coffee, cup and colder room gives a good analogyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com