The Global Warming Megathread

[Tim Grindley]

Is there any particular reason Tom Grondley posts everything in blue?

 

I just like the colour and I think that it makes the conversation look better in a way that allows us all to see who is talking easier and when I want to see where I posted last it is easy.

[Hairyloon]

I have, it is that scientist explaining why the earth will warm up.

 

How does that explain what that will do? Mechanisms for any actual bad thing.

Try reading past the first paragraph.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Hairyloon

[Annie Bynnol]

The zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if thermodynamic systems are linked then energy will move to create an equilibrium.

 

The principle of climatology is that energy does not move easily from the high heat energy levels to the low energy levels. There are many factors which interrupt/reduce this flow on Earth not least the small amount of air or water and their poor conductivity. These prevent equilibrium and introduce boundaries which can be chaotic.

 

In areas of the Earth where flows are regular and unimpeded the weather follows a relatively quiet regular and predictable pattern creating relatively stable climatic zones.

In areas of the Earth which have great changes in energy imbalances throughout the year there is a cascade of events often creating rapid and chaotic energy movements.

 

Changing the energy to the system will A) move the stable zones B) increase or decrease the amount of energy being transferred in less stable areas.

 

If the temperature of the Earth is rising then the boundaries will move and more energy will be transferred quickly at the chaotic boundaries.

Another principle of Physics is that quickly moving energy is destructive.

 

So physics tells us very simply that the more energy there is the more dangerous it is.

[apelike]

Basic economics says that when the supply of food is reduced the price will increase.

http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-Resources-191_BiofuelMandates_0.pdf page 13

 

So, that will be an artificial increase of 17% over the currently over priced level of 30% to 70% above what basic food stuff should be.

 

But there is a plentiful supply of food backed up by the fact that we actually throw away millions of unwanted and unused food each year. The grain used for Bio-Fuels is grown specifically for that use, and grain to feed livestock is mainly taken from surplus as well.

 

Getting back to a previous question, just who will pay for this new technology you linked to regarding the Australian system?

[Tim Grindley]

The zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if thermodynamic systems are linked then energy will move to create an equilibrium.

 

The principle of climatology is that energy does not move easily from the high heat energy levels to the low energy levels. There are many factors which interrupt/reduce this flow on Earth not least the small amount of air or water and their poor conductivity. These prevent equilibrium and introduce boundaries which can be chaotic.

 

In areas of the Earth where flows are regular and unimpeded the weather follows a relatively quiet regular and predictable pattern creating relatively stable climatic zones.

In areas of the Earth which have great changes in energy imbalances throughout the year there is a cascade of events often creating rapid and chaotic energy movements.

 

Changing the energy to the system will A) move the stable zones B) increase or decrease the amount of energy being transferred in less stable areas.

 

If the temperature of the Earth is rising then the boundaries will move and more energy will be transferred quickly at the chaotic boundaries.

Another principle of Physics is that quickly moving energy is destructive.

 

So physics tells us very simply that the more energy there is the more dangerous it is.

 

Which is more poetry than science.

 

Can you actually cite any actual science that such a tiny change in the temperature, a lot less than the usual variation in such temperatures, will do actual damage?

 

The we need to look at how big a problem that would be. But first the mechanism for this damage thing needs actual science.

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2017 at 14:35 ----------

 

But there is a plentiful supply of food backed up by the fact that we actually throw away millions of unwanted and unused food each year. The grain used for Bio-Fuels is grown specifically for that use, and grain to feed livestock is mainly taken from surplus as well.

 

Getting back to a previous question, just who will pay for this new technology you linked to regarding the Australian system?

 

Dear God! Some things are hard to explain to those who don't want to understand!

 

The grain would be on the market for people to eat. It is increasing the price by taking it away from poor people who are not the ones throwing away good food, that is us the rich people.

 

The Austrailin thing, growing food in a desert at twice today's prices, was an illustration of the fact that there is plenty of food for increased populations if those populations are allowed to get rich.

 

The artificially increased food prices we have today are slowing the economic development of the world's poor. They would be getting richer quicker if they were not, along with everybody else inthe world, paying the 30% to 70% extra for basic food, about £3 a week for the poorest billion and about £7 for us.

 

This tax to make farmers in the west richer, screw the starving, is not really noticable for me. I earn enough that the question is not one of when I will next eat, nor even what I fancy but do I want a take out or cook in or go to a restaurant? For me it is only an affront that the farmers need this subsidy to go along with all their other subsidies.

 

As the world's poorest 5 billion people get richer they will be able to move towards the state I and you live in. This will increase the food prices. It might even get them above todays. Although technological development will continue to make the process of making food easier and cheaper.

[stifflersmom]

Which is more poetry than science.

 

Can you actually cite any actual science that such a tiny change in the temperature, a lot less than the usual variation in such temperatures, will do actual damage?

 

The we need to look at how big a problem that would be. But first the mechanism for this damage thing needs actual science.

 

That's the first time I've heard thermodynamics referred to as poetry. The point is that these regional instabilities can have a global effect. There is an interesting piece here about the Arab spring and how it could have been affected (or at least accelerated) by the effects of global warming. From reading that piece it is not too much of a leap to arrive at the proposition in post #62.

In terms of the earth always being subject to climate change - that is true. What is different about the human assistance to the phenomenon is the rate of that change - which is at least an order of magnitude greater than the natural occurance. That rate of change does not allow the planet to adapt sufficiently to cope with the changes, leading to greater instability.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-and-rising-food-prices-heightened-arab-spring/

[Tim Grindley]

That's the first time I've heard thermodynamics referred to as poetry. The point is that these regional instabilities can have a global effect. There is an interesting piece here about the Arab spring and how it could have been affected (or at least accelerated) by the effects of global warming. From reading that piece it is not too much of a leap to arrive at the proposition in post #62.

In terms of the earth always being subject to climate change - that is true. What is different about the human assistance to the phenomenon is the rate of that change - which is at least an order of magnitude greater than the natural occurance. That rate of change does not allow the planet to adapt sufficiently to cope with the changes, leading to greater instability.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-and-rising-food-prices-heightened-arab-spring/

 

Oh, yes, the impact of Global WarmingTM on the world's politics is vast.

 

This Arab spring and the Syrian civil war are indeed results of increased food prices;

 

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-role-food-prices-syrian-crisis.html

 

The role of food prices in the Syrian crisis, and the way forward

 

The food price spikes are the result of biofuel+speculation.

 

Guss why people risk a good chance of dying getting out of Africa? If they could afford to eat at home they would not be so keen of drowning in the Med.

[Annie Bynnol]

Which is more poetry than science.

 

Can you actually cite any actual science that such a tiny change in the temperature, a lot less than the usual variation in such temperatures, will do actual damage?

 

The we need to look at how big a problem that would be. But first the mechanism for this damage thing needs actual science.

 

Very simply temperature and energy are not the same.

An awful lot of energy is needed to heat up billions of tonnes of air, land or water by one degree, and an awful lot of energy is released when those billions of tonnes loose one degree. Any change in temperature, global, regional or local will change the amount of energy needing to be transferred. How quickly and where these transfers take place will change and some areas will notice just a shift in climate zone while places where the transfer is more chaotic will see weather changing according to the amount of energy being transferred.

 

Changes in the amount and location of energy transfer changes the weather.

The quicker energy is transferred the more destructive it can be.

The more energy involved the more destructive it can be.

[Hairyloon]

Can you actually cite any actual science that such a tiny change in the temperature, a lot less than the usual variation in such temperatures, will do actual damage?

 

The tiny change amounting to 0.6W/m³ do you mean?

That is what the actual scientists have calculated it to.

[Tim Grindley]

Very simply temperature and energy are not the same.

An awful lot of energy is needed to heat up billions of tonnes of air, land or water by one degree, and an awful lot of energy is released when those billions of tonnes loose one degree. Any change in temperature, global, regional or local will change the amount of energy needing to be transferred. How quickly and where these transfers take place will change and some areas will notice just a shift in climate zone while places where the transfer is more chaotic will see weather changing according to the amount of energy being transferred.

 

Changes in the amount and location of energy transfer changes the weather.

The quicker energy is transferred the more destructive it can be.

The more energy involved the more destructive it can be.

 

I have A levels in maths and physics.

 

If you can actually post something that has numbers in it and works as science and then support it with a paper which also explains the mechanism you are talking about you will have scored some sort of point.

 

If you want to make a point relavent to this thread you will have to do that for something that has such science showing a mechanism that will cause damage. Not just vague hand waving.