<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Need for Using Geoengineering to Avoid a New Ice Age Starting in the Next Few Millennia</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547</link>
	<description>Applications of economics and science for rational public policy by Alan Carlin</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:33:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Climate_Science_Researcher</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547/comment-page-1#comment-232141</link>
		<dc:creator>Climate_Science_Researcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 00:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1547#comment-232141</guid>
		<description>If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Second Law of Thermodynamics&lt;/a&gt; which said heat only transfers from hot to cold - a &quot;law&quot; which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium &quot;spontaneously evolves&quot; and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.

Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.

When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.

This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus - or that at the surface of Earth.

The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.

&lt;b&gt;The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.&lt;/b&gt;

The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


&lt;b&gt;Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.&lt;/b&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics" rel="nofollow">Second Law of Thermodynamics</a> which said heat only transfers from hot to cold &#8211; a &#8220;law&#8221; which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.</p>
<p>The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium &#8220;spontaneously evolves&#8221; and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.</p>
<p>Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.</p>
<p>When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.</p>
<p>This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus &#8211; or that at the surface of Earth.</p>
<p>The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.</p>
<p><b>The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.</b></p>
<p>The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.</p>
<p><b>Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian H</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547/comment-page-1#comment-182634</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1547#comment-182634</guid>
		<description>Given the high and accelerating pace of technological and scientific capacity (notwithstanding the recent contrascientific political CAGW putsch attempt), prescribing actions for humanity 500 to 2500 years in the future is like a babbling infant giving advice on running and adjusting complex machinery.  It&#039;s hubristic, foolish, and totally irrelevant.  

The only value of such articles as this is to deflect patently counter-productive waste of resources and human effort (economics) chasing self-destructive goals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the high and accelerating pace of technological and scientific capacity (notwithstanding the recent contrascientific political CAGW putsch attempt), prescribing actions for humanity 500 to 2500 years in the future is like a babbling infant giving advice on running and adjusting complex machinery.  It&#8217;s hubristic, foolish, and totally irrelevant.  </p>
<p>The only value of such articles as this is to deflect patently counter-productive waste of resources and human effort (economics) chasing self-destructive goals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Craig</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547/comment-page-1#comment-177783</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:07:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1547#comment-177783</guid>
		<description>If we build a spacegoing civilisation, which we are well capable of doing over the next few decades with little more than current technology, then it will be possible to cheaply put square miles of tinfoil in orbit acting either as sunscreens or mirrors depending on what is required. 

This will more than offset any solar changes,negative or positive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If we build a spacegoing civilisation, which we are well capable of doing over the next few decades with little more than current technology, then it will be possible to cheaply put square miles of tinfoil in orbit acting either as sunscreens or mirrors depending on what is required. </p>
<p>This will more than offset any solar changes,negative or positive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alec Rawls</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547/comment-page-1#comment-177155</link>
		<dc:creator>Alec Rawls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1547#comment-177155</guid>
		<description>I have been suggesting for several years that, as a precaution, we should be dotting the great white north with coal generation plants designed, not to produce electricity, but to maximize soot production. They could provide local electricity as useful, and burn clean until such time as they might be needed. But if a big lurch in the cold direction comes, we had better have this geo-engineering capacity already in place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been suggesting for several years that, as a precaution, we should be dotting the great white north with coal generation plants designed, not to produce electricity, but to maximize soot production. They could provide local electricity as useful, and burn clean until such time as they might be needed. But if a big lurch in the cold direction comes, we had better have this geo-engineering capacity already in place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup &#124; Watts Up With That?</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547/comment-page-1#comment-177114</link>
		<dc:creator>Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup &#124; Watts Up With That?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1547#comment-177114</guid>
		<description>[...] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547" rel="nofollow">http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1547</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
