Welcome to American Weather

drstuess

Members
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About drstuess

  1. I think it is the general polarization of most issues which is at fault in sapping the intelligence out of the discussion, and it is a feedback loop, where one side (either denial or alarmist) reports something extreme either for clicks(sensationalization) or dumbing it down. This causes people on the other side to radicalized or shut off rational discussion, which repeats and furthers the cycle. I think there is also the element that certain people will never listen to science if it conflicts with their convenience, no matter the soundness and neutrality. This creates the opportunity for people in the media to search for and report the answers they and their audience want to hear. Overall, this creates an environment where people are more likely to sensationalize because they believe if they don't, the other side still will and the consensus will shift away from them. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
  2. I didn't realize I was in a court of law. Thanks for the warning; the Internet is serious business Also, how do you know I even typed all that? The science on the forces acting on our galaxy and universe are not known with certainty, so what I actually typed could have been corrupted on the way to the forum servers by quantum thingys. Finally, all this talk of dishonesty from you certainly rings shallow. Your whole presence on this forum is a facade. You make phony posts about innocently pursuing the truth and true science, yet clearly have no intention of actually, honestly doing that. You never acknowldedge science contrary to your beliefs or admitting your errors. A clear example of this is this exchange. 1. You make an ignorant comment about renewables not being a meaningful energy source. 2. You are provided with pretty clear evidence to the contrary. 3. You post some stupid comment about dishonesty that reads like you are talking down on everyone and think you are intellectual superior, without actually acknowledging the substance of the evidence you are confronted with. I know this forum is supposed to be clear of this ad hominem stuff, so from here on out I am just gonna ignore your posts. Keep on fighting the good fight!
  3. I don't think it was too dishonest of a paraphrase of this comment. Notice the "it's just not there yet." If you are actually open to learn, wind and solar installation was responsible for >60% of utility scale capacity installed in 2016. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25172 This is hardly indicative of "just not there yet." Additionaly, this growth shows no sign of stopping as prices continue to decrease rapidly. This is from a recent report from Lazaeds showing LCOE of projects across technologies. LCOE is not perfect in several ways, however it shows how inexpensive properly sited utility scale renewables already are, and they will only get cheaper Also, btw, I am not a dr, so no reason to refer to me as such.
  4. Are you serious? You must be really out of the loop(to put it kindly) if you think solar and wind dont already play meaningful roles.
  5. I would say a good portion of that is wind blown. Radar looks good there, so some of it is fresh, however I heard it's also pretty windy.
  6. Castlerock has good shelter from North, is that spinning?
  7. Just took the dog for a walk in narragansett. Thundersnow, whipping wind, and visibility down close to 150 feet. Pretty awesome out, with someone in the neighborhood zipping their snowmobile around.
  8. That is for the whole system, the effective radiating height is like 5km.
  9. I don't think anyone disagrees that above the mean radiating height the temperature cools with more ghg's. The question is whether, on an energy basis, it accounts fully for the warming during the transitioning to equilibrium. However given that more ghg's raise the mean radiating height and that most of the atmosphere is below this height, it seems like the energy balance increases between equilibrium. There are several models on the UChicago site that demonstrate this: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/rrtm/ Here is a screenshot with 800 ppm. Note that it has 400 ppm as the equilibrium amount, so if you set co2 at 400, the net flux is 0
  10. Weather is also just the redistribution of heat resulting from spatially inhomogeneous heat flux, the increase of entropy of the system. The heat flux and system characteristics/parameters could be thought of as the climate. In that train of thought, weather results from climate.
  11. The Earth radiates energy into space in all directions, how can it be closed? What loses energy is the "outside system", which depends on what you define as the system. Given the 101 nature of the thread it is a single layer model, so the outside is space. Going to multilayer model with individual emmissivity s etc gets significantly more complicated in transient states. Yes, starting at the bottom any positive q flux is countered by negative q flux immediately above, however the exact amount depends on its absorbtivity. the exact relationships, especially in transient are pretty complicated as you must account for varying density as well, which will complicate the temperature change. Also to the other comment on settled science education haha. I am just some Joe schmoo taping on my phone; I don't think this represents where the actual science is at.
  12. Yes delta E is non zero in the system, as there is an imbalance in the flux of q and w in the system during the transient state. That does not mean that energy is created; Q and W are transferors of energy and their values account for the increase in E. It is the first law of thermodynamics! Additionally, the Earth doesn't cool off because it radiates more. The temperature simply increases until the temperarure dependant radiation and other outgoing Q fluxes balance against the incoming q flux. At that point the qdot term is zero in the first law and , assuming W is zero, deltaE is zero.
  13. 1. The Earth and sun is not a closed system. The earth radiates heat out to the great beyond 2. While the initial Q in from the sun is constant. The outgoing Q from the earth is not constant and depends on 1. GHG'S and 2. The earth's temperature. Adding greenhouse gases reduce Q out for the period of time until temperature dependant radiation increases. This results in a non zero incoming q to the sysyem. Applying the first law means that W and/or deltaE (temperature) must increase to conserve energy. This is applying the first law of thermodynamics ("conservation of energy") to the system. Yes the upper atmosphere may cool, however conservation of energy at this scale, with the simplified model outlined, does not necessitte it match warming. I will post the basic first law application my feeble non-graduate radiative heat transfer mind sketched earlier. The first frame is before addiotnal ghg, the second is with additional ghg ( but transient state), and third is equilibrium with ghg. BTW the first law hasn't changed. Edit: I think you are stuck in your application of the first law and what the system is. Phrasing it how you are, yes if the Earth is warming up, something else must cool appropriately. That something else is the rest of the solar system, universe, etc and not just the upper atmosphere.
  14. Read the first law of thermodynamics and do the basic calculations which have been outlined before for yourself. There may be some cooling, but conservation of energy in no way requires it to be equal in magnitude.