Stay with me now. This is going to get complicated. A Marine, who is listed as "he" in his unit assignment, but was a "she" at some time in the past (not sure of the time line) has now decided to "begin a family" and is several months pregnant. (Is that a run on sentence? Only Mrs. Cheney knows.) Now for the ticklish (no pun intended) part. She, now he; or is it he acting as a she (again); or is it she acting as a he acting as a she is requesting a deferment from deployment to the battlefield, where his fellow Marines are headed. The deferment is based upon the pregnancy and impending birth of "his" baby.
The commanding officer (CO) of the unit is in a quandary. Irregardless of what he does, he will be wrong. ("Irregardless" is the appropriate word for this situation. It is a made-up, nonsense word which contradicts itself. It fits perfectly.) The position assigned to Mr. Marine (for now anyway) cannot be dismissed or transferred. Nor is it wise to deploy with a shortage of manpower (sorry) and expertise that leaving him/her/it behind would entail. "Irregardless."
So a she who wanted to be a he has now reverted to the she-state. Would you think that the "doctor" who facilitated the "transition" from female to male may have been guilty of malpractice? Or something? (http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/01/mis-mal-and-non-feasance.html) What if this had been a child and the surgery had been done to convert her to a male? Would that be child abuse?
Our old friend Hippocrates said, "Do no harm." It appears doctors and in fact a significant portion of society are all to anxious to jump on the "bandwagon" without doing any real science. And they do this regardless (or irregardless) of whether to patient understands what is involved. Parents want "the best for their child." I would venture to propose an old fashioned suggestion. Sometimes what the kid "wants" and what the kid really needs are not coincident. They need a grownup to make a wise, mature decision.
We all have probably heard of the mechanic who takes a car and begins to replace parts until he happens on the defective one, then returns the "repaired" vehicle, and a very inflated bill. We have a good mechanic who does not react to what I think is wrong. He checks it out for himself and repairs that. Occasionally, I am right. But often "my repair" would cost more and not correct the problem. Kids and sick people do not make good diagnoses. They want immediate relief, regardless of the long term cost. A good doctor will do what is best for the patient, and not necessarily what the patient thinks he or she wants.
Back to our soldier. It would seem that she, then he had a change of mind and is now reverting to their (not sure which pronoun to use, so will got with plural), reverting to their "birth sex." How fortunate that surgical intervention did not preclude that decision. However, the CO still has to make the call on the status of the enlisted person and the combat readiness of his unit.
This would tax and challenge the wisdom of Solomon. He had easy questions, like who was the mother of the dead baby and who was the mother of the live baby? (1 Kings 3) We are living in a society that cannot figure out who is a boy and who is a girl and which bathroom they can use. It is inevitable that our problems will become more complicated, convoluted, and contradictory.
We need a "greater than Solomon." (Luke 11:31
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Monday, June 12, 2017
Religious Test?
The snappy comeback is an art form that I, and many others, excel at...about five minutes after we muddled through a remark. An example occurred to me after the recent Senate hearing on Office of Management and Budget nominee.
Senator Sanders, known as "Bernie" to all his loyal sycophants, disgraced himself in his interrogation of Russell Vought for a position at the OMB. Irrespective of the fact that a "religious test" is prohibited by the Constitution, the particular questions that the B man asked were spectacularly irrelevant to the position in question.
With that out of the way, I would like to propose an answer to Senator Sanders' question if Vought believed that all Muslims were "condemned" and if that made him "Islamaphobic."
"Senator, if you mean ‘condemned' as defined by adherents of Islam to mean, ‘Attacked, killed, and even annihilated,' then ‘No.' But if you mean ‘condemned' as Jesus taught, that they are separated from the Truth and we should attempt to bring them into touch with that Truth and lead them to repentance, ‘Yes.'"
And as for being Islamophobic because I disagree with their theology, then does that apply to you for opposing and disagreeing with Hillary, and now President Trump? Are you Hilophobic, Trumpophobic, or even Christian-ophobic because you disagree with my beliefs?
I am forced to agree with our Democratic friends that ol' Bern was not the man for the job.
Senator Sanders, known as "Bernie" to all his loyal sycophants, disgraced himself in his interrogation of Russell Vought for a position at the OMB. Irrespective of the fact that a "religious test" is prohibited by the Constitution, the particular questions that the B man asked were spectacularly irrelevant to the position in question.
With that out of the way, I would like to propose an answer to Senator Sanders' question if Vought believed that all Muslims were "condemned" and if that made him "Islamaphobic."
"Senator, if you mean ‘condemned' as defined by adherents of Islam to mean, ‘Attacked, killed, and even annihilated,' then ‘No.' But if you mean ‘condemned' as Jesus taught, that they are separated from the Truth and we should attempt to bring them into touch with that Truth and lead them to repentance, ‘Yes.'"
And as for being Islamophobic because I disagree with their theology, then does that apply to you for opposing and disagreeing with Hillary, and now President Trump? Are you Hilophobic, Trumpophobic, or even Christian-ophobic because you disagree with my beliefs?
I am forced to agree with our Democratic friends that ol' Bern was not the man for the job.
Officially Speaking
Being a former referee and umpire, I should be one of the last to criticize an officiating call. I have made my share. I once took away RBI's from a batter who hit a ball down the line that I wrongly called foul. I have awarded the ball and denied baskets when those calls were in error.
I confess these with the explanation that they were not game changing calls. To my knowledge, I have never made a wrong call that affected the outcome of a game. Our softball friends had to play one more inning to replace the "lost runs" and win by the mercy rule of 10 runs. Most of my other wrong calls, thankfully, were against the team that won in the end.
With that in mind, think back to the two pivotal games of the Stanley Cup series. (I will not abbreviate it "SC" because some may mistake it for Supreme Court. But I digress.) Games 1 and 6 revolved around two series of erroneous calls. Excuse me if the Pred fervor flavors this, but "egregious erroneous" calls. Wouldn't you think that denying a goal in the finals is serious? A "good goal."
In the first game, the officials vacated the Predators' and Suban's first goal on a fraction of an inch interpretation of off-sides. Not long after that, they ignored a "flagrant," in my eyes, interference by Crawsley (sic) behind the goal and the subsequent shot by the guy in front of the net scored. Call the infraction and the scoring shot would have been whistled dead as soon as the Penguin touched it.
In that game alone, the officiating resulted in a two goal swing towards the opposition. That could be defined as "game changing."
Game 6 likewise had two game changers. Clearly the first, disallowed goal, by the Predators should have counted, except for the "early" whistle. This is particularly frustrating to an "old ref" because the guy making the call was out of position. Remember the "foul call" from my confession? I made it because I deviated from officiating mechanics. Almost from my first day of being a ref, my mentors drummed two things into me. One, know the rules. Two, study the mechanics to be in position to make the application of the rules. "You can't make a call you can't see."
An official who is "good enough" to call a Stanley Cup game should be able to execute his obligation to be in "position" to carry out his assignment. Lost goal number one.
One final caveat was drummed into my head. "Do not make ‘make-up' calls." That is where an official makes a bad call, favoring one team, then makes another favoring the other team to "make up" for his mistake. "Now you have made two bad calls instead of just one," they solemnly intoned. "Bad refs make bad calls. Don't make more bad ones."
So there was a challenge to the Pittsburg goal. It hinged on whether the goal scorer interfered with the goal keeper. He bumped him going to the puck. Recall the fraction of an inch call in game 1? If we are going to be "so picky," shouldn't that standard apply to all games and plays? Here was a genuine opportunity to "correct an error" without making an erroneous call. It would have been controversial, but how about the others? Not to mention that the preponderance of "close" (being charitable here) calls went against the Preds.
This is not new to Nashville. Recall the Titans' game against Baltimore the year after we made the SuperBowl? An arbitrary reffing call erased a Titans' touchdown and "awarded" them two or three inches because a (deliberately unnamed) Raven "tried" to get the Titans to jump offsides. He failed, we scored, and the ref canceled the touchdown. The Ravens won and romped to an "easy" SuperBowl win.
The final, controlling philosophy that was drummed into young officials' heads was that we were not the determiners of the game. Calling fouls to "aid" one team is as bad as not calling fouls. Either way, we are "choosing" the winner. We call what happens; nothing more, nothing less.
Excuse me if I am a little blunt, but "Let the kids play," is a pretty stupid comment. If the officials "let them play" and ignore violations and fouls, they are cheating for the offending team. Calling things as they occur avoids the "homer" designation and overall "bad ref" category.
And, incidentally, there are "correctable errors" where a ref can admit that he was wrong and change the call. Yup, I had some of those too. Fortunately, I had a better ref with me to straighten me out. And I learned from the mistakes. No more early "foul" calls. One time a player ran all the way around the bases. I had my arms up, but no one could hear me shout because they were cheering. "It was foul. Strike two," was the call when the bedlam quieted.
Did I affect the game? Yes siree! If I had let it go, would it have affected the game? You betcha! The "kids" played and the better, or luckier team won. It was not my call.
No more, "Wait'til next year," for the Cubs. Maybe the Preds can scratch their itch soon.
I confess these with the explanation that they were not game changing calls. To my knowledge, I have never made a wrong call that affected the outcome of a game. Our softball friends had to play one more inning to replace the "lost runs" and win by the mercy rule of 10 runs. Most of my other wrong calls, thankfully, were against the team that won in the end.
With that in mind, think back to the two pivotal games of the Stanley Cup series. (I will not abbreviate it "SC" because some may mistake it for Supreme Court. But I digress.) Games 1 and 6 revolved around two series of erroneous calls. Excuse me if the Pred fervor flavors this, but "egregious erroneous" calls. Wouldn't you think that denying a goal in the finals is serious? A "good goal."
In the first game, the officials vacated the Predators' and Suban's first goal on a fraction of an inch interpretation of off-sides. Not long after that, they ignored a "flagrant," in my eyes, interference by Crawsley (sic) behind the goal and the subsequent shot by the guy in front of the net scored. Call the infraction and the scoring shot would have been whistled dead as soon as the Penguin touched it.
In that game alone, the officiating resulted in a two goal swing towards the opposition. That could be defined as "game changing."
Game 6 likewise had two game changers. Clearly the first, disallowed goal, by the Predators should have counted, except for the "early" whistle. This is particularly frustrating to an "old ref" because the guy making the call was out of position. Remember the "foul call" from my confession? I made it because I deviated from officiating mechanics. Almost from my first day of being a ref, my mentors drummed two things into me. One, know the rules. Two, study the mechanics to be in position to make the application of the rules. "You can't make a call you can't see."
An official who is "good enough" to call a Stanley Cup game should be able to execute his obligation to be in "position" to carry out his assignment. Lost goal number one.
One final caveat was drummed into my head. "Do not make ‘make-up' calls." That is where an official makes a bad call, favoring one team, then makes another favoring the other team to "make up" for his mistake. "Now you have made two bad calls instead of just one," they solemnly intoned. "Bad refs make bad calls. Don't make more bad ones."
So there was a challenge to the Pittsburg goal. It hinged on whether the goal scorer interfered with the goal keeper. He bumped him going to the puck. Recall the fraction of an inch call in game 1? If we are going to be "so picky," shouldn't that standard apply to all games and plays? Here was a genuine opportunity to "correct an error" without making an erroneous call. It would have been controversial, but how about the others? Not to mention that the preponderance of "close" (being charitable here) calls went against the Preds.
This is not new to Nashville. Recall the Titans' game against Baltimore the year after we made the SuperBowl? An arbitrary reffing call erased a Titans' touchdown and "awarded" them two or three inches because a (deliberately unnamed) Raven "tried" to get the Titans to jump offsides. He failed, we scored, and the ref canceled the touchdown. The Ravens won and romped to an "easy" SuperBowl win.
The final, controlling philosophy that was drummed into young officials' heads was that we were not the determiners of the game. Calling fouls to "aid" one team is as bad as not calling fouls. Either way, we are "choosing" the winner. We call what happens; nothing more, nothing less.
Excuse me if I am a little blunt, but "Let the kids play," is a pretty stupid comment. If the officials "let them play" and ignore violations and fouls, they are cheating for the offending team. Calling things as they occur avoids the "homer" designation and overall "bad ref" category.
And, incidentally, there are "correctable errors" where a ref can admit that he was wrong and change the call. Yup, I had some of those too. Fortunately, I had a better ref with me to straighten me out. And I learned from the mistakes. No more early "foul" calls. One time a player ran all the way around the bases. I had my arms up, but no one could hear me shout because they were cheering. "It was foul. Strike two," was the call when the bedlam quieted.
Did I affect the game? Yes siree! If I had let it go, would it have affected the game? You betcha! The "kids" played and the better, or luckier team won. It was not my call.
No more, "Wait'til next year," for the Cubs. Maybe the Preds can scratch their itch soon.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Inconvenient Thoughts
The whole world, it seems, is in an uproar because the United States has withdrawn from the "Paris accords." Their putative purpose is stop or at least slow the progress of "global warming." The operative term seems to be "settled science" when it comes to any discussion of global warming. Let's consider....
Facts are such inconvenient impediments for our fantasies. Almost every article about climate and even weather, for those who know the difference, employs, at least once, the term, "...man-made global warming." It is almost as if there is a "talking point" cheat sheet out there and anyone who writes for media consumption has to check off a certain number of these phrases.
"Man-made global warming is responsible for the severity of hurricanes." "M-MGW is responsible for the relatively lower numbers of hurricanes." "M-MGW is responsible for the tornadoes...." "M-MGW is responsible for the droughts in the west." "M-MGW is responsible for the flooding...." And on and on it goes. I like the designation anthropomorphic global warming. (AGW)
I am waiting for M-MGW or AGW to be blamed for ISIS attacks. No wait, that is President Trump's fault. Let's get serious now. Here are the proven facts about climate change. (Huh? What's that?)
One, the "long term global warming" that is frequently referenced in many articles, regardless of the "man-made" designation, has flat-lined. Satellite temperature scans of the globe have reported a constant temperature for the past 19 years. There may be minuscule variations within the error of measurement, but the overall trend is flat. It has gone neither up nor down.
Two, historic data has correlated the "long term temperature fluctuations" with sunspot activity. Note, the term, correlated. Correlation is not causation. And in fact, the carbon dioxide data is merely correlated to the temperature changes. (Incidentally, the practice of men wearing hats has decreased from the time of WWII. Is that a cause or correlation?) Theories have proposed a causal factor, of CO2 concentration, but it has not been proven.
In fact, the increment in CO2 is far greater than the temperature change. And, just to confound things a little, the CO2 concentration is the air was greater in the past. It declined and is now increasing again. Temperatures have not mirrored those changes. Just sayin'.
Three, and this one is a killer for us chemists. In order for CO2 to elevate the temperature of the ocean, it must trap infrared radiation instead of allowing it to escape back into space. This "trapped radiation" heats the atmosphere, which in turn warms the ocean as it comes in contact with it. (The mechanics of this will be explained in a "technical" paper to follow if you are curious. http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/06/heat-capacity-technical-paper-this.html)
I read a study by a chemist who calculated the amount that the air would have to increase in temperature in order to raise the temperature of the ocean by one degree. It is staggering. Let me explain.
By way of illustration, let's take one unit of water. We must consider the "heat capacity," or the ability to hold heat energy. Water holds much more. a cubic meter of water holds 3401 times as much heat as a cubic meter of air at the same temperature.
The calculation then, if we want to raise the temperature of the water by one degree, we would have to take 3401 times as much energy out of the air (one unit) to heat one unit of water by one degree. Our conclusion, taking into account the relative volume of atmosphere and water, is that to heat the ocean by one degree, the atmospheric temperature would have to increase by over 200 degrees higher than the water. And this is only the top 1/10th of the depth of the ocean.(3)
For global warming to be "man-made," due to CO2, the atmosphere would have over 200 degrees (3). I guess I missed that event. At least, it didn't frizz my hair.
To be completely honest, the entire ocean would not need to be heated. The surface layer is "all" that must exhibit an increment in temperature. But that amount, along with the other "gimmie factors" still dictate that the atmosphere would require a degree of heating that would wipe out life as we know it. Conclusion: any increase in ocean temperature cannot be attributed to atmospheric heating. We would be dead before the ocean could "warm up."
And for one final consideration, the second reference below (2) reports that studies by satellites measuring heat reflected from the atmosphere is greater when the CO2 concentration is greater. So the carbon dioxide boogie man is really a guardian, out on the edge of space to protect us from solar radiation. (Read the article for more complete understanding.)
We talked about science deniers a while back. (1) Well, that appellation is hanging more firmly around the neck of the global heating contingent. The globe may be heating slightly, but it is not manmade. To paraphrase an old comic strip, "Pogo," drawn by Walt Kelly, "We have found the enemy and he is not us." (Emphasis added. Ed.)
We will not cast aspersions or impute nefarious motives to this movement, though some have been proposed. In practical terms would seem that our concerted efforts be directed in a response to the purported heating rather than a Quixotic tilting at the CO2 windmill.
(1)http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/05/science-deniers.html
(2) http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#
(3) http://nov79.com/gbwm/htcap.html
(4) http://tellinitllikeitis.blogspot.com/2017/05/science-deniers.html
Heat Capacity Technical Paper This follows "Inconvenient"
The final nail in the coffin of AGW comes from chemistry. The first two are in the previous post. (I am particularly partial to chemistry.) It lies in the term heat capacity and relative heat conductivity. (Gee, I love that kind of talk.)
Heat capacity is the amount of energy, or heat, that a body or substance can contain. The relative heat transfer rate is how fast the substance can move heat from itself to another body. Here is an example. Take two objects, one of iron and the other wood, Heat them in an oven for 10 minutes. Then pick up both pieces. Well, let's just imagine holding them.
Which will produce a more serious burn? Even without doing the experiment we know that the metal will produce a more severe injury. Metal holds more heat, pound for pound, than wood. And even though both were the same temperature, the iron will feel hotter and ultimately cause a worse burn due to the faster rate of heat transfer.
And now we find the real problem with AGW. Air has a much lower heat capacity than water. AGW, by the way, hinges on heat being trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 and then moving from the air into water to make the temperature of the oceans to increase. This increasing temperature will melt the ice caps, raise the mean temperature of the globe, and in general, make life on earth impossible. Extinction event!
We will discover that the basic link of air to water transfer seems to be in doubt. First, air cannot hold enough heat to increase the temperature of the water. Here are the details. (There are several references cited below for anyone who is interested.)
On a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 for water to 1 for air. This means that to heat 1 volume of water by 1°C it would take 3300 volumes of air that was 2°C hotter, or 1 volume of air that was about 3300°C (technically 3302 degrees) hotter or some combination of those numbers.
To complicate matters, we consider the amount of air compared to water on earth. Instead of doing the math, which you can read in the cited references, let's just summarize. The relative amounts of air heat capacity and water capacity means that to heat the entire ocean by one degree, the atmosphere would have to be between 3000 degrees and 4000 degrees hotter. The CO2 alarmists cannot propose a mechanism or method for the air to become so hot without destroying life on earth.
The problem is that the air has not increased in temperature to the extent that was expected by the CO2 concentration increments. Lacking that, we now have an alternative that the ocean is absorbing the heat and "storing" it for later, when it will unleash its havoc on the globe. Weak. It cannot heat the air higher than the ambient temperature at the air-water interface, in a "rebound" or delayed heat exchange.
One last impediment is that hot air does not transfer energy to water rapidly enough to cause the oceanic temperature gradients that are predicted. Here is another experiment. Heat a quart of water in the microwave until it boils. (100 Deg C) Then place it in an oven for 30 minutes and measure the temperature of the air and water.
Then heat the oven to 212 Deg F (100 C), turn off the oven, and place one quart of water into the oven. (Use the same containers for both experiments and the same oven to eliminate variables.) After 30 minutes measure the temperature of the air and water.
Even without doing the experiment, we know that the hot water in the oven will heat the air more than hot air will heat the water. What a bummer. "CO2-trapped" heat will not heat the oceans, even if we merely restrict our attention to the top 100 feet of water or so. We also know that warm water is lighter than cold air, so heating the top will not be an effective means of heating the entire body.
Even convection ovens prove the problem. Convection ovens do not use convection. Air must be forced to circulate in order to transfer heat to the cooler object. Oops, we hit another problem. When the ambient air temperature is lower than the water, no heat is transferred, down that is. In fact the cooler air is warmed by passing over the warmer water.
And a more pressing perplexing problem arises. When the supposedly warm air comes into contact with the cooler water, there will be some cooling of the air and concomitant warming of the water. And here our second "insurmountable" problem occurs. Warm water is less dense than cool water and thus it will not sink, but sit on top of the cooler water, acting as a bit of an insulator. (Some conductive heat transfer will occur, but that will exacerbate the problem because now there is a thicker layer of warm water between the warmth of the air and the cooler water.)
The same phenomenon will occur in reverse, in the air. When the air in contact with the water cools, it becomes more dense and the warmer air will continue to float on top of the cooler air, which is a pretty good insulator. The transmission of heat from air to water adds another impediment to the global warming scenario. The "science" of global warming seems to argue against this possibility rather than support it.
Science is certainly an inconvenient impediment to the proposed anthropomorphic global warming.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/htcap.html
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/http://
Heat capacity is the amount of energy, or heat, that a body or substance can contain. The relative heat transfer rate is how fast the substance can move heat from itself to another body. Here is an example. Take two objects, one of iron and the other wood, Heat them in an oven for 10 minutes. Then pick up both pieces. Well, let's just imagine holding them.
Which will produce a more serious burn? Even without doing the experiment we know that the metal will produce a more severe injury. Metal holds more heat, pound for pound, than wood. And even though both were the same temperature, the iron will feel hotter and ultimately cause a worse burn due to the faster rate of heat transfer.
And now we find the real problem with AGW. Air has a much lower heat capacity than water. AGW, by the way, hinges on heat being trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 and then moving from the air into water to make the temperature of the oceans to increase. This increasing temperature will melt the ice caps, raise the mean temperature of the globe, and in general, make life on earth impossible. Extinction event!
We will discover that the basic link of air to water transfer seems to be in doubt. First, air cannot hold enough heat to increase the temperature of the water. Here are the details. (There are several references cited below for anyone who is interested.)
On a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 for water to 1 for air. This means that to heat 1 volume of water by 1°C it would take 3300 volumes of air that was 2°C hotter, or 1 volume of air that was about 3300°C (technically 3302 degrees) hotter or some combination of those numbers.
To complicate matters, we consider the amount of air compared to water on earth. Instead of doing the math, which you can read in the cited references, let's just summarize. The relative amounts of air heat capacity and water capacity means that to heat the entire ocean by one degree, the atmosphere would have to be between 3000 degrees and 4000 degrees hotter. The CO2 alarmists cannot propose a mechanism or method for the air to become so hot without destroying life on earth.
The problem is that the air has not increased in temperature to the extent that was expected by the CO2 concentration increments. Lacking that, we now have an alternative that the ocean is absorbing the heat and "storing" it for later, when it will unleash its havoc on the globe. Weak. It cannot heat the air higher than the ambient temperature at the air-water interface, in a "rebound" or delayed heat exchange.
One last impediment is that hot air does not transfer energy to water rapidly enough to cause the oceanic temperature gradients that are predicted. Here is another experiment. Heat a quart of water in the microwave until it boils. (100 Deg C) Then place it in an oven for 30 minutes and measure the temperature of the air and water.
Then heat the oven to 212 Deg F (100 C), turn off the oven, and place one quart of water into the oven. (Use the same containers for both experiments and the same oven to eliminate variables.) After 30 minutes measure the temperature of the air and water.
Even without doing the experiment, we know that the hot water in the oven will heat the air more than hot air will heat the water. What a bummer. "CO2-trapped" heat will not heat the oceans, even if we merely restrict our attention to the top 100 feet of water or so. We also know that warm water is lighter than cold air, so heating the top will not be an effective means of heating the entire body.
Even convection ovens prove the problem. Convection ovens do not use convection. Air must be forced to circulate in order to transfer heat to the cooler object. Oops, we hit another problem. When the ambient air temperature is lower than the water, no heat is transferred, down that is. In fact the cooler air is warmed by passing over the warmer water.
And a more pressing perplexing problem arises. When the supposedly warm air comes into contact with the cooler water, there will be some cooling of the air and concomitant warming of the water. And here our second "insurmountable" problem occurs. Warm water is less dense than cool water and thus it will not sink, but sit on top of the cooler water, acting as a bit of an insulator. (Some conductive heat transfer will occur, but that will exacerbate the problem because now there is a thicker layer of warm water between the warmth of the air and the cooler water.)
The same phenomenon will occur in reverse, in the air. When the air in contact with the water cools, it becomes more dense and the warmer air will continue to float on top of the cooler air, which is a pretty good insulator. The transmission of heat from air to water adds another impediment to the global warming scenario. The "science" of global warming seems to argue against this possibility rather than support it.
Science is certainly an inconvenient impediment to the proposed anthropomorphic global warming.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/htcap.html
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/http://
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)