atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6917: Smack-dab in the middle.

You gotta love the juxtaposition of conflicting data.

Headline: "Next week's Arctic blast will be so cold, forecasters expect it to break 170 records across US".

Link in the middle of the article: "Melting ice: One of the world's thickest mountain glaciers is melting because of global warming".

One of the interesting points that's been made about the whole "global warming" thing is that no new record high temperatures have been set in recent years. The idea is that if the planet were really getting warmer, if the average temperature were really rising, then new high temperature records should be reached. But at best, the standing records are being met; vanishingly few high temperature records are being broken. Most of the record high temperatures date back sixty, seventy years.

But in recent years we have been breaking the low temperature records.

Neither of these trends--neither the expected one nor the observed one--would be monotonic. Some years will be warmer than others, some cooler; but in a world where man-made global warming is real and happening now, you would expect to see those record high temps going up. The record hottest day from, say, 1953 would have fallen on that scorcher of a day we had in 1998. That warmest October 24, when it hit 90, would be in 2003 instead of 1943.

But for the most part the best they can do is match them. Sure, the high temp hit 104 on July 16 last year, which is the highest the temperature's been around here for a very long time...but it hit 104 on August 12 in 1953. Tied the record!

Not broke it. "Tied". The record highs aren't getting higher even as all and sundry claim that each successive year was "the hottest year ever". But the record lows are going lower.

In the long term we have no good idea what's going on, and the ascientific fapping that's being done by the climatology crowd, trying to prove that man-made global warming is taking place, is only further obfuscating the truth.

* * *

Incidentally, since it became obvious that the climate was not behaving and warming as the climatologists expected, they've switched to "climate change". They can't find a monotonic warming trend without inventing one out of whole cloth (eg Mann's hockey stick) or by adjustering and fiddlating the data (NOAA) so now they're saying that the globe doesn't actually warm everywhere at once. No, what happens is that some parts get warmer and other parts get cooler.

Thermodynamically speaking, of course, if you have a pint of water split across two jars, and one jar has 1.5 cups of water in it and the other contains 0.5 cups, it's still a pint of water. Taking water out of one container and putting it into the other does not make more water--or less. It merely changes the distribution of the water.

But of course it's more complicated than that. The two jars are connected, so that the levels in the two jars will tend to equalize. We explain that physically, thermodynamically, by saying "entropy tends to a maximum." These two connected jars will tend to equalize their water levels--to reach an equlibrium. To maintain the high/low level in each jar there needs to be a mechanism that pumps water from the "low level" jar to the other.

In the real world, we call that mechanism a "refrigerator".

Your electric bill, in summertime, is high because the process of refrigeration is thermodynamically expensive. Reversing entropy is energy-intensive. It takes a lot of power to pump water from the low jar into the high jar.

If you look at nature--at the physical universe as well as the natural world--nowhere do you find a naturally-occurring refrigeration process. There is no plant or animal which actively pumps heat from a cold reservoir to a hot one; all heat flows are downhill, from hot reservoir to cool.

Thermodynamics can be pretty difficult to understand--there is a reason some people refer to it as "thermogoddamnics"--but if you think about heat in approximately the same terms you think about water it becomes a little easier to visualize. And once you can visualize the flow of heat, it becomes very easy to see why a lot of the nonsense spouted about global warming and/or climate change, trying to explain away the lack of a monotonic warming trend, is such bunkum.

It relies on water flowing uphill of its own volition.

* * *

As for next week's forecast? I really hope they get the heat working in my office.
Subscribe

  • #7604: Well, she died doing what she loved, I guess?

    What else can you say? Heavily edited quote: "[R]adical pro-abortion supporter Maria de Valle Gonzalez Lopez died during ... her "dream"…

  • #7603: Absolutely correct

    I have never liked that band. Apparently the music of Rush works well as a contraceptive. The music of Rush is marked by erratic signature changes,…

  • #7602: Still not gonna take it.

    "The flu has mysteriously vanished while the number of people who got covid was within the normal range of the number of people who get the flu…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments