No Climate Emergency

If this is the best that Cambridge can do I am shocked. How can they do most of this? It will need an army of millions of men to prevent the population doing what they want. The interesting point is that they do agree with me that Electricity generation capacity will have to triple by 2050, although they seem to think that this will provide a continuous supply, as although storage is mentioned they do not think of how or the cost. The fact that none of this is costed is my worry, but it certainly is many trillions of pounds. A strange thing is there is no mention of how they get India and China to cut in the same way. Realistically ignoring everything else, what is the point, even using the figures they use it would not make more than a few, perhaps 10 or 20, milli-degrees difference anyway!

davezawadi‍ ref your Feb 19, 2020 7:23 pm : to be super pedantic, the pole count (for phasing etc) doesn't have to be that of the _rotating_ part. IIRC Most really big generators are 'inverted' such that the big output windings are on the (static) stator, while the rotor (rotating part) only has a DC drive (rectified) from an exciter further down the driven shaft. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_(magnetic)). (remembered from working at NEI Parsons in '79-80..).


As you say, there can be more than two poles (1 pair) in the generator.

Philip

Of course they can (and usually are) inverted. But the post with 6 poles is incorrect and needs to be put right. The concept of poles is central to all electrical machines as I am sure you know, but the design of the rotating element for alternators is fairly complex to give good output waveforms. In all cases the poles have nothing to do with the number of output windings, be it one or three or more. It is how many magnetic poles pass a single output winding per second which set the frequency for an alternator, so 2 poles, ( 1 pair) X 3000 RPM / 60 seconds = 50Hz.

Mike, I do not really agree with your potted analysis.


The major point of this paper is that the suggestion of a "greenhouse gas" is thermodynamicaly incorrect. It is not possible for a cold object (CO2) in the atmosphere to make the earth surface warmer than itself. Heat (energy) always flows from hot to cold increasing the system entropy. The atmosphere has a tiny thermal capacity compared to the earth surface (to any tiny depth you choose) and also has a powerful mechanism that any heat in it tends to go up, so hot CO2 rises (and all the other gases) meaning that the surface heats the atmosphere, not the other way around. Conduction and convection are much stronger processes in the atmosphere than radiation, because of the very small temperature differences between components. The whole analysis of this blanket diagram and thought pattern is a deliberate attempt to confuse the situation, or possibly just straight incompetence. If CO2 were as is suggested we should fill our double glazing with it, but we do not because its major property is high thermal conductivity! If it radiated half the heat back into the house, would that not be wonderful? Instead we use Argon (in the best windows anyway) because it has particularly low conductivity and is fairly common at 1% of the atmosphere. Of course a vacuum would be ideal but is a problem to keep sealed.


The reason that nights are cooler than days is because radiation is moving from the surface to the sky which is pretty much at absolute zero temperature. Clouds block this radiation and have a high heat capacity and a temperature which is much higher than the sky, so there is much less radiative heat loss overall, and the atmosphere stays warmer. Water vapour has a much larger greenhouse effect (if you want to call it that) than CO2 and is much more abundant, but seems if anything to cause cooling, which I see as a major objection to the whole description of the atmosphere!


you will not enjoy the embedded video here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

We need to be careful by what we mean by temperature when we are talking about diffuse gasses. The kinetic energy of the gas is low, so if you waved a thermometer out of a slow moving airship, it would read cold - we know this from planes icing up.

But the excitation of the states that correspond to infra red absorption may still be pretty well populated, so the sky may be 'hot' over a restricted range of wavelengths.

There is an analogous effect in ionised gasses, where the electrons are not just jigging about a bit, but are actually puled off completely.

The plasma temperature may be thousands, and indeed the radiation spectrum looks  as if it is, but the gas temperature is nothing like this - the excited states are pumped up by absorbing a photon, and give out a photon when they relax, but the coupling between that mode of electron re-arrangement/excitation and the kinetic energy associated with bulk temperature is so weak that there are two nearly independent mechanisms.

If you prefer a solid state example, an LED may have a colour temp of a few thousand kelvin, but the die temperature is not much above room temperature.


An infra red camera view of the sky is not that it is dark and cold, rather that is is hot at some wavelengths and not others.


It is not a black body, more of a colourful one.

You have very effectively outlined why the theory is false Mike. If a molecule was actually at a higher temperature its excess energy would rapidly diffuse throughout the atmosphere by conduction, particularly if the excited molecules had a very low concentration of 400 PPM, and the gasses are powerfully mixed all the time. In fact this theory actually requires that unless mixed molecules have the same absorption bands they cannot pass heat between them, which is false. Gases must be seen as bulk effect environments in the same way as solids. Atmospheric temperature is a bulk effect, any hotter or cooler volumes must rapidly be equalised by normal convective processes.