Unbelievable new levels of idiocy.

[WillJ]

Kelvin = Celsius + 273

so no real difference, I belive his point would be the difference in the structure in the air.

I guess you're right; Kelvin wouldn't really work either.

So would averaging work out if you use the speed of the molecules (I'm sure there's a temperature scale that does this in one way or another?). If not, why not? The difference in the structure in the air? What do you mean about that?

 

[ainwood]

I guess you're right; Kelvin wouldn't really work either.

So would averaging work out if you use the speed of the molecules (I'm sure there's a temperature scale that does this in one way or another?). If not, why not? The difference in the structure in the air? What do you mean about that?

The point is that air from singapore has a high water content. The amount of energy required to raise the temperature of saturated air by 1°C is more than that required to raise the temp. of dry air. You also need to realise that air density changes with temperature and humidity as well. When I said '1 cubic meter', a more reasonable comparison would have been '1 standard cubic meter' or even '1 kilogram'.

No offence to the posters in this thread, but the thing I find amusing about this thread is that even though someone has a degree in science, people will take something sensationalist (and presumably interpreted by the editor to sell the book) out of context and dismiss the author as an idiot, even though they have little detailed knowledge themseves.

Nowhere does it state that temperture does not exist! IMHO, it goes too far in stating that temperature is a meaningless variable. But consider this: Scientists need to alert mankind that they are damaging the environment. What is the best way of doing this? Do they 'A': Tell them that the temperature is rising, and this is dangerous? Or 'B' tell them that the total internal energy of the atmospheric molecules is rising?

I think that the author is trying to highlight that temperature is a simplification. This point is valid, no matter which side of the climate argument you are on.

 

[col]

Well I think the Physics is just crazy if they think that temperature and energy are entirely different things and have no relation. I'd be interested in his definition of temperature. There are several sentences in the article that are just physical nonsense.

I do think that the evidence for global warming being caused by the greenhouse effects of the last 100 years is overwhelming.

 

[ainwood]

I'm not disagreeing. What I'm saying is that temperature (alone) is a simplification.

As temperature increases, presumably humidity is also increasing. I actually think that this indicates that total energy is increasing more than would be suggested by temperature alone!

 

[WillJ]

The amount of energy required to raise the temperature of saturated air by 1°C is more than that required to raise the temp. of dry air.

It takes more energy to warm water molecules than it does to warm an equal number of air molecules (or rather, the closest to thing to an air "molecule;" I think you get my question)? Why is that?

You also need to realise that air density changes with temperature and humidity as well.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Smidlee]

I wonder if he referring to asphalt jungles. From what i been reading and saw on Nova a year ago there no doubt that cities asphalt is creating hotter temperatures and more thunderstorms. This maybe the real problem in determining exactly what affect greenhouse gases like CO2 has on the environment. I have no doubt CO2 has some kind of affect on the environment though

 

[Smidlee]

Christopher Essex, a professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, and Ross McKitrick, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph.

Remind me to cross them off my list of people who know something about Physics

Of course they could have overlooked something since I sure they are still human.

 

[yoshi]

If someone starts polluting more because of one misunderstood article, well, maybe we should just let this planet rot because the stupid thing we call organic life will inevitably always end up spawning a large enough number of idiots who will use any excuse to destroy their only known source of life-support in the universe.

 

[Ballazic]

Lets me guess he is american (the scientest.)

 

[IglooDame]

Lets me guess he is american (the scientest.)

Let me guess, you didn't read the first post carefully:

written by Christopher Essex, a professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, and Ross McKitrick, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph.

Or perhaps you are merely suggesting that Messrs Essex and McKitrick are Americans teaching in Canada?

 

[thestonesfan]

Lets me guess he is american (the scientest.)

You've just shown yourself to be a pretty smart guy, fella. Congratulations.