Energy flow is driven by differences in energy, not absolute energy.
If you have two objects at 100C, no energy flows between them. If you have two locations with equal pressure, no wind flows between them. A rock will not fall off the middle of a high plateau, even though its potential energy is high.
Energy flows between warm and cold places, between high pressure and low pressure, and between high potential energy and low potential energy. Electricity flows between positive and negative. Lines of magnetic force flow between opposite poles. Convection occurs when the ground is warm and the upper atmosphere is cold. Tornadoes occur when cold air meets warm moist air.
A personal appeal to climate morons. Please stop saying that “more energy means more severe weather.” I have kids in school and I don’t want them exposed to your hyper-stupidity.
Thank You!
If you really believe that cold is associated with less extreme weather, take your next vacation in the Arctic.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiSmVanWRAQ]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NUsi72hu9w]
Bravo!
Wonder what the IPCC exponential graph would put the earth’s temperature at 4000ppm CO2? 458Degrees C?
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-big-eruptions-lots-co2.html
Good luck with that, the IPCC and ilk can’t read basic weather/meteorology textbook.
Steve, you just don’t get it, do you?
In post-normal science, you don’t have to prove anything. In fact, proving something is actually actively discouraged because that introduces the arch-enemy of theoretical constructs, real data, into the mix. Now, we can’t have messy real data mixed in with all our careful theory because that will mess up the elegent simplicity of everything.
So, back to your point: in a post-modern world, it’s perfectly ok to assert that the absolute magnitude of energy is significant in energy flows, because I don’t have to prove otherwise, nor do I need to construct a test capable of falsifying my theory.
In fact, I shall deem that the absolute magnitude of energy being the primary driver of change be the null hypothesis.
Thus, your attempts to pervert the now well-established doctrine of absolute magnitude of energy being the primary driver has been shown to be utterly without merit.
What are you, some kind of absolute energy denier?
You just need to keep the faith in what you believe
Resolute Bay, storms, been there, done that. Went north to Eureka, again, been there, saw it, lived there. That was before the eco-tards arrived. Oh, and in 1978-79, it was called Global Cooling.
you have to check out this. It makes Joe Romm look like a denier.
http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/8718-eco-socialism-a-green-socialism.html
10 billion dead due to global warming