The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 21:08 On 9 dec, 01:36, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > 08 Dec 2008 06:36:08 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > > > But Whata Fool isn't equipped to understand this, and keeps on incanting > > > his half-understood mantra. > > > And you seem to keep dodging the cloud issue. > > And the fact that the earth is cooling and sea level is falling ! > > Just an 'anomaly' right ? Like every other 'anomaly' that doesn't fit their > blasted RELIGION. Graham doesn't know science to be able to distinguish science from religion, and he hasn't got enough common sense to realise that small short-term fluctuations in temperature don't invalidate the proposition that the world is gradually getting hotter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png Even the five-year averaged temperatures don't show a monotonic increase since 1910, though the overall trend is clearly upwards.
From: Bill Ward on 8 Dec 2008 23:20 On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:01:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 8 dec, 21:12, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >On 8 dec, 03:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >> Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:29:26 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> >> On 7 dec, 09:25, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> Apparently atmospheric radiation is a big part of the >> >> >>> total IR radiation flux, and could that mean the atmosphere >> >> >>> radiation controls the temperature, not the surface radiation? >> >> >> >> Some of the infra-red radiation emitted by the ground and the >> >> >> ocean surfaces goes straight through the atmosphere (when the sky >> >> >> is clear) but the rest is repeatedly emitted and readsorbed by the >> >> >> greenhouse gases as it makes it way up through the amosphere; >> >> >> >Where there is water vapor and clouds, the atmosphere should behave >> >> >as a nearly black body of warm gas and convect accordingly. A >> >> >steady state should be reached where the heat radiated from the top >> >> >is equal to the heat coming into the bottom, else the bottom gas >> >> >temperature would increase and force convection to transport more >> >> >heat to maintain equilibrium. You can't "retain heat" in a gas >> >> >without raising its temperature. >> >> >> >> the height that it has to get to before it gets a clear shot at >> >> >> open space eventually determines the temperature at ground level. >> >> >> >That I agree with. How much CO2 and water respectively have to do >> >> >with that is the question. >> >> >And one that you don't seem to be equipped to understand. >> >> >> You should not agree with it, the temperature at ground >> >> level can be all time record world highs in a desert valley, and not >> >> because of more water vapor or CO2, >> >> >No. The high temperatures in the desert valley during the day are >> >caused by solar radiation that goes straight through the air to hit the >> >ground, be absorbed and raise its temperature. Water vapour and CO2 >> >don't get into the act. At night the surface radiates like a hot black >> >body, and cools off rapidly; some of that infrared radiation is >> >absorbed by greenhouse gases in the air above and re-radiated back at >> >the ground, and some of it has a free ride to outer space. >> >> >>or the temperature can be all time record lows >> >> at the South Pole and not because of less water vapor or CO2. >> >> >No - the low winter temperatures at the South Pole are caused by the >> >total absence of incoming solar radiation during the winter, not that >> >the snow covered surface absorbs all that much solar radiation when the >> >sun is above the horizon. The surface would get even colder if it >> >wasn't for the greenhouse gases in the air above the pole so the do >> >have some effect - but there is not a lot of water vapour in the air >> >whne the temperature is down at -65C. >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole >> >> >> In fact, the big changes in temperature occur with wind >> >> shift, and that has very little to do with water vapor or CO2. >> >> >We are talking about global warming - which is to say the temperature >> >of the surface of the whole of the earth - not temperature differences >> >between different places on the surfce. >> >> >> All that can really be said about water vapor and CO2 is >> >> that the atmosphere is cooler because of them, because GHGs cool the >> >> atmosphere. >> >> >Which isn't actually true for the atmosphere as a whole. Greenhouse >> >gases determine the effective emitting altitude for the earth, where >> >the temperature has to be -14C to radiate enough power to balance the >> >power being absorbed from solar radiation. More greenhouse gases force >> >this altitude higher, and make the atmosphere a bit warmer - >> >specifically the laer closest to the ground. >> >> >But Whata Fool isn't equipped to understand this, and keeps on >> >incanting his half-understood mantra. >> >> You should learn a little meteorology, the highest desert record >> temperatures occur because of descending air on very hot dry days. > > Hot air descends? You've measured this yourself, while going up in a > cold-air balloon? Poor Sloman. He just can't seem to stop embarrassing himself: http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/ASother/mm5/SantaAna/winds.html >> And it is the temperature of the air that is measured, not that >> of the ground, above a pond in the desert the air temperature will be >> cooler, not warmer. > > Depends how salty the pond is. > >> How many times are AGW disciples required to read and recite the >> myth in order to all speak the same tongue? > > Reciting a mantra repeatedly doesn't make it true, and it turns out to be > a poor way of getting people to understand what they are memorising, which > is why repetitive recitation doesn't form any part of modern scientific > education. > > I'm not altogether surprised that you don't know this - if you ever were > exposed to a modern scientific education it obviously failed to take. Projection in spades.
From: Don Klipstein on 9 Dec 2008 01:03 In <pan.2008.12.02.00.19.03.512271(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:59:25 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.11.29.04.28.21.555150(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> said: >>>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:38:49 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>> >>>> On 28 nov, 19:01, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:54:19 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 27 nov, 19:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:55:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> <SNIP stuff already said more than 6 times> >>>>>>>> I thought I'd covered that. In the near and middle infra-red both >>>>>>>> water and carbon dioxide have spectra that consist of a lot of >>>>>>>> narrow absorbtion lines - rotational fine structure around a few >>>>>>>> modes of vibration. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Only a few of these lines overlap, so to a first approximation the >>>>>>>> greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water are independent. >>>>>>>> Water doesn't mask CO2 absorbtions and an vice versa. >>>>> >>>>>>>> The situation gets more complicated when you look at the widths of >>>>>>>> the individual absorption lines. These are broader in the >>>>>>>> atmosphere than they are when looked at in pure sample of water >>>>>>>> vapour or carbon dioxide in the lab, which increases the greenhouse >>>>>>>> effect. >>>>> >>>>>>>> The mechanism of this "pressure broadening" is intermolecular >>>>>>>> collisions that coincide with the emission or absorbtion of a >>>>>>>> photon - this slightly changes the molecule doing the >>>>>>>> absorption/emission, slightly moving the position of the spectal >>>>>>>> line. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Polar molecules - like water and carbon dioxide - create more >>>>>>>> pressure broadening than non-polar molecules than oxygen and and >>>>>>>> nitrogen. They interact more strongly with the molecules they >>>>>>>> collide with - creating a bigger spectra shift - and the collision >>>>>>>> lasts longer. >>>>> >>>>>>>> So more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes water a more >>>>>>>> powerful green-house gas and vice versa. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Happy now? >>>>> >>>>>>> No, you just spewed the dogma again. Â I think the troposphere is >>>>>>> there because of convection lifting the surface energy up to the >>>>>>> cloud tops, maintaining a near adiabatic lapse rate. >>>>> >>>>>> Convection becomes progressively less effective as the pressure drops >>>>>> - gas density decreases with pressure, which decreases the driving >>>>>> force you get from a given temperature difference in exactly the same >>>>>> proportion, and the quantity of heat being transported per unit >>>>>> volume is also reduced. >>>>> >>>>> So the gas is expanding. Â It's still rising, and the resistance is >>>>> decreased. Â Lift is roughly constant at least to 14000 ft, from >>>>> personal observation. It doesn't generally drop off linearly with >>>>> altitude. >>>> >>>> But it is less dense, so it's transporting less heat. >>> >>>Energy is conserved. Where did the latent heat go, if not up? It's >>>carried by convection to the cloud top, and radiates away. >> >> Not all of it (latent or the majority otherwise) does. > >Then I repeat: Where did it go? Surely you're not claiming net energy is >moving from cold air to warm surface. The second law cops will come >and get you. Some gets radiated. Much ends up on surface farther from the tropics than where it came from. A little bit does end up on surface hotter than where it came from (in dry subtropical highs), but that is clearly greatly a minority. >> And greenhouse gases above the cloudtop will return to the cloud some >> of the cloud's thermal radiation. > >Not net radiation. The net energy flow is always from hot to cold. >Always. GHGs will add impedance to that flow. >> And what goes up usually must go down - especially air. The air >> rising >> through the cloud mass of a Nor'Easter will descend somewhere. > > And it's dryer and cooler because of precipitation and radiation. Precipitation cools it? I thought condensation warms it. But radiation wil cool it. It ends up on ground somewhere, usually cooler than where it came from, and often making the ground warmer than it otherwise would be. >>> The whole notion of somehow "trapping" energy in the atmosphere seems >>> ludicrous. It's either sensible heat, latent heat, or radiation. It >>> doesn't just disappear. >> >> It accumulates until radiator temperatures get sufficient to have >> radiative outgo to outer space match radiative income from the Sun. > >Then it's sensible heat subject to upward convection. It won't convect much until warming achieves lapse rate achieving the relevant adiabatic one. Most of the atmosphere has lapse rate less than the relevant adiabatic one. > The temperature is a function of the gas laws and the specific heat of > the air. Warming a parcel of gas doesn't "trap" any radiation. I did not say warming a parcel of gas makes it trap radiation. What I said was that if a parcel of gas was cooler than achieving radiation balance, it will warm from radiation. >The surface heat flow is in during the day and out at night, only the net >flow is balanced. > >I think you may be confused by the Trenberth energy flow cartoon, which >shows the 45W/m^2 surface IR component as the difference between upward >and downward radiation flows. It's misleading, because no net heat can >ever flow from cold to hot. > >Improperly averaging terms that should be integrated seems to be a common >factor in the "climate science" domain. I am not claiming that there is a long term imbalance between amount of energy income and amount of energy outgo anywhere. An imbalance will result in a temperature change to cause outgo and income to match. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 9 Dec 2008 01:26 In <pan.2008.12.01.17.08.14.877184(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:29:43 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In article <pan.2008.11.27.18.38.37.222361(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill >> Ward wrote: > ><big snip of old post> > >>> I think the troposphere is there >>>because of convection lifting the surface energy up to the cloud tops, >>>maintaining a near adiabatic lapse rate. Radiative transfer is blocked >>>by GHG's, and plays little part below the tropopause. Radiation models >>>are thus largely irrelevant. >> >> The lapse rate is well short of adiabatic in much of the world, >> especially much of the time where surface albedo is prone to change from >> temperature change. Those parts of the world have upward mobility in >> surface temperature. > >Can you explain more clearly what you mean and the physical mechanisms >involved? Much of the atmosphere has horizontal temperature gradient. That causes a tendency for tropical air from generally roughly the 500-200 mb level or so to push poleward and polar air generally below roughly the 500 mb or 600 mb so level to push equatorward. That alone reduces the lapse rate in much of the troposphere, especially in areas ahead of warm fronts. Also, ice-covered areas and polar areas in winter tend to receive little sunlight and radiate away heat advected in from elsewhere. The surface will cool less than air higher up that is also receiving advected heat. > It appears to me they would still cool faster from increased >convection, Although if surface warming is the cause of the increased convection, the increase in convection merely slows down the heating. There are plenty of areas where the surface has to heat a lot before convection results. > unless you're talking about places that are already cold, and >thus don't do much cooling. I was including those. They do cool the atmosphere, which receives heat from air coming in from warmer areas. If GHGs are increased, they will cool the atmosphere less and be warmer. If they lose ice cover and/or gain water vapor overhead from warming, then there is positive feedback for warming. >> Should the arctic and antarctic warm, then global convection from the >> tropics to the arctic and antarctic will slow down until the tropics >> warm - though I still expect the arctic and antarctic (especially the >> arctic) to warm more than the tropics. > >Why would the polar regions warm, when they already don't receive >enough heat from the sun to maintain their existing temperature? Again, >your causality seems backward. They maintain temperature that sunlight is insufficient to maintain because warmer air comes in from elsewhere. The polar regions cool the atmosphere in the global convection scheme, and the tropics warm it. If the polar regions gain GHGs and/or lose ice cover (to increase reception of sunlight), then they will be warmer than otherwise. Decrease in horizontal temperature gradient will reduce the "global convection from tropics to poles" (which is advection - heat transport by largely horizontal movement of air or ocean). If that decreases, the tropics will warm slightly and partially restore "global convection". >> I do expect much warming in the portions of the world where there is >> usually convection or lapse rate just short of causing convection to >> depend on global albedo change - which is actually occurring, and >> expected to occur as global warming causes loss of snow and ice cover. >> Furthermore, much of the actual problems to result from global warming >> is from loss of snow and ice cover - and most of that is in parts of the >> world where the lapse rate from surface to tropopause is mostly far >> short of producing thunderstorms. > >The polar regions must receive additional heat from low latitudes to keep >from getting colder. Convective heat flow tends to equalize temperatures, >unless weather is somehow immune to the second law. Polar regions do indeed receive heat from lower latitudes - from air movement mostly within 1 degree of horizontal, with lapse rate mostly short of causing vertical convection. >> Radiative transfer is actually significant within the troposphere. >> Radiative transfer can easily involve repeated absorption and emission >> of photons along the way, such as (for extreme example) within the >> "radiative layer" of the Sun. That excluding the core is a layer over >> 100,000 km thick, and most of the heat produced by the sun is produced >> in the core and has to pass through the core-exluding portion of the >> "radiation zone", there is no convection, and most radiation gets >> absorbed before going mere micrometers. > >The Sun is operating at considerably higher pressures and temperatures >than the Earth. Can't you find a more relevant and convincing >explanation that includes convection? GHG presence in Earth's atmosphere is great enough for radiation from the surface to often be absorbed and re-emitted a few times before geting to outer space. At night, radiation is largely how the surface cools. Increasing GHGs will increase the number of times radiation will be absorbed and re-emitted before getting to space, with more chances for the radiation to be re-radiated downward. Increase of GHGs will impede radiational cooling of the surface, and make the surface get a warmer head start for the next day. >> Likewise, the Earth's surface receives significant radiation from >> clear air below the 500 millibar level. > >Not more than it radiates, unless the WV is warmer than the surface. The >Second law won't allow it. (OK, very very rarely by quantum theory.) But >no actual radiative heating unless the source is hotter than the target. >Net heat flow is from the surface to space. Less than it radiates - but enough to slow surface cooling. >Thanks for your comments, but they aren't really specific enough to >explain the physics behind the mechanisms you infer. I try to understand >things down to the basics, with assumptions clearly stated. I think you >must be making some assumptions I don't know about. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 9 Dec 2008 01:33
In <pan.2008.12.02.04.09.57.211078(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:14:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.11.23.15.47.04.647543(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> wrote in part: >>> >>>Wrong fiasco. I meant this one: >>> >>>http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm >> <SNIP> >>>Here's the original, with graphics: >>> >>>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf >>> >>>> but subsequent observations doesn't suggest that it is to slowing down >>>> any more. >>>> >>>> Do try to get your facts right. >>> >>>Right about now, you should be feeling a bit foolish. >> >> Check out HadCRUT-3v - good enough for The Register! >> >> Graph: >> >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm >> >> Data in text form: >> >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt > >It's all depends on how you pick your data: > >http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG Eeyore likes to post that one as a binary attachment in this newsgroup (though I'm not saying that's where he got it from). The paper it comes from has a link to the data in text form for that one - ending with 1980. The paper that comes from also has a "corrected global temperature reconstruction" ending much earlier - I forget for the moment whether 1920 or 1930. Splice HadCRUT-3 global or HadCRUT-3v global (smoothed) onto that at any year covered by both Loehle's "corrected global temperature reconstruction" and HadCVRUT and it looks like we are now warmer than peak of MWP. >http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2400 Points to Loehle. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |