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 Ward on 9 Dec 2008 10:55 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:03:54 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > 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. ÃÂ 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. ÃÂ It's still rising, and the >>>>>> resistance is decreased. ÃÂ 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. That would require a heat pump. Could you explain the mechanism? > >>> 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 latent heat transport will decrease the impedance. >>> 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? No, it drys 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. Of course. Heat is transported poleward. >>>> 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. If by "accumulating", you mean the temperature increases, yes. The radiation is proportion to the 4th power of that temperature. >>Then it's sensible heat subject to upward convection. > > It won't convect much until warming achieves lapse rate achieving the > relevant adiabatic one. And accumulating heat will raise the temperature until convection begins. > Most of the atmosphere has lapse rate less than the relevant adiabatic one. Probably. Half of the atmosphere is in nighttime. Wouldn't you agree most heat is transported to the radiative layer during the daytime, when temperatures are higher? >> 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. True. That warming assists convection. >>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. I didn't mean to imply you did. That seems relatively obvious. We seem to be basically agreeing on several points.
From: John M. on 9 Dec 2008 11:28 On Dec 9, 12:19 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:22:33 -0800, John M. wrote: > > On Dec 8, 11:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:32:30 -0800, John M. wrote: > >> > On Dec 8, 10:21 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> >> What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences and > >> >> resulting vertical convection? > > >> > Coriolis. > > >> I believe that just changes the apparent direction of an already > >> existing horizontal movement. > > > Only if the observer is not part of the rotating system. For the Earth's > > surface, the atmosphere can be regarded as an observer who is in the > > system. It "sees " i.e experiences a real force, just as child on a > > merry-go-round feels a real, outward, centrifugal force opposite in > > direction to that noted by someone watching the rotation happen. > > >> Nice try, though. > > > Now you need to rethink this comment, don't you? Or is it still too much > > for you to admit to making mistakes? > > Not my problem. You're projecting again: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force > > "The surface of the Earth is a rotating reference frame. To solve > classical mechanics problems exactly in an Earth-bound reference frame, > two fictitious forces must be introduced, the Coriolis force and the > centrifugal force (described below)." > > Fictitious force == "Not real". Are you now going to claim wiki is wrong > on something so simple and clear cut? The wiki is wrong, or rather it is ambiguous in its grammar. The forces are only fictitious as far as the universe is concerned (Einstein said force was a redundant idea, anyway). But to an observer who is part of the rotation, they are real enough. I take it you have never used a centrifuge. > Either way, the initial horizontal > movement can't occur without some sort of convection driven force, so > you're still lost in the woods. You should look at convection as it would occur in the atmosphere of a non-rotating planet. There will be no net horizontal movement such as happens under the action of the Coriolis force. No "jet stream" phenomenon would be possible. So vertical convection itself is insufficient to initiate horizontal advection. That is in contradiction to your statement ,which I will patch in here so the readers can see it. <begin repost> Ward " What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences and resulting vertical convection?" Morgan " Coriolis." Ward " I believe that just changes the apparent direction of an already existing horizontal movement." <end repost> Please don't pester the group with another, lame non-rebuttal. Just own up to having got it wrong for once. You'll feel much better afterwards, and your old pal Richard Feynman could then be proud of you - if he were still around.
From: John M. on 9 Dec 2008 11:45 On Dec 9, 12:58 am, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:22:33 -0800, John M. wrote: > > >> On Dec 8, 11:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:32:30 -0800, John M. wrote: > >>> > On Dec 8, 10:21 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>> >> What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences and > >>> >> resulting vertical convection? > > >>> > Coriolis. > > >>> I believe that just changes the apparent direction of an already > >>> existing horizontal movement. > > >> Only if the observer is not part of the rotating system. For the Earth's > >> surface, the atmosphere can be regarded as an observer who is in the > >> system. It "sees " i.e experiences a real force, just as child on a > >> merry-go-round feels a real, outward, centrifugal force opposite in > >> direction to that noted by someone watching the rotation happen. > > >>> Nice try, though. > > >> Now you need to rethink this comment, don't you? Or is it still too much > >> for you to admit to making mistakes? > > >Not my problem. You're projecting again: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force > > >"The surface of the Earth is a rotating reference frame. To solve > >classical mechanics problems exactly in an Earth-bound reference frame, > >two fictitious forces must be introduced, the Coriolis force and the > >centrifugal force (described below)." > > >Fictitious force == "Not real". Are you now going to claim wiki is wrong > >on something so simple and clear cut? Either way, the initial horizontal > >movement can't occur without some sort of convection driven force, so > >you're still lost in the woods. > > Both "forces" are real, it is just inertia, which is the tendency > of extreme precision of objects having mass to move in a straight line. Nice one, Fool. You just contradicted Ward and agreed with me. You should read the threads more carefully. This certainly calls for the traditional Usenet ,"Bwahahahaha..." > Take wiki with a grain of salt, and ignore the trolls with initials > of "M".
From: John M. on 9 Dec 2008 11:53 On Dec 9, 10:34 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Dec 8, 11:19 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:22:33 -0800, John M. wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 11:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:32:30 -0800, John M. wrote: > > >> > On Dec 8, 10:21 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> >> What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences and > > >> >> resulting vertical convection? > > > >> > Coriolis. > > > >> I believe that just changes the apparent direction of an already > > >> existing horizontal movement. > > > > Only if the observer is not part of the rotating system. For the Earth's > > > surface, the atmosphere can be regarded as an observer who is in the > > > system. It "sees " i.e experiences a real force, just as child on a > > > merry-go-round feels a real, outward, centrifugal force opposite in > > > direction to that noted by someone watching the rotation happen. > > > >> Nice try, though. > > > > Now you need to rethink this comment, don't you? Or is it still too much > > > for you to admit to making mistakes? > > > Not my problem. You're projecting again: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force > > > "The surface of the Earth is a rotating reference frame. To solve > > classical mechanics problems exactly in an Earth-bound reference frame, > > two fictitious forces must be introduced, the Coriolis force and the > > centrifugal force (described below)." > > > Fictitious force == "Not real". Are you now going to claim wiki is wrong > > on something so simple and clear cut? Either way, the initial horizontal > > movement can't occur without some sort of convection driven force, so > > you're still lost in the woods > > Yes. Your interpretation of Wiki is hopelessly wrong in this case. Gives us additional confidence in Ward's other pronouncements - to whit, he's always wrong ;-(
From: John M. on 9 Dec 2008 12:03
On Dec 9, 3:58 pm, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 9 dec, 01:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > > On 8 dec, 05:42, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > >> In article <tqb3j4pmpsqj32hes94kb9pni1vaup6...(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool > > >> wrote: > > >> >bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > >> >>On 28 nov, 21:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > > >> >>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >> >>> >On 27 nov, 23:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > > >> >>> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >> >>> >> >On 27 nov, 02:59, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> "DeadFrog" <DeadF...(a)Virgin.net> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > >> > The CO2 spectra is mostly narrow spikes, and supposedly > > >> >those spikes are pretty much fixed to a certain range of temperatures, > > >> >show any reference that suggests otherwise. > > > >> The 15 um band of CO2 looks fairly broad here, comparable to the 2 > > >> broader water vapor bands at 6 and 2.5 um: > > > >>http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > > > > This spectrum covers a wide range of wavelengths, and doesn't ressolve the > > > rotational fine structure. > > > I've not had much luck finding spectra that do show the fine structure. > > > > The best I've been able to do is here > > > >http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/35_3_WASHINGT... > > > > and since the pdf was generated by scanning a printed document, the > > > figures at the end of the document are none too clear. > > > >> > Actually, water vapor is almost BB at certain temperatures, > > >> >that can't be said for CO2. > > > >> Water vapor has significant gaps. > > > >> Same source: > > >> http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > > > >> >>as it gets colder the number of phtotons emitted at shorter wavelegths > > >> >>goes down faster than the number emitted at longer wavelengths, which > > >> >>implies something rather from your "the frequency is determined by > > >> >>temperature". > > > >> > Exactly, so the net energy transfer is a function of relative > > >> >temperature differences, say it anyway you want, but 388 parts per > > >> >million is a very small amount. > > > > But quite enough to repeatedly absorb and re-emit all the radiation at the > > > CO2 wavelengths as it goes through the atmosphere. > > > Now what happens to the IR when it's absorbed? > > In the first instance, it raises the vibrational mode of the absorbing > molecule to the next vibrational quantum level and - almost always - > changes the rotational excitation. The extra energy gets redistributed > between vibrational, rotational and translational degrees of freedom > as soon as the molecule hits another, which happens pretty soon > (though sooner in the higher pressures of the lower atmosphere than in > the lower pressures and densities of the higher atmosphere) > > > It goes to heat. Heat convects. That "re-radiation" bit is bogus. > > Wrong.Every CO2 molecule in a first excited vibrational state has a > chance to decay to the ground state by emitting a photon. For the > asymmetric stretch and the bending mode the chance is high enough to > be important at every level in the atmosphere. At any temperature > above absolute zero there are always some molecules in the first > excited vibrational states (though the numbers drop rapidly with > decreasing temperature). > > Convection depends on the difference in densty between the warm gas > and its cooler neighbours, and ceases to be a significant mode of heat > transfer when the Raleigh number is less than 60, which it won't be > near and above the tropopause, where radiative heat transfer at the > CO2 spectral lines begins to get interesting > > >The gas is the same as any > > other, just warmer, and maintaining radiative equilibrium. I'm surprised > > you fell for that pinball explanation of radiative transport. IR travels > > at c. When it's converted to heat, it warms the gas, and allows > > convection to take place as soon as the lapse rate allows. > > The fact that you have difficulties with the "pinball" explanation of > radiative heat transfer reveals that you are no better equipped than > Whata Fool to understand the details of the greenhouse effect. > > > > One gram of potassium cyanide is only a small fraction of your body > > > weight - 14.3ppm - but it is more than enough to kill you rapidly. > > > Irrelevant, and a sure sign of desperation. > > No more irrelevant than Whata Fools complaint that 388ppm of carbon > dioxide in the atmosphere was not enough to do anything. By the same - > defective - logic 1 gram of potassium cyanide isn't enough to do > anything either. > > If you don't agree with the argument I'd suggest tht you try the > experiment. Whoops. Bill W. will now post a warning in capital letters to tell children not to try this at home, and berate you for publishing such a dangerous experiment ;-)) > Bear in mind that if Whata Fool's logic doesn't hold up, > you will end up dead. His misconceptions about the effects of > greenhouse gases could be equally lethal, if taken seriously though > the deaths won't start happening for a couple of centuries. There are those who say the deaths are already occurring. Certain tropical diseases are spreading latitudinally, and though this could be due to more movement by the human vector of the diseases, there are parallel examples in more easily studied fauna (and flora). |