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 9 Dec 2008 13:35 On 9 dec, 01:03, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:07:21 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > On 8 dec, 01:29, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Whata Fool wrote: > > >> > Q <q...(a)universe.com> wrote: > > >> > >Whata Fool wrote: > >> > >> I would like to agree with GISS, but every error and other > >> > >> embarrassment causes a loss of confidence. > > >> > >There is no error in GISS, the only error is in the brains of those > >> > >who deny anthropogenic global warming. AGW is real, get used to it. > > >> > >Q > > >> > Oh, it sure is, 20 degrees below normal, that is real > >> > "warming". > > >> The only thing that is warming, is the red necks of the AWG crowd, > >> from their excessive arrogance. > > > Michael A. Terrell suffers from the arrogant misapprehension that he > > understands enough about anthropogenic global warming to pick winners and > > losers in the "debate". People who do know what they are talking about do > > tend to sound arrogant when they are correcting the foolish errors of > > people who don't, but simple fact is that Bill Ward, Whata Fool and > > Eeeyore don't know what they are talking about, and are ignoring the > > evidence that should make it clear to them that they should have learnt a > > bit more about the subject before making up their minds. > > And Sloman can't coherently explain his position when questioned. Bill Ward sees coherence in his own nonsense and fails to see it elsewhere. Psychiatrists call it narcissism. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 9 Dec 2008 13:47 On 9 dec, 05:20, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:01:36 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > 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> > >> 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 Bill Ward should have read a little further down the page before he posted the URL "Actually, the Santa Anas develop when the desert is cold, and are thus most common during the cool season stretching from October through March. High pressure builds over the Great Basin (e.g., Nevada) and the cold air there begins to sink. However, this air is forced downslope which compresses and warms it at a rate of about 10C per kilometer (29F per mile) of descent. As its temperature rises, the relative humidity drops; the air starts out dry and winds up at sea level much drier still. The air picks up speed as it is channeled through passes and canyons." So the air that is descending is colder than the air it replaces., as should have been obvious to Whata Fool and Bill Ward. I may be embarassed for them .... -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 9 Dec 2008 13:58 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:58:26 -0800, bill.sloman 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) Which means it's converted to heat. Using more words doesn't change that fact. >> 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). That's not "re-radiation", it's just radiation. Any CO2 will behave the same way. Heating by absorbing IR is no different than heating by any other means. You just end up with warmer gas, however you heat it. Or are you claiming some kind of delayed fluorescence effect at 15u? That seems unlikely under the conditions involved. You need to show a link, if you can't explain it. > 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 We're interested in convecting heat below the tropopause, not above. There's an inversion there, remember? Above the tropopause, CO2 has a cooling effect. >>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. Your attempts to confuse are failing. I've exposed many BSers who were a lot better at it than you are. Your giveaway is that instead of simplifying your explanations to help someone understand, you try to complicate and intimidate. That won't work now. >> > 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. 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. That seems to be your logic, not whatta's. You still need to come up with a lucid explanation of your position on IR heating.
From: Bill Ward on 9 Dec 2008 14:25 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:28:38 -0800, John M. wrote: > 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. Why would I need to rebut a non-responsive "answer"? You never addressed the original question, and simply tried to divert into the pointless, never ending discussion of the reality of fictitious forces. Were you a sophomore, I might understand that, but you're supposed to be a big boy now. It's OK not to know the answer to a question. Just don't post nonsense and embarrass yourself further.
From: Bill Ward on 9 Dec 2008 14:46
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:27:59 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 9 dec, 01:13, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:12:29 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > On 8 dec, 01:44, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >On 7 dec, 22:56, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >> >> Q <q...(a)universe.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Whata Fool wrote: >> >> >> >> I would like to agree with GISS, but every error and >> >> >> >> other embarrassment causes a loss of confidence. >> >> >> >> >There is no error in GISS, the only error is in the brains of >> >> >> >those who deny anthropogenic global warming. AGW is real, get >> >> >> >used to it. >> >> >> >> >Q >> >> >> >> Oh, it sure is, 20 degrees below normal, that is real >> >> >> "warming". >> >> >> >As "Bill Ward" keeps reminding us, weather is chaotic, and your >> >> >twenty degrees below normal is just a random excursion from the >> >> >rising trend - 0.8C over a hundred years hasn't been all that >> >> >noticeable. >> >> >> And that should make me feel warm all over? >> >> > Obviously not, but it ought to discourage you from coupling you >> > understandable unhappiness with the weather to your misguided >> > scepticism about anthropogenic global warming. >> >> Skepticism can never be "misguided". That's reserved for those who >> believe things they can't explain. >> >> >> With the record high here for this date being 70 F, and the >> >> record low here for this date being -6 F, that -.8 degrees C really >> >> makes a big difference. >> >> >> The only result is my heating bill for the day being about >> >> double the usual amount for this date. >> >> >> I can't afford Global Warming. >> >> > None of us can - though it is the next generation who will see the >> > real costs - but denying that it is happening won't make it go away, >> > and helps delay the work that is necessary to slow it down to a >> > sustainable level. >> >> Believing in things you don't understand is the province of religion, >> not science. > > Since you clearly don't understand the subject you are indulging in > proslytising. I don't understand a lot more, but I do understand enough to > appreciate when I'm out of my depth, which means that I can legitimately > claim to be defending the science involved. > >> When you consider skeptics heretics instead of potential >> converts, you've moved on past modern religion to culthood. > > I'm sure that You and Whata Fool could learn enough about the subject to > get a proper appreciation of what was going on if you hadn't managed to > acquire a significant number of false ideas that I've failed to shake > loose. > > I'm sure that you are still potential educatable, but I'm obviously not > good enough at education to get you over the first - big - hurdle, which > is to entertain the idea that your current understanding is inadequate. > > Trained scientists spend a lot of their time doing just that. Every now > and then it pays off. > > The religious approach is rather different. > > Incidentally, if you want to see something of the nuts and bolts of a > computer model of the atmosphere - the kind you consider futile because > "chaotic systems are unpredictable" even though we do seem to be able to > predict the positions so the planets accurately enough for all practical > purposes - you could take a look at > > http://www.pnas.org/content/105/46/17614.abstract > > Downloading the full text costs money - I got it by another route. > > The text mentions that the individual cells are big - of the order of 100 > to 200km per side for climate simulations, and goes on to explain how the > authors contribution is to allow the cell to switch between three states That's really not very good resolution for convection cells of only a few kilometers. > - a dry regime with "weak or no cumulus friction", favoured for dry > environments regardless of shear > > - an upright convection regime with stronger cumulus friction, faovured > for moist, weakly sheared environments > > - a squall line regime with intense convective momentum transfer either > upscale or downscale depending on the shear, favoured for moist sheared > enviroments > > It is put forward as a computationally cheaper variant on mixing > entrainment models of convective momentum transfer which require > computationally expensvie pressure calculations, but have shown some > success in modelling the El Nino southern oscillation and the Hadley > circulation Big whoopee. The ENSO and Hadley cells are global, they've shown "some success" in modeling them, and I'm supposed to be impressed? If it weren't so expensive, it would be kind of funny to see people trying to predict chaos by looking at history. The stock market warning says it best, "Warning - past performance is no indication of future behavior". |