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 14:49 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:35:20 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Yet Sloman can't logically rebut, resorting instead to ad hominem comments and attempted intimidation.
From: Bill Ward on 9 Dec 2008 15:02 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:47:42 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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 .... The "hot air descending" bit is yours. Own it. Whatta didn't say it. Try paying attention to what he actually said. Then you can use that embarrassment on yourself. Some of the hottest days here in the SoCal desert region where I live are indeed due to the Santa Ana wind being compressed as it descends from the desert out to the ocean.
From: Whata Fool on 9 Dec 2008 15:26 don(a)manx.misty.com (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.  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.  It's still rising, and the resistance is >>>>>> decreased.  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. I'm not sure where Bill thinks the latent heat goes, but if the water vapor condenses in or near the top of a cloud, all the latent heat goes to warming the air that cooled it enough to condense, or if cold black sky caused the water vapor to condense, the latent heat goes to the surrounding air any way. Latent heat doesn't end up warming a surface does it, what kind of surface would be cool enough to condense water vapor other than the inside of windows?
From: Whata Fool on 9 Dec 2008 15:51 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In article <7gpgj495m2jks6qhj2vu6boee3h4p3hflb(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >>Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > ><And I snip to that point> > >>>The context is cooling of the stratosphere by CO2. Explain the >>>significance of your comment. >> >> Please say it isn't so, CO2 cooling the atmosphere is a horror, >>because there is and will be more CO2 all the time. >> >> With temperatures running 15 degrees below normal every day, >>and more snow cover than seen in 10 years, any additional cooling >>of the atmosphere is the horror, not Hawaii weather in Paris. > > GHGs cool the stratosphere and warm the lower troposphere and warm the >surface. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) I see no way GHGs warm any part of the atmosphere more than it would be without GHGs. The N2 and O2 would be heated by contact and convection, plus some solar visible and UV if there were no GHGs. But without GHGs, the atmosphere would not absorb IR, so would not be heated by GHGs, and while the surface may not get as cold as it would without GHGs, it also does't get as warm as it would without water. I suppose it is too much to ask a trained person to think in terms other than they do in their profession, is there such a thing as a "theoretical climatologist"?
From: Whata Fool on 9 Dec 2008 16:01
don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In article <p2kgj4ppvnkeocqk0ddfqqclh7avkp0u67(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >>bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >>>On 4 dec, 13:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >>>> Â Â Â Not only that, but just the cooling of the solid surface by the >>>> air in early morning and evaporation of the dew or frost may be a lot >>>> more than the "forcing" averaged over 24 hours. >>> >>>All of which happens well below the effective emitting altitude, and >>>is consequently irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. > > That is still radiational cooling. Adding GHGs increases the amount of >absorptions/reradiations for radiated heat to escape from surface to >space, and that will reduce radiational cooling of the surface. > >> The real "greenhouse effect" is in the energy transferred to the >>N2 and O2 by convection with the surface, and on the planet with GHGs, >>by molecular collisions with them. > > Yes indeed, effect of GHGs is to warm the N2 and O2 in the lower >troposphere by warming the lower troposphere, and to cool the N2 and O2 in >the stratosphere by cooling the stratosphere. > ><SNIP beyone here to edit for space> > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) Other than convection with the surface, the only way GHGs can cool the lower troposphere N2 and O2 is to warm the GHGs there. I repeat, my exercise is about what the temperature of the N2 and O2 would be without GHGs (and no water), compared with now. And isn't it clear and logical that whatever way the GHGs move the temperature in the case of the present GHG and water concentration, more GHGs would move it a little further. The conclusion seems to be that GHGs cool the atmosphere, and more GHGs would cool it a little more. |