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: Whata Fool on 9 Dec 2008 16:02 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In article <nb99j49210h2hir127luhvf7fh57u6jg4k(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >>don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> >>>In article <492d7873$0$87074$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net>, Al Bedo wrote: >>>>bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>>[regarding orbital variation with feedback] >>>> >>>>> The point is that we need a healthy dose of positive feedback to make >>>>> the explanation work and similar positive feedback mechanisms could >>>>> turn today's barely significant global warming into an end-Permian >>>>> style global extinction. It isn't a high probability scenario, but we >>>>> are taling about the only planet we've got. >>>> >>>>So what feedback are you suggesting? >>>> >>>>Not ice/albedo feedback of the glacials since that ice >>>>extended to mid-latitudes where there was enough insolation >>>>to matter. >>> >>> Insolation at even the North Pole in late spring is very significant. >>>Have a look at 1366 watts times sine of 23 degrees, 24 hours a day. And >>>only 2.35 times as much atmosphere to go through as when sun is at zenith. >>> Ice melt in the Arctic matters a lot in the second half of spring and >>>the first half of summer. >>> >>> The Antarctic also has seasonal sea ice - though more stable than that >>>of the Arctic, since minimum late summer extent of Antarctic sea ice is >>>close to nonexistent. Changes in Arctic sea ice carry into the next year. >>> >>>>Not water vapor feedback because that doesn't seem to be occurring. >>> >>> It did as the Ice Ages surged and ebbed. The thermal time constant of >>>the oceans is a century or two - I think a degree rise sustained for a few >>>decades will produce a measurable increase in atmospheric water vapor >>>worldwide. >>> >>>>What then? >>> >>> Both those, along with ability of oceans to dissolve CO2 decreasing as >>>they warm. Add up those 3 positive feedbacks, and their combined effect >>>to amplify effects of the Milankovitch cycles was apparently great. >>> >>><SNIP from here> >>> >>> - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) >> >> The oceans don't need to dissolve CO2 to remove it from the air, >>there is enough carbonate life and algae to handle pretty much all that >>man is releasing. > > Provided biomass and carbonates are actually increasing. Acid rain >actually turns carbonates to CO2 and salts, and I don't see much evidence >that biomass is increasing - more like a little of the reverse due to >greater harvesting and burning. > >> If forests were harvested before they burn, it could help a lot, >>and when/if ethanol or butanol or biodiesel is made from cellulose, that >>will help. >> >> Every little thing can help, and an important one is battery and >>ultracapacitor technology for electric cars. >> >> As if a mere 388 parts per million could make a big difference. :-) > > We're worrying for one thing about what happens if continued burning of >fossil fuels gets that up to 500 ppm or more. CO2 has weak but >very slightly significant absorption features at wavelengths where thermal >IR from Earth's surface is great and where water vapor does not absorb >much. Making those stronger does not look like a good thing now. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) Same here, it is already too cold.
From: Whata Fool on 9 Dec 2008 16:47 Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Dec 8, 8:03 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >On Dec 8, 8:52 am, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >> d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> >> >> >In <pan.2008.12.03.05.51.11.802...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,B. Ward wrote: >> >> >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.26.21.52.54.243...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> >> >>> said: >> >> >>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:52:48 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >> ><I snip to edit for space arbitrarily on level of quotation/citation, >> >> >without snipping perfectly accurately on basis of degree of quotation> >> >> >> >>>>> Don't be silly. I was being rude about the phrase "water and water >> >> >>>>> vapor IR radiation plus phase change _moderate_ the temperature" which >> >> >>>>> is total nonsense, as the Venus example demonstrates. >> >> >> >>>>> You also need to apologse for not knowing what you are talking about. >> >> >> >>>>>> Just say how N2 and O2 could cool after daytime heating and >> >> >>>>>> I will go away. >> >> >> >>>>> They emit and absorb in the infra-red just like water and carbon >> >> >>>>> dioxide; because they are symmetrical molecules the transitions are >> >> >>>>> forbidden, but pressure broadening/intermolecular collisions means that >> >> >>>>> the transitions happen anyway, albeit much less often than with >> >> >>>>> asymmetrical molecules. >> >> >> >>>>I think we need a link for that. It would mean N2 and O2 are GHGs. >> >> >> >>> I suspect to some extremely slight extent they actually are. >> >> >> >>Can you tell us why you suspect that? Perhaps a link to some data? >> >> >> > On that point, I am feeling challenged to find links supporting a >> >> >contention that N2 and O2 have IR absorption spectrum features having any >> >> >significance at "earthly temperatures". >> >> >> > Considering only global average surface temperature of 288-289 K, a >> >> >blackbody has spectral power distribution over 1% of peak over >> >> >wavelengths from about 3.4 um to about 66 um. >> >> >> > Going so far as .1% of peak spectral power distribution of a 288 K >> >> >blackbody, the wavelength range is about 2.95 um to close to 100 um. >> >> >> > Source: The "blackbody formula". >> >> >> > I have strong doubt that the massive amounts of O2 and N2 in the >> >> >atmosphere completely lack any infrared spectral features in or shortly >> >> >outside such a range. >> >> >> ><SNIP from here on basis of low level of content to show as quoted less >> >> >than twice> >> >> >> > - Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) >> >> >> The N2 and O2 in the atmosphere are not dry. N2 would have very >> >> little infr-red if dry, and O2 would probably have a little more, but not >> >> worth mention, and definitely not enough to mean that the N2 and O2 in >> >> the Earth's atmosphere could cool themselves without GHGs. >> >> >> (without getting a lot warmer than present).- Hide quoted text - >> >> >Utter and unmitigated bullshit!! >> >> >A pure N2 and O2 atmosphere would develop strong winds of the type >> >seen on the gas giants driven by the temperature and pressure >> >differentials on the night and daytime sides of the planet. The >> >atmosphere would lose heat by winds blowing from the cold regions at >> >the anti-solar point to the warm sunny side. Where the air would take >> >heat from the hot surface and rise genrating a circulation pattern. >> >The surface gets to radiate IR away easily at night since we have >> >already established that to a very good approximation they are >> >transparent to IR. >> >> Try to break away from the myth, if you really believe the >> above show some math with wind velocity, distance traveled in the >> half day periods, and explain how to get the hot N2 to contact the >> ground or colder N2 that would hug the ground. > >There will be the hottest ground and hot N2 rising from it soon after >the sun has passed directly overhead and the coldest ground at the >poles with a second cold band just before dawn on the night side of >the planet. The overall circulation would probably be similar to >Earths for a similar choice of planet weight, day length and position. > >http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/global/circ.htm > >Strongest daily winds would be across the dawn terminator where the >temperature gradient is at its most extreme. > >Jestreams can manage quite respectable speeds of the order of 300km/hr >on Earth and they would probably be faster still on a planet that >lacks any GHGs and so supports a larger temperature differential. >> >> Regardless of how much cooling there would be, the N2 temperature >> would be higher than at present. >> >> A link to any study of the scenario would help erase the myth. > >No one else in the world shares your delusions about GHGs. Not even >other AGW sceptics. > >Regards, >Martin Brown Unfortunately, and you are very closed minded not to work through the exercise, the atmosphere temperatures would not fluctuate much from day to day with no GHGs, there would be very little cooling, is there a planet with a gaseous atmosphere but no GHGs? Even with wind at the speed of sound there is no way to circulate warm air to the poles or to the surface at night, the distances are too great, and too much volume that needs contact the surface to cool. So GHGs must cool the atmosphere.
From: V for Vendicar on 9 Dec 2008 17:39 "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > Chaos theory is relevant in that it proves mathematically that you can't > predict climate with any model, no matter how much history you have. The > prediction will soon rapidly diverge from the signal. The earth's orbit is also chaotic. By your KKKonservative logic, that means that it's position can not be predicted by any model. Yet astronomers have been doing it with precision for hundreds of years, and recently with extreme precision for 200 years, and most recently with hyper-preicsion for the last 100 years. Ward = MMMMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
From: John M. on 9 Dec 2008 17:39 On Dec 9, 8:25 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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. Well, you failed the Feynman test. I'm actually not too surprised. Pieces of dried nose excreta like you don't usually cut the mustard when it comes to the reality check. > 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. Got yourself in a real bind this time, eh. Even Whata Fool ridiculed your fictitious forces. Still, obfuscation and dissembling always works, even for dessicated snot.
From: V for Vendicar on 9 Dec 2008 17:42
"Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > Nope. Read the wiki below. Attractors may be limited to specific regions > in phase space, but that doesn't make them predictable. If they aren't predictable then they aren't attractors - by definition. Bill Ward = MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOONNNNNNNNN "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > Nope. Chaotic means prediction errors accumulate exponentially. And yet still orbit a stable attractor. The position is weather. The attractor is Climate. Denialist Bill Ward will always be clueless. |