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: V for Vendicar on 9 Dec 2008 17:47 >> If you want to predict events around 100 million year ahead (some twenty >> time longer than the solar system has existed so far) the chaotic nature >> of the system of equations does make life difficult, but for all >> practical >> purposes you can set your clock by this "unpredictable" system (and we >> did >> just that until quite recently). "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > Irrelevant. Actually it's a complete contradiction of your claimed position. Ward = MMMMMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNN "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > It's not a specious argument, it's a mathematically proven fact. In a > chaotic system, predictions will exponentially diverge from reality. Well - no. You don't have that right either. An N body problem can be completely chaotic, and yet contain insufficient energy for any of those bodies from escaping from the system. So there is a limit to how far wrong any prediction can be of the position of any or all of the bodies in the system. And of course, the center of mass never changes. So if you are going to predict the weather (body position) then it is constrained. And if you are going to predict the climate (center of mss), it is immutable. Ward = MMMMMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNN
From: V for Vendicar on 9 Dec 2008 17:59 "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > No, not exactly. The prediction error accumulates. A dripping faucet can be chaotic in terms of the timing between drips. However the interval between the drip rates is constrained by the rate of flow of water such that the average flow os maintained. An exponeintial divergence fom the avearage drip rate is quite impossible.since there can not be an infinite separateion in time between two drips. Bill Ward = MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNN
From: Bill Ward on 9 Dec 2008 18:10 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:26:27 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > 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, It's radiating to space. It may take a while, but it really has no choice. Heat can't go against a temperature gradient unless it's pumped, and the surface is warmer than the tropopause. > 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? Anything below the dew point?
From: Whata Fool on 9 Dec 2008 19:14 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:26:27 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> I'm not sure where Bill thinks the latent heat goes, > >It's radiating to space. It may take a while, but it really has no >choice. Heat can't go against a temperature gradient unless it's pumped, >and the surface is warmer than the tropopause. Ok, but the latent heat ends up in the surrounding air, eventually being absorbed by GHGs and radiated away. There is no doubt a lot of activity within clouds, with latent heat warming surrounding air and cold precipitate cooling water vapor. >> 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? > >Anything below the dew point? Not the portion that already made it to cloud altitudes.
From: Martin Brown on 10 Dec 2008 04:15
On Dec 9, 9:47 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)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: > >> >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. > > 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? No. Even your putative N2 O2 mix would quickly acquire NOx and O3. Although to a fair approximation the higher levels of the gas giants atmospheres are pretty close to GHG free with H2 and He. They support jet stream winds that are close to 1000mph. Neptune currently holds the record with speeds of 1500mph observed. > > 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. It doesn't need to do it in a single day. The net circulation just has to carry heat from the hot to the cold regions continuously and it will do that so long as there is a temperature difference to drive it. Exact details depend on the rate of rotation of the planet and its orbital inclination and eccentricity. The main difference between a GHG and a diatomic molecule for the purposes of the atmospheric circulation is that the value of gamma for adiabats will differ. The heat carrying capacity of GHG at ~300K through being triatomic would be higher than for diatomic species but in trace amounts that would not make a big difference. Obviously on Venus the presence of a very dense atmosphere saturated with CO2 tends to suggest that your "physics" is complete and utter unmitigated bullshit. > > So GHGs must cool the atmosphere. Clueless non-sequitor. If you wish to make this ridiculous claim then it is encumbent on you to prove it using physics. Your assertion has absolutlely no basis in fact or the physics of the atmosphere. Regards, Martin Brown |