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 10 Dec 2008 09:58 On 9 dec, 18:20, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:33:06 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In <pan.2008.12.02.04.09.57.211...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > > wrote: > >>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:14:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > >>> In <pan.2008.11.23.15.47.04.647...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > >>> wrote in part: > > >>>>Wrong fiasco. I meant this one: > > >>>>http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm > >>> <SNIP> > >>>>Here's the original, with graphics: > > >>>>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf > > >>>>> but subsequent observations doesn't suggest that it is to slowing > >>>>> down any more. > > >>>>> Do try to get your facts right. > > >>>>Right about now, you should be feeling a bit foolish. > > >>> Check out HadCRUT-3v - good enough for The Register! > > >>> Graph: > > >>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm > > >>> Data in text form: > > >>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt > > >>It's all depends on how you pick your data: > > >>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG > > > Eeyore likes to post that one as a binary attachment in this newsgroup > > (though I'm not saying that's where he got it from). The paper it comes > > from has a link to the data in text form for that one - ending with 1980. > > > The paper that comes from also has a "corrected global temperature > > reconstruction" ending much earlier - I forget for the moment whether 1920 > > or 1930. Splice HadCRUT-3 global or HadCRUT-3v global (smoothed) onto > > that at any year covered by both Loehle's "corrected global temperature > > reconstruction" and HadCVRUT and it looks like we are now warmer than peak > > of MWP. > > >>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2400 > > > Points to Loehle. > > http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4475 > > This is also kind of interesting. > > ClimateAudit seems a bit more credible to me than RealClimate for some > reason. Steve McIntyre is your kind of nut - much better educated, but just as persuaded that anthropogenic global warming isn't real. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto.He studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford.He worked in hard-rock mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. Which is to say that he doesn't have any formal training in climatolgy or physics. He does seem to have enough sense not to say stupid things about stuff he doesn't understand, buts he does have a long history of going after minor imperfections in climatorlogical reasearch papers - most famously Mann's "hockey stick" curve - and claiming the these minor imperfections invalidate the research as a whole. The Exxon-Mobil funded anti-global-warming websites love him, and still claim that the "hockey stick" was discredited, despite the fact that everybody who has published on the subject since then has come up with the same sort of curve. Eeyore is going to quote Loehle at me,despite the fact that Loehle's reconstruction now stops in 1935, conveniently missing almost all of the blade of the hickey stick, but Eeyore gets his ammunition from web- sites funded by Exxon-Mobil and similar vested interests, and doesnn't to realise that he's firing blanks. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 10 Dec 2008 11:57 On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:04:05 -0800, John M. wrote: > On Dec 4, 4:04 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> > On 3 dec, 19:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> > On 2 dec, 02:54, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:40:46 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> >> >> >> > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> The bottom line is that _IF_ N2 and O2 can't cool >> >> >> >> >>> without GreenHouse Gases, then the atmosphere would be >> >> >> >> >>> warmer than now, meaning the present GreenHouse Gas theory >> >> >> >> >>> is faulty, as the basis was a comparison of Earth and moon >> >> >> >> >>> temperatures. >> >> >> >> >> >>> So when will somebody start thinking, rethink the >> >> >> >> >>> basics, and concede that GreenHouse Gases cool the >> >> >> >> >>> atmosphere? >> >> >> >> >> >>I think they do, but in the process, they keep the surface >> >> >> >> >>from cooling as fast as it would otherwise. >> >> >> >> >> > Does GISS use surface temperatures for anything? >> >> >> >> >> > The temperature of the air is the big factor, think of >> >> >> >> > your windshield on a summer night and a winter night with the >> >> >> >> > same humidity. >> >> >> >> >> > And it is the N2 and O2 that hold most of the thermal >> >> >> >> > energy. >> >> >> >> >> > While radiation is clearly the mechanism for cooling >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > Earth, the amount of sideways radiation warming/cooling of >> >> >> >> > the atmosphere has not been shown to be as active as the >> >> >> >> > vertical radiation claimed. >> >> >> >> >> > With all the resources available, there just hasn't >> >> >> >> > been >> >> >> >> > the documentation of things like horizontal radiation. >> >> >> >> >> > The amount of effort in computer models and averaging >> >> >> >> > numbers is lopsided compared to the testing of assumptions. >> >> >> >> >> That's for sure! >> >> >> >> >> They went for the details before they really understand the >> >> >> >> basics. >> >> >> >> > This from someone who thinks that a chaotic system always >> >> >> > generates 1/ f noise in any frequency band, ignoring the obvious >> >> >> > fact that the solar system is chaotic, which doesn't prevent the >> >> >> > sun from coming up at a predictable time every day. >> >> >> >> And obviously Sloman has no idea what a corner frequency is. >> >> >> >> Maybe this will help: >> >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-off_frequency >> >> >> > Since it doesn't mention 1/f noise, it represents just one more >> >> > case of Bill Ward trying to look clever by citing stuff he doesn't >> >> > understand. >> >> >> The 1/f was yours. I don't remember mentioning it, but it is a good >> >> example of the limitations involved in trying to filter noise out of >> >> signals: >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise >> >> >> "Interestingly, there is no known lower bound to pink noise in >> >> electronics. Measurements made down to 10-6 Hz (taking several weeks) >> >> have not shown a ceasing of pink-noise behaviour.[citation needed] >> >> Therefore one could state that in electronics, noise can be pink down >> >> to ƒ1 = 1/T where T is the time the device is switched on." >> >> >> In physics, it goes back to the big bang. >> >> >> And of course, it doesn't change the fact you can't filter out chaos. >> >> Try reading the filter link for content, or look deeper into chaos >> >> theory. It's quite interesting. >> >> > Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate >> > modelling over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are interested. >> >> 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. >> >> > You can't see 1/f noise when it is swamped by good old white noise, >> > right down to the 1/f noise corner frequency. In the solar system >> > everything looks like clockwork for the first few tens of millions of >> > years. >> >> You still can't seem to keep your stories straight. Above you >> complained I was "ignoring the obvious fact that the solar system is >> chaotic", now you seem to be denying it. It is, has always been, and >> always will be, chaotic. So is weather and climate. The time scales >> are different, which you don't seem to understand. >> >> > The climate records over the last million years also look pretty >> > regular - Milankovich cycles don't look like a drunkards walk or 1/f >> > noise - and your invocation of chaos still looks exactly like a loser >> > retreating in a cloud of obfustication. >> >> The Milankovich cycles are part of the solar system, chaotic on very >> long time scales. Weather is chaotic, with a much shorter time scale. >> The M cycles modulate the weather, and the result can be lowpassed down >> to "climate" to ignore the short time fluctuations, but it's still >> chaotic and can't be predicted. >> >> Trends mean nothing in chaotic systems. All you can know is that the >> signal will change slope, not when or how much. >> >> Maybe this will help: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory > > A useful link. It deals with the very reasons why a chaotic system doesn't > necessarily become unpredictable, but may be accurately forecast at some > level or other. > > Unfortunately it's a wiki, material which Ward has already personally > denounced as undependable. One therefore wonders why he quotes Wikipedia > all the time. That's easy. Because Morgan apparently can't follow anything more complex. For example, even in the wiki, he can't quote any part where it says chaotic behavior can be predicted. He just makes the statement, hoping he can bluff his way through. He's a slow learner. Here's what it says: "Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period (at most)." That's not "accurate forecasting".
From: Bill Ward on 10 Dec 2008 12:13 On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:25:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 9 dec, 18:07, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:26:15 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> > In <pan.2008.12.01.17.08.14.877...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> > wrote: >> >>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:29:43 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> >>> In article <pan.2008.11.27.18.38.37.222...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, >> >>> Bill Ward wrote: > > <snip> > >> > GHG presence in Earth's atmosphere is great enough for radiation >> > from the surface to often be absorbed and re-emitted a few times >> > before getting to outer space. At night, radiation is largely how >> > the surface cools. Increasing GHGs will increase the number of times >> > radiation will be absorbed and re-emitted before getting to space, >> > with more chances for the radiation to be re-radiated downward. >> > Increase of GHGs will impede radiational cooling of the surface, and >> > make the surface get a warmer head start for the next day. >> >> I think that is one of the major sources of confusion, and needs to be >> explained. Assume a layer of pure CO2 at some temperature, in a stable >> non-turbulent atmosphere. Illuminate it with in-band IR from the >> bottom and watch what happens. The lower layer will absorb the IR, and >> get warmer. The hot gas will convect up and share it's energy with other >> CO2 molecules. At equilibrium, the layer of CO2 will be warmer, and, >> as all warm CO2 will do, radiating IR from the top at the new >> temperature. What goes on radiatively (or convectively) inside the gas >> is immaterial. It's just hot gas. It doesn't know or care how it was >> heated. > > You miss the point that the top of the CO2 layer is going to be cooler > than the bottom. Where there's an energetically significant difference in > pressure between the top and the bottom (as there is in the troposphere) > you can rely on non-radiative mechanisms to maintain this difference. That would be convection, as I mentioned. > The CO2 molecules at the bottom of the layer are radiating at the > intensity and energy distribution across the active lines in the spectrum > that matches the higher temperature at the bottom of the layer. > > By the time the radiation has been absrobed and re-emitted a couple of > times on the way up, it has been re-emitted from cooler molecules, and > there's less of it - as you have pointed out, the power radiated per > molecule (and there are fewer of them at the top of the layer) is > proportional to the fourth power of temperature, and more is being emitted > at longer wavelengths. > >> EM travels at c. It doesn't matter how many times it's "absorbed and >> re-radiated", it still just heats the gas. The only way energy can be >> "trapped" in the gas is to raise it's temperature. > > Half the re-radiated energy goes back the way it came, Every time a photon > is absorbed - as opposed to scattered - the energy is distributed amongst > all the degrees of freedom available to the molecule, including rotation > and translation. All of this means that the infra-red radiation coming out > of the top of the layer carries aappreciably less energy than the > infra-red radiation that was absorbed at the bottom of the layer. Do you have some waiver freeing you from the conservation of energy? I specified "at equilibrium". It seems to me that guarantees the incoming and outgoing energy is equal. >> Now if I have any major misconceptions about IR and CO2, I'm sure >> you'll take this opportunity to straighten me out. > To try an straighten you out ... Where did the missing energy go?
From: Bill Ward on 10 Dec 2008 12:20 On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:39:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 9 dec, 21:02, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:47:42 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > 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. > > But it wouldn't be descending if the air is was dispalcing wasn't even > hotter. You are confusing cause and effect. No, you're not reading what whatta actually said: "the highest desert record temperatures occur because of descending air...". You read what you wish he'd said. Look at it again. There's nothing about why the air is descending. Be embarrassed, it'll do you good.
From: John M. on 10 Dec 2008 12:26
On Dec 10, 5:57 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:04:05 -0800, John M. wrote: > > On Dec 4, 4:04 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> > On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> >> > On 3 dec, 19:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> >> > On 2 dec, 02:54, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:40:46 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > >> >> >> >> > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>> The bottom line is that _IF_ N2 and O2 can't cool > >> >> >> >> >>> without GreenHouse Gases, then the atmosphere would be > >> >> >> >> >>> warmer than now, meaning the present GreenHouse Gas theory > >> >> >> >> >>> is faulty, as the basis was a comparison of Earth and moon > >> >> >> >> >>> temperatures. > > >> >> >> >> >>> So when will somebody start thinking, rethink the > >> >> >> >> >>> basics, and concede that GreenHouse Gases cool the > >> >> >> >> >>> atmosphere? > > >> >> >> >> >>I think they do, but in the process, they keep the surface > >> >> >> >> >>from cooling as fast as it would otherwise. > > >> >> >> >> > Does GISS use surface temperatures for anything? > > >> >> >> >> > The temperature of the air is the big factor, think of > >> >> >> >> > your windshield on a summer night and a winter night with the > >> >> >> >> > same humidity. > > >> >> >> >> > And it is the N2 and O2 that hold most of the thermal > >> >> >> >> > energy. > > >> >> >> >> > While radiation is clearly the mechanism for cooling > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > Earth, the amount of sideways radiation warming/cooling of > >> >> >> >> > the atmosphere has not been shown to be as active as the > >> >> >> >> > vertical radiation claimed. > > >> >> >> >> > With all the resources available, there just hasn't > >> >> >> >> > been > >> >> >> >> > the documentation of things like horizontal radiation. > > >> >> >> >> > The amount of effort in computer models and averaging > >> >> >> >> > numbers is lopsided compared to the testing of assumptions. > > >> >> >> >> That's for sure! > > >> >> >> >> They went for the details before they really understand the > >> >> >> >> basics. > > >> >> >> > This from someone who thinks that a chaotic system always > >> >> >> > generates 1/ f noise in any frequency band, ignoring the obvious > >> >> >> > fact that the solar system is chaotic, which doesn't prevent the > >> >> >> > sun from coming up at a predictable time every day. > > >> >> >> And obviously Sloman has no idea what a corner frequency is. > > >> >> >> Maybe this will help: > > >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-off_frequency > > >> >> > Since it doesn't mention 1/f noise, it represents just one more > >> >> > case of Bill Ward trying to look clever by citing stuff he doesn't > >> >> > understand. > > >> >> The 1/f was yours. I don't remember mentioning it, but it is a good > >> >> example of the limitations involved in trying to filter noise out of > >> >> signals: > > >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise > > >> >> "Interestingly, there is no known lower bound to pink noise in > >> >> electronics. Measurements made down to 10-6 Hz (taking several weeks) > >> >> have not shown a ceasing of pink-noise behaviour.[citation needed] > >> >> Therefore one could state that in electronics, noise can be pink down > >> >> to 1 = 1/T where T is the time the device is switched on." > > >> >> In physics, it goes back to the big bang. > > >> >> And of course, it doesn't change the fact you can't filter out chaos. > >> >> Try reading the filter link for content, or look deeper into chaos > >> >> theory. It's quite interesting. > > >> > Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate > >> > modelling over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are interested. > > >> 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. > > >> > You can't see 1/f noise when it is swamped by good old white noise, > >> > right down to the 1/f noise corner frequency. In the solar system > >> > everything looks like clockwork for the first few tens of millions of > >> > years. > > >> You still can't seem to keep your stories straight. Above you > >> complained I was "ignoring the obvious fact that the solar system is > >> chaotic", now you seem to be denying it. It is, has always been, and > >> always will be, chaotic. So is weather and climate. The time scales > >> are different, which you don't seem to understand. > > >> > The climate records over the last million years also look pretty > >> > regular - Milankovich cycles don't look like a drunkards walk or 1/f > >> > noise - and your invocation of chaos still looks exactly like a loser > >> > retreating in a cloud of obfustication. > > >> The Milankovich cycles are part of the solar system, chaotic on very > >> long time scales. Weather is chaotic, with a much shorter time scale. > >> The M cycles modulate the weather, and the result can be lowpassed down > >> to "climate" to ignore the short time fluctuations, but it's still > >> chaotic and can't be predicted. > > >> Trends mean nothing in chaotic systems. All you can know is that the > >> signal will change slope, not when or how much. > > >> Maybe this will help: > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory > > > A useful link. It deals with the very reasons why a chaotic system doesn't > > necessarily become unpredictable, but may be accurately forecast at some > > level or other. > > > Unfortunately it's a wiki, material which Ward has already personally > > denounced as undependable. One therefore wonders why he quotes Wikipedia > > all the time. > > That's easy. Because Morgan apparently can't follow anything more complex. > > For example, even in the wiki, he can't quote any part where it says > chaotic behavior can be predicted. He just makes the statement, hoping he > can bluff his way through. He's a slow learner. Here's what it says: > > "Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that > meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period > (at most)." > > That's not "accurate forecasting". So Ward doesn't know the difference between weather and climate. No surprise there. He never knows arsehole from breakfast time. |