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 10 Dec 2008 13:33 On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:26:14 -0800, John M. wrote: > 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 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". > > So Ward doesn't know the difference between weather and climate. No > surprise there. He never knows arsehole from breakfast time. Morgan can't read. From a few lines above: "Weather is chaotic, with a much shorter timescale. 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." If he can't figure out that climate is low passed weather from that, he's worse off than I thought.
From: Whata Fool on 10 Dec 2008 15:45 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:10:34 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> On 9 dec, 01:32, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:36:08 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>> > 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> >> >>> > No. The high temperatures in the desert valley during the day are >>> > caused by solar radiation that goes straight through the air to hit >>> > the ground, be absorbed and raise its temperature. Water vapour and >>> > CO2 don't get into the act. At night the surface radiates like a hot >>> > black body, and cools off rapidly; some of that infrared radiation is >>> > absorbed by greenhouse gases in the air above and re-radiated back at >>> > the ground, and some of it has a free ride to outer space. >>> >>> Can you see that the different mechanisms between the night inversion >>> and the daytime convection comprise a negative feedback from water >>> vapor? At night, the surface is prevented from cooling as much because >>> it is radiating to a layer of GHG rather than 3K space. That drives >>> the surface temperature towards a "set point", warmer than without the >>> WV. >>> >>> During the day, the GHG, (water vapor) is lifted, by convection, cooling >>> by transporting latent heat upwards. That also drives the surface T >>> toward a "set point" from the increased cooling. >> >> Except that heat transport by water vapour is a small fraction of the heat >> transported. > >Do you have a credible link showing that? Preferably one that shows how >it's calculated. Chilingar apparently estimates 67% convection in the >troposphere, but I don't know the method. Trenberth just uses estimates >of total precipitation, which is an absolute lower limit, and comes up >with, IIRC, 45W/m^2 latent heat. Bill, what is needed is a calculation of the thermal energy in a square meter column of atmosphere, to see how long it takes to cool the whole column by radiation. With heat added on most days, and a lot of heat lost to space direct from the surface on some nights, it should be clear that the surface radiation is a small part of the energy equation.
From: Rich Grise on 10 Dec 2008 16:27 On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:53:53 -0600, kT wrote: > John M. wrote: >> On Dec 9, 7:13 pm, kT <cos...(a)lifeform.org> wrote: >>> John M. wrote: >>>> both sides of the debate. >>> There is no 'debate' about climate change you idiot. >> >> If there's no debate then science is all washed up you denk. > > We aren't talking about 'science', we're talking about 'climate change'. Exactly. "climate change" is NOT "science": it's a religious cult. Cheers! Rich
From: Eeyore on 10 Dec 2008 17:21 Rich Grise wrote: > kT wrote: > > John M. wrote: > >> kT <cos...(a)lifeform.org> wrote: > >>> John M. wrote: > >>>> both sides of the debate. > >>> There is no 'debate' about climate change you idiot. > >> > >> If there's no debate then science is all washed up you denk. > > > > We aren't talking about 'science', we're talking about 'climate change'. > > Exactly. "climate change" is NOT "science": it's a religious cult. Or OTOH, it's just simply one of those things that happens of its own free will. Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Dec 2008 20:22
Q wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Rich Grise wrote: > >> kT wrote: > >>> John M. wrote: > >>>> kT <cos...(a)lifeform.org> wrote: > >>>>> John M. wrote: > >>>>>> both sides of the debate. > >>>>> There is no 'debate' about climate change you idiot. > >>>> If there's no debate then science is all washed up you denk. > >>> We aren't talking about 'science', we're talking about 'climate change'. > >> Exactly. "climate change" is NOT "science": it's a religious cult. > > > > Or OTOH, it's just simply one of those things that happens of its own free > > will. > > Energy and environment is a non-scientific journal where climate change > deniers are offered to speak, even when their methods are dubious. DENIALIST ! Loehle's methods were impecabble and make Mann look like a deranged lunatic. We're after your BLOOD now for LYING to us in Spades. The only possible endgame now is the total destruction of the 'green' movement unless they 'fess up' NOW. I know they LIE. I have a book by Robert Hunter that admits it. Graham |