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 22:16 On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:45:08 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > 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. We already know it will cool at the same rate the sun is heating it, about 240W/m^2, and will do so at a radiation temperature of about 255K. What we don't know is how or if the surface temperature and the vertical distribution of temperature is affected by 390 ppmv of CO2 in the presence of an excess of water in the system. > 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. During the day, at least.
From: bill.sloman on 11 Dec 2008 06:34 On 10 dec, 19:33, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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.slomanwrote: > >> >> > On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> >> > 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. > > 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. Bill Ward is repeating one of his formula's again. Climate may be low- pass-filtered weather, but the low pass filtering in time and space mean that it is much more tightly constrained than weather, and is predictable over much longer periods - long enough that farmer have come to rely on the stable recurrence of climate cycles. As I've mentioned before, even the half-million years of climate cycling visible in the Vostok ice-core data seem to represent repetitive cycling, synchronised to the Milankovich cycles, rather than an unpredictable drunkards walk. Since Bill Ward doesn't know what he is talking about, he doesn't appreciate that his argument was demolished some time ago, and keeps on repeating it, as if this said anything more than that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
From: bill.sloman on 11 Dec 2008 06:52 On 10 dec, 18:13, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:25:46 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > 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. Back the way it came. Conservation of energy only applies to the sum of the energy entering or leaving a specific volume. The heat flux at the bottom of your layer of pure CO2 is higher than the heat flux at the top; the difference is that all the heat flux leaving the top of the layer is going out to the ends of the universe, while the bottom of your layer is both absorbing and radiating energy. The difference between absorbtion and radiation at the bottom of the layer must match the total radiation leaving the top (by conservation of energy) which means that the bottom of the layer has to be hotter than the top and radiate more if the layer - as a whole - is to remain in equilibrium. You don't need convection to shift the heat around - radiation will also do the job, which is just as well, since convection becomes progressively less effective as air pressure decreases as you go higher in the atmosphere. I'm surprised that you are having trouble following this kind of argument - it isn't all that complicated.. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 11 Dec 2008 07:23 On 9 dec, 20:49, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:35:20 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > 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. "And Sloman can't coherently explain his position when questioned" is an ad hominem comment, not a logical proposition. The logical rebuttal is to point out that an argument won't look coherent to somebody who can't or won't follow it, which is what I've produced. Since Bill Ward is the only observer who seems to find my arguments incoherent, the argument is necessarily ad hominum - always assuming that "Bill Ward" is human, rather than some computer program in the style of "Eliza" and "Parry", which is consistent with the intellectual content of its output. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 11 Dec 2008 07:24
On 9 dec, 20:46, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:27:59 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > On 9 dec, 01:13, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:12:29 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> > On 8 dec, 01:44, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >On 7 dec, 22:56, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> >> Q <q...(a)universe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >Whata Fool wrote: <snip> > > Incidentally, if you want to see something of the nuts and bolts of a > > computer model of the atmosphere - the kind you consider futile because > > "chaotic systems are unpredictable" even though we do seem to be able to > > predict the positions so the planets accurately enough for all practical > > purposes - you could take a look at > > >http://www.pnas.org/content/105/46/17614.abstract > > > Downloading the full text costs money - I got it by another route. > > > The text mentions that the individual cells are big - of the order of 100 > > to 200km per side for climate simulations, and goes on to explain how the > > authors contribution is to allow the cell to switch between three states > > That's really not very good resolution for convection cells of only a few > kilometers. Which is why they build the nett effect of the convections cells into the model.rather than trying to model them as lumps of moving air. > > - a dry regime with "weak or no cumulus friction", favoured for dry > > environments regardless of shear > > > - an upright convection regime with stronger cumulus friction, faovured > > for moist, weakly sheared environments > > > - a squall line regime with intense convective momentum transfer either > > upscale or downscale depending on the shear, favoured for moist sheared > > enviroments > > > It is put forward as a computationally cheaper variant on mixing > > entrainment models of convective momentum transfer which require > > computationally expensvie pressure calculations, but have shown some > > success in modelling the El Nino southern oscillation and the Hadley > > circulation > > Big whoopee. The ENSO and Hadley cells are global, they've shown "some > success" in modeling them, and I'm supposed to be impressed? No one's expecting you to understand enough about the subject to be impressed by any kind of progress within it. > If it weren't so expensive, it would be kind of funny to see people trying > to predict chaos by looking at history. The way astronomers did? The orbital mechanics of the solar system are chaotic and thus - according to your ideosyncratic reasoning - unpredictable. Brahe and Kepler still managed to detect regularities in the orbital mechanics, and Newton managed to devise and useful mathemetical model. You may find it funny to see climatologists engaged in a very similar enterprise. People who know a little more about science find it more understandable. > The stock market warning says it best, "Warning - past performance is no > indication of future behavior". So we can't rely on the sun coming up tomorrow morning? There are indications that we can't look much further than 100 million years into the future of the solar system before our predictions are going to become unreliable, which is to say that at least some chaotic systems are predictable over useful time spans. Climate seems to be one of them. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |