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 11 Dec 2008 07:32 On 10 dec, 18:20, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:39:02 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > 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 displacing 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. None the less, the air can only descend if it is displacing lighter - which is to say hotter - air. The fast-moving wind will transfer more heat across a thinner boundary layer than a more or less stationary thermal bubble waiting to take off, so it may feel hotter, but hot air descending is in the same cataogory as the cold-air balloon. Or have you decided to abandon conservation of mass? > Be embarrassed, it'll do you good. Try to learn a little about the subject under discussion. Not only will it do you good but it will also save us from being bombarded with your fatuous misconceptions. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 11 Dec 2008 07:56 On 11 dec, 04:16, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:45:08 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:10:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > >>> 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> > > 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. You and Whata Fool don't know. Better informed investigators have a rather clearer idea. <snipped more rubbish> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 11 Dec 2008 08:17 On 9 dec, 22:01, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > > > > > >In article <p2kgj4ppvnkeocqk0ddfqqclh7avkp0...(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: > >>bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >>>On 4 dec, 13:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>>> Â Â Â Not only that, but just the cooling of the solid surface by the > >>>> air in early morning and evaporation of the dew or frost may be a lot > >>>> more than the "forcing" averaged over 24 hours. > > >>>All of which happens well below the effective emitting altitude, and > >>>is consequently irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. > > > That is still radiational cooling. Adding GHGs increases the amount of > >absorptions/reradiations for radiated heat to escape from surface to > >space, and that will reduce radiational cooling of the surface. > > >> The real "greenhouse effect" is in the energy transferred to the > >>N2 and O2 by convection with the surface, and on the planet with GHGs, > >>by molecular collisions with them. > > > Yes indeed, effect of GHGs is to warm the N2 and O2 in the lower > >troposphere by warming the lower troposphere, and to cool the N2 and O2 in > >the stratosphere by cooling the stratosphere. > > ><SNIP beyone here to edit for space> > > > - Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) > > Other than convection with the surface, the only way GHGs can cool > the lower troposphere N2 and O2 is to warm the GHGs there. > > I repeat, my exercise is about what the temperature of the N2 and > O2 would be without GHGs (and no water), compared with now. I'd suggest that you abandon that exercise, and shift your attention to a problem that you are equipped to tackle. > And isn't it clear and logical that whatever way the GHGs move > the temperature in the case of the present GHG and water concentration, > more GHGs would move it a little further. > > The conclusion seems to be that GHGs cool the atmosphere, and > more GHGs would cool it a little more. Well, no - GHG warm the atmosphere below the equivalent emitting altitude for the wavelengths that they emit and absorb. Since more than half the mass of the atmosphere is below this height, GHGs warm the atmosphere as a whole. More greenhouse gases mean higher equivalent emitting altitudes, so the atmosphere as a whole becomes even warmer. Your mantra about greenhouse gases cooling the atmosphere seems to have been derived from your misunderstanding a highly technical discussion about the temperature of the stratosphere, most of which is above the equivalent emitting altitudes. http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html -- Bill
From: bill.sloman on 11 Dec 2008 08:28 On 9 dec, 18:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:02:51 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In <pan.2008.12.04.06.47.13.380...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > > wrote: > >>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:35:12 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > >>> In article <pan.2008.11.28.15.55.03.836...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, > >>> Bill Ward wrote: > >>>>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:26:40 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > >>>>> On 27 nov, 23:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>>>>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org ÃÂ wrote: > >>>>>><SNIP to edit for space> > >>>>>> >You've misunderstood. The surface of the earth is ultimately cooled > >>>>>> >by radiation to outer space, but the "surface" that is cooled > >>>>>> >depends on the frequency that is being radiated. > > >>>>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ The frequency is determined by > >>>>>> temperature, isn't it? > > >>>>> A black-body radiator emits a wide range of frequencies. The centre > >>>>> of the range does move to higher frequencies as the temperature of > >>>>> the emitter gets higher, but it doesn't move all that fast. > > >>>>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ If the surface is moist, it will likely > >>>>>> be 20 degrees F cooler than a dry surface, > > >>>>> If the local relative humidity is less than 100%. Since the > >>>>> "surfaces" I was talking about are mathematical abstractions - > >>>>> essentially spherical shells around the earth located at various > >>>>> heights above the ground, this isn't a useful comment. > > >>>>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ And that doesn't mean that particular > >>>>>> surface is cooled less. > > >>>>> It seems that I haven't dumbed down my arguments anything like far > >>>>> enough, > > >>>>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ Your generalized statements about the > >>>>>> cooling of Earth seem to follow a pattern suggesting some form of > >>>>>> brainwashing. > > >>>>> It isn't usual to describe a tertiary education in science as > >>>>> brainwashing, but it is clear that my thinking has been exposed to > >>>>> influences that yours has not. > > >>>>>> >At frequencies where the > >>>>>> >atmosphere is transparent, this can be the surface that you stand > >>>>>> >on (when there aren't any clouds overhead). > > >>>>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ There is rarely frost on most natural > >>>>>> surfaces except for thin leaves, blades of grass and dark surfaces > >>>>>> with low coefficient of conductivity. > > >>>>> Irrelevant. > > >>>>>> >At frequencies that are absorbed (and re-radiated) by water vapour, > >>>>>> >this "surface" is fairly high in the troposphere, and for > >>>>>> >frequencies that are absorbed (and re-radiated) by carbon dioxide > >>>>>> >this "surface" is a good deal higher - 25% of the mass of the > >>>>>> >atmosphere (and 25% of the CO2) is up in the stratosphere. > > >>>>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ So there is confusion about where > >>>>>> the "surface" [is], or what the "surface" [is], shades of Bill > >>>>>> Clinton. > > >>>>> You clearly aren't following the argument. Each "surface" in this > >>>>> particular discussion is defined as the level at which a photon of a > >>>>> particular wavelenght first had an better than even chance of making > >>>>> it out into space without being absorbed and re-emitted or otherwise > >>>>> scattered. In principle this "surface" can be at any height in the > >>>>> atmosphere, depending on the particular wavelength being talked > >>>>> about. > > >>>>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ Does your last sentence mean that > >>>>>> carbon dioxide "cools" the stratosphere? > > >>>>> Quite the reverse. The carbon dioxide in the stratosphere absorbs > >>>>> infra-red radiation from the warmer troposphere and re-emits it with > >>>>> a spectrum that matches the roughly -55C temperature of the bulk of > >>>>> the stratosphere. > > >>>>That needs a little explanation. CO2 gas is not a BB radiator. At the > >>>>temperatures in question, the 15u band should be the only radiation it > >>>>can absorb or emit. How do you come to the conclusion it emits in a > >>>>-55C BB spectrum? Do you have a link supporting that? > > >>> Peak wavelength of blackbody radiation at 218 K is a bit over 13 um > >>> (for > >>> power per unit area per unit wavelength bandwidth). > > >>Yes. > > >>> A 218 K blackbody has spectral power distribution, in terms of power > >>> per > >>> unit area per unit wavelength bandwidth, above half the peak from about > >>> 8.1 nm to about 24.1 um. > > >>Yes. > > >>> Looks like a 218 K blackbody emits 15 um at about 96% of its peak.. > > >>Yes, and that's my point. CO2 can't radiate a blackbody spectrum, > >>because the bond energies don't match outside the 15u band. If they can't > >>absorb, how can they radiate? It's not a BB spectrum because the upper > >>and lower tails are missing. > > > I was merely claiming that CO2 does significant radiating in that nice > > wide 15um-peaking band. > > >>> The blackbody radiation formula is widely available. It is available > >>> in > >>> the "CRC Handbook" which is in the reference section of many, probably > >>> most libraries, most undergraduate college general physics texts, and > >>> certainly in at least one appropriate Wikipedia article. Such as: > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law > > >>I also like the hyperphysics summary: > > >>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 > > >>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bbrc.html#c4 > > >>> CO2's IR absorption feature of 15 um is actualy fairly wide and is > >>> strong at 13 um, and accounting for most atmospheric IR absorption > >>> within a few um of 15 um. > > >>Water is also active in that band, but is scarce in the stratosphere. > > > http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > > makes it look like CO2 is more active than water vapor, even at their > > degrees of presence in Earth's atmosphere as a whole. > > > GHGs play a significant role in the troposphere. > > But only radiatively. Water has latent heat. > > >>>http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > >>>http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html > > >>Surely you're not supporting Sloman's claim that cold CO2 gas can radiate > >>a blackbody spectrum, are you? > > > I think that was merely a poor choice of words on his part rather than a > > claim that CO2 has its radiation spectrum looking like that of a > > blackbody. > > I would hope so, but he missed several opportunities to clarify his > remarks. You failed to understand a number of attempted clarifications. Don Klipstein is right about the poor choice of words - several of them were polysyllabic. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
From: Bill Ward on 11 Dec 2008 13:16
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:34:45 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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 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. > > 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, "Tightly constrained in time and space" may sound impressive, but it's the exact opposite of low-pass filtering. Averaging delocalizes events, not constrains them. John is long on vocabulary, but way short on comprehension. How can warm weather be "global" or "climate" if it's "tightly constrained" in time and space? What a hoot. > and is predictable over much longer periods - long enough that farmer > have come to rely on the stable recurrence of climate cycles. Like spring, summer, autumn and winter? Those are orbital forcings, not "climate cycles". Especially not "global average" 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. Poor John still can't distinguish the difference between chaotic and random behavior. The M cycles are "forcings" in the sense of being outside the Earth system. They are chaotic on the same time scale as the solar system. > 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. And John regards his inability to comprehend the argument as "demolishing" it. But what else could he do? He can't lucidly explain or support any of his beliefs, and apparently is at the limit of his ability. |