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 11 Dec 2008 13:49 On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:52:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. True. Which means the net energy going in is exactly the same as the net energy leaving. The surface and the bottom layer remain in radiative equilibrium as the layer warms. There is no bogus "energy trapping". The net energy transferred from warm to cool is according to the S/B radiation equation. By saying,"the infra-red radiation coming out of the top of the layer carries appreciably less energy than the infra-red radiation that was absorbed at the bottom of the layer", without mentioning your assumption of a separate "back radiation" because of the target temperature term, you mislead the casual reader. > You don't need convection to shift the heat around How do you _stop_ convection from carrying energy in a gravitational field? - 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. Do you have an equation showing that? > I'm surprised that you are having trouble following this kind of > argument - it isn't all that complicated.. No it isn't - when it's complete. The problem is the implicit assumption of a separate back radiation when referring to a radiation field, rather than the observed emitter/receiver relationship in the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.
From: Bill Ward on 11 Dec 2008 14:10 On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:23:17 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Nope, it's a statement of observed fact relating to your gratuitous ad hom comment. Your rebuttal could have been a counterexample, but it wasn't. > 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. You produce a lot of arguments that don't look coherent. Now you're trying to blame others rather than accepting responsibility for your own failing. > 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. I doubt I'm the only observer who sees Sloman's incoherence and lack of lucid explanation. His attempting to change the subject is literally a sign of incoherence.
From: Bill Ward on 11 Dec 2008 14:45 On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:24:03 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Get back to me when you understand the concept of time scales in chaos. > 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. You seem somewhat insecure. Apparently for good reason. >> 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? You also have a real knack for irrelevancies, don't you? > 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. Lorenz found otherwise. Face it, even with careful specific tuning, "climate models" can barely postdict the past with low accuracy over limited ranges. Predicting the future is a lot harder (impossible). Unless, of course, it's far enough into the future that no living person would ever be able to check it. Then they're so accurate we can bet not just the farm, but the whole world economy on the results. Riiight...
From: Bill Ward on 11 Dec 2008 14:51 On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:32:26 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Give it up. No one is buying your strawman. No one cares if you recognize the obvious, no matter how proud it makes you feel. > 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.
From: Bill Ward on 11 Dec 2008 15:26
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:56:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. But you don't. At least not one you can explain. Isn't it frustrating to be so sure of yourself and yet be so completely unable to explain why? |