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 15:46 On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:28:40 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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  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. >> >> >>>>>>    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. >> >> >>>>>>    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. >> >> >>>>>>    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, >> >> >>>>>>    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). >> >> >>>>>>    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. >> >> >>>>>>     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. >> >> >>>>>>     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. Here's the exact exchange: [Sloman] [...] 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. [Ward] 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? All you needed to say is that you didn't mean to imply it was a BB spectrum, and that, yes, it radiates only in the allowed band. Instead, you repeatedly tried to evade the issue and got caught.
From: bill.sloman on 12 Dec 2008 06:22 On 10 dec, 22:27, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > 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. It may look that way to people who don't understand much about science - and Rich's occasional postings on the subject aren't well-informed - but anthropogenic global warming does look very like a well-founded scientific hypothesis to the better-informed. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 12 Dec 2008 06:26 On 10 dec, 23:21, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> 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. Thus saving Graham the effort of engaging his "genius-level IQ" and actually studying the subject. After all, if we can't do anythihg about it, why should Graham waste time learning what is really going on rather than accepting what he can pick up without thinking about it on all those seductive websites funded by people who have a vested interest in us not doing anything effective to reverse antropogenic global warming. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 12 Dec 2008 06:59 On 11 dec, 02:22, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. The word you were looking for is "impeccable" and if Loehle was that reliable, how come he ended up publishing a corrected version of his paper? http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 > 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. Graham doesn't lie - he just produces bad informtion because he doesn't know any better. > I know they LIE. I have a book by Robert Hunter that admits it. This Robert Hunter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hunter_(journalist) Amazon doesn't throw up any books that might fit. Robert Lorne Hunter was a co-founder of Greenpeace, who aren't exactly my favourite environmentalists - if they don't actually lie, they do stretch the truth. Since Greenpeace's work forms no part of the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming, it would seem that Graham is proving himself to be as ill-informed as ever. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 12 Dec 2008 07:20
On 9 dec, 21:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > >In article <dhpej4dffevqnh5j7v2m2n29ek1ihl6...(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: > >>d...(a)manx.misty.com (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: > >>>>>> >On 27 nov, 02:59, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>>>>> >> "DeadFrog" <DeadF...(a)Virgin.net> ÃÂ wrote: > > >>>>>> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote in message > >>>>>> >> >news:fdeni4p8pptdaacn58utfjlehk9jcbfmff(a)4ax.com... > >>>>>> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org ÃÂ wrote: <snip> > I see no way the Earth without GHGs could have an atmosphere that > would be as cool as now. Congratulations. For once you have got it right. The atmosphere without green house gases would not be as cool as it is now - around 18C on average at the surface, cooling at something between the dry and and the (lower) wet lapse as you go higher- but a lot cooler at around -14C at the surface, cooling at the (faster) dry lapse rate up to the tropopause. Heat transfer from the -14C (average) surface would be by convection and conduction. We'd still have the same atmospheric heat transfer from the equator towards the poles, though there'd be rather less heat retained to transfer. No greenhouse gases means no water, but heat transfer by evaporation and condensation isn't all that important in the existing atmosphere. No water means no oceans and no Gulf Stream and other ocean currents to warm the higher latitudes. The world would be a lot colder. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |