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: John M. on 12 Dec 2008 16:59 On Dec 12, 10:39 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > I'm guessing, Everyone knows that.
From: bill.sloman on 12 Dec 2008 21:19 On 12 dec, 22:39, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:35:42 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > On 12 dec, 17:51, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:41:49 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> > On 11 dec, 21:46, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:28:40 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> > 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> > >> But since you are such a self-evident expert in the fine details of > >> spectroscopy, perhaps you could give us a quantitative answer to the > >> original issue: > > >> What fraction of a -55C blackbody spectrum does CO2 absorb near the 15u > >> band, what fraction is absorbed near the 4.7u band, and what fraction is > >> not absorbed? Assume upper troposphere temperatures and pressures. > > > To do that in a useful way I'd need the detailed infra-red absorbtion > > spectrum of CO2 at -55C and lower stratosphere pressures - a digital > > spectrum giving extinction coefficients and line widths for all the active > > lines. I'm fairly sure that this information exists and is available - > > climate modellers refer to it from time to time - but I've been looking > > for it recently and haven't been able to find a search string that gets me > > anything like it. I spoke too soon. That data appears to be available - free - from HITRAN, if you register and they accept your registration http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran// > > Once I had that, the rest would be pretty trivial. > > > This is not to say that I'd take on the project if I got the spectral > > information. > > > At present my only motivation do the job would be to satisy your idle > > curiousity, and since it is perfectly obvious that you wouldn't care what > > the answer was and wouldn't have clue what it meant in any larger context, > > it isn't exactly compelling. > > > And don't bother claiming that I'm bluffing. Your fuss about the > > "blackbody" issue is an utterly transparent bluff, and it hasn't worked.. > > > You already look like a pretentious idiot, and trying to persist with that > > game isn't going to make you look any better. > > Oh come on. You can't even do a rough estimate? How close can you get? > > Enough to show you're not bluffing? Apparently not. > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transm... The carbon dioxide spectrum don't resolve the rotational fine structure which makes it totally useless for the job you want done. > I'm guessing, by simply looking at the relevant spectra, that CO2 would > absorb around 20-30% in the 15u band, and less than 5% in the 4.7u band, > leaving 65-75% unabsorbed. > > Your bluff is called. Is the graph wrong? Not wrong - as far as it goes - but pretty much useless for your purposes. What you see as unresolved absorbtion bands look more like stretches of picket fence at higher resolution. The individual absorbtion lines in the "picket fence" are the rotational fine structure above and below pure vibrational lines, and each line has a line width that depends on the pressure broadening in the environment of interest. I managed to find a paper recently (and posted its URL in this thread) that showed some high resolution detail around the 4 um band. The spectrum also appears to show 100% absorbtion, which means that it tells you essentially nothing about the extinction coefficients of the stronger lines. Your "percentages" are - just as you say - guesswork. The data you are looking at isn't much better than Knut Angstrom had to work with about a century ago, and his data certainly mislead him. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm >What are the real numbers, if you actually know? To find out I'd first have to apply to register with HITRAN, which undertakes to respond to any such application within a fortnight. I have no idea how they regard interested amateurs, and I'm not motivated to find out. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 12 Dec 2008 23:16 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:48 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 11 dec, 21:26, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:56:18 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > 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? > > I'm used to it. I can deal with stupidity, and I can cope with people who > can't understand because they don't want to. I spent most of my careeer in > industry, and coping with obstructive bosses is rahter more demanding that > putting up with pretentious nitwits in user-groups. I'm sure you felt superior to your bosses. That must have been a frustrating career.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 12 Dec 2008 23:40 On Dec 12, 8:16 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:48 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 11 dec, 21:26, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:56:18 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> > 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? > > > I'm used to it. I can deal with stupidity, and I can cope with people who > > can't understand because they don't want to. I spent most of my careeer in > > industry, and coping with obstructive bosses is rahter more demanding that > > putting up with pretentious nitwits in user-groups. > > I'm sure you felt superior to your bosses. That must have been a > frustrating career. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As opposed to someone like you who must have a frustrating life, no superiority complex necessary, just arrogance, and self-righteousness to the point of denial thats all...
From: Bill Ward on 13 Dec 2008 00:01
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:19:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 12 dec, 22:39, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:35:42 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > On 12 dec, 17:51, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:41:49 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> > On 11 dec, 21:46, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:28:40 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> > 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> > >> >> But since you are such a self-evident expert in the fine details of >> >> spectroscopy, perhaps you could give us a quantitative answer to the >> >> original issue: >> >> >> What fraction of a -55C blackbody spectrum does CO2 absorb near the >> >> 15u band, what fraction is absorbed near the 4.7u band, and what >> >> fraction is not absorbed? Assume upper troposphere temperatures and >> >> pressures. >> >> > To do that in a useful way I'd need the detailed infra-red absorbtion >> > spectrum of CO2 at -55C and lower stratosphere pressures - a digital >> > spectrum giving extinction coefficients and line widths for all the >> > active lines. I'm fairly sure that this information exists and is >> > available - climate modellers refer to it from time to time - but I've >> > been looking for it recently and haven't been able to find a search >> > string that gets me anything like it. > > I spoke too soon. That data appears to be available - free - from HITRAN, > if you register and they accept your registration > > http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran// > >> > Once I had that, the rest would be pretty trivial. >> >> > This is not to say that I'd take on the project if I got the spectral >> > information. >> >> > At present my only motivation do the job would be to satisy your idle >> > curiousity, and since it is perfectly obvious that you wouldn't care >> > what the answer was and wouldn't have clue what it meant in any larger >> > context, it isn't exactly compelling. >> >> > And don't bother claiming that I'm bluffing. Your fuss about the >> > "blackbody" issue is an utterly transparent bluff, and it hasn't >> > worked. >> >> > You already look like a pretentious idiot, and trying to persist with >> > that game isn't going to make you look any better. >> >> Oh come on. You can't even do a rough estimate? How close can you get? >> >> Enough to show you're not bluffing? Apparently not. >> >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transm... > > The carbon dioxide spectrum don't resolve the rotational fine structure > which makes it totally useless for the job you want done. > >> I'm guessing, by simply looking at the relevant spectra, that CO2 would >> absorb around 20-30% in the 15u band, and less than 5% in the 4.7u band, >> leaving 65-75% unabsorbed. >> >> Your bluff is called. Is the graph wrong? > > Not wrong - as far as it goes - but pretty much useless for your purposes. > What you see as unresolved absorbtion bands look more like stretches of > picket fence at higher resolution. The individual absorbtion lines in the > "picket fence" are the rotational fine structure above and below pure > vibrational lines, and each line has a line width that depends on the > pressure broadening in the environment of interest. I managed to find a > paper recently (and posted its URL in this thread) that showed some high > resolution detail around the 4 um band. > > The spectrum also appears to show 100% absorbtion, which means that it > tells you essentially nothing about the extinction coefficients of the > stronger lines. > > Your "percentages" are - just as you say - guesswork. The data you are > looking at isn't much better than Knut Angstrom had to work with about a > century ago, and his data certainly mislead him. > > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm > >>What are the real numbers, if you actually know? > > To find out I'd first have to apply to register with HITRAN, which > undertakes to respond to any such application within a fortnight. I have > no idea how they regard interested amateurs, and I'm not motivated to find > out. So you have no idea what the absorption is, yet somehow feel qualified to criticize my estimate. From what you are saying, the actual absorption spectrum is less dense than that shown, so the estimates I made are likely on the high side. Somehow you sound like one of those guys who can give an answer precise to 5 sig figs, but don't realize it's off by 50% because of a wrong assumption. No wonder you had problems with your bosses. Sometimes, like now, putting limits on the value is all you need, but you are apparently unable to comprehend that point. I'm surprised you could hold a job with that attitude. |