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 13 Dec 2008 15:38 On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:31:43 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 13 dec, 06:01, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:19:00 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > 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. > > I merely pointed out the most obvious defect of the spectrum that you'd > chosen as your basic information. > > To go further into its inadequacy, I need to draw your attention to the > Beer-Lambert Law for light transmission through an absorbing medium. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer-Lambert_law > > T = Iout/Iin = e^(- k.l.c) > > where T is transmission (the Y-axis of your spectrum) which is the > intensity of the light exiting your absorber (Iout) divided by the > intensity of the light incident on your absorber (Iin) at a particular > wavelength > > e is the base of natural logarithims (the Wikipedia article uses > 10, but physicists don't) > k is the extinction coefficient for that wavelength l is the path > length > and c the concentration of the absorber along the absorbing path. > > Your spectrum doesn't mention either the concentration of the CO2 scanned > or the length of the path scanned, so it can't be used in any kind of > quantitative estimate. Your "estimate" failed to specify the distance over > which the energy was being absorbed - though one might guess that you had > the whole thickness of the atmosphere in mind - roughly 10km at standard > atmospheric pressure - nor the concentration of CO2 you had in mind, > though again one might guess the the current 388 ppm. > > If you want to think about what is going on in the atmosphere you should > abandon your idle speculations and spend on some time on the American > Institute of Physics web-site. > > You will find the story they tell complicated (and probably intimidating) > but it does have the advantage of being based on good science, rather than > your own unreliable intuitions. > > <snipped the usual ad hominem stuff> (mostly his) Poor Sloman again demonstrates his problem for all to see. I'll summarize: First he implied that CO2 might act as a blackbody radiator at -55C, perhaps with a "poor choice of words". When I, understanding that low temperature gases absorb considerably less than a blackbody because of their band nature, asked if that's really what he meant, he went off into the woods, going on about the details of the band structure. He explicitly stated he didn't think I would understand him, so his intent is obviously an attempt to confuse and intimidate, as he admits above. He failed to confirm the obvious, that the emissions are indeed less than a blackbody at 55C, which was the prior context, and in fact confirmed (indirectly) that the amount of absorption is even less than I estimated. When challenged to come up with an estimate of the percent absorption by CO2 in the upper troposphere, he failed. When challenged to correct my estimate, he refused, again going off into elementary P Chem concepts he thought (hoped) might confuse me. He admits he hasn't even a rough idea of the quantity he is contesting. His entire strategy seems to be based on his hope he'll be able to intimidate and confuse me. That's never happened yet. He's a perfect example of the need for a diverse, well-rounded, and continuing education, rather than specialized rote training. No wonder he had problems with his supervisors. He can't see the band for the lines, or the forest for the trees.
From: Bill Ward on 13 Dec 2008 15:43 On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:48:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 13 dec, 05:16, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:48 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > 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. > > I certainly felt superior to some of them, mainly because they were the > ones that it was easy to circumvent. > > Every career has it's frustrations, and I can't say that I can (or did) > blame my bosses for more than a few of them, nor that any of them got me > down. Something must have. Your need to put others down to compensate for your own failings is far above average, from my experience.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 13 Dec 2008 16:05 On Dec 13, 12:43 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:" Something must have. Your need to put others down to compensate for your own failings is far above average, from my experience." lets check out this logic, bill who is attempting to insult somebody states that the person he is attempting to insult has a need to insult others (for what ever reason does not matter) but i gotta say WOW, to his lame attempt in his own mind to rationalize his own actions. Now I do not really care who he is, or if he reads this post, all that matters is his logic is so twisted it should be noted for the readers of this thread...
From: Eeyore on 13 Dec 2008 16:47 Bill Ward wrote: > Martin Brown wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Martin Brown wrote: > >> > Eeyore wrote: > >> > > z wrote: > >> > >> > >> and the fact that water vapor partial pressure rises with > >> > >> temperature, thereby making it an amplifier of other effects, such > >> > >> as CO2. > >> > >> > > An unproven hypothesis. i.e random noise. > >> > >> > You are clueless. That warmer air can carry more water vapour is a > >> > well known experimental fact. > >> > >> You fail to address the idea it's an *amplifier*. > > > > I would not use the word "amplifier" myself to describe what is actually a > > positive feedback mechanism. But his meaning is clear and the physics are > > baiscally correct more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer and the extra > > warmth allows more water vapour into the air before it saturates. > > Where does the latent heat in the water vapor come from? Where does it > eventually go? Exactly. Just because liquid water's phase change to vapour carries a lot of energy, it can't just 'disappear'. Or maybe Martin's into 'free energy' or perpetual motion concepts ? > > Warmer seas and warmer air over them will contain more water vapour as a > > result. > > And more latent heat convection. Inevitably. Graham
From: John M. on 13 Dec 2008 18:46
On Dec 13, 10:05 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 13, 12:43 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:" > Something must have. Your need to put others down to compensate for > your own failings is far above average, from my experience." > > lets check out this logic, bill who is attempting to insult somebody > states that the person he is attempting to insult has a need to insult > others (for what ever reason does not matter) but i gotta say WOW, to > his lame attempt in his own mind to rationalize his own actions. Now I > do not really care who he is, or if he reads this post, all that > matters is his logic is so twisted it should be noted for the readers > of this thread... You really think anyone, other than a few die-hards like Bill S, is reading what Bilbo W writes? |