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: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 14 Dec 2008 11:32 On Dec 13, 3:46 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > 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? dont know, but i do understand your point, and i do limit the time i spend reading his dribble to just a couple of minutes here and there, as that all somebody needs to dissect his terrible logic.
From: Bill Sloman on 14 Dec 2008 18:47 "John M." <john_howard_morgan(a)hotmail.co.uk> schreef in bericht news:df2b5c48-8729-4495-b9e0-9fc7610ca840(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > 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? I don't think I'm going to be bothering to reading any more of his stuff either. It does get repetitive. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Don Klipstein on 14 Dec 2008 19:45 In article <0qlej490u4g0mtol5r05fbmm4mn302jc15(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > >>In article <37vri4ttgj85ffqf2catgtu0ff88e3a2pl(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: <SNIP except for> >>>>> Air would be warmer than present if there were no GHGs, >>>>> that means, without question or need for further study, that >>>>> GHGs cool the atmosphere. >>> You just recited the gross assumption of AGW fruitcakes, total >>>obsession with surface IR radiation as the only cooling mechanism of >>>the surface. >> >> Sometimes cold advection is. When dewpoint of the air above the >>surface is less than the surface temperature and the surface has >>moisture, evaporative cooling can contribute to surface cooling. But a >>lot of the time at night the surface is cooler than the air a few feet above >>and the surface is dry. When that is true, then radiation from the >>surface is the only way the surface can continue to cool. > > You are not following the present discussion, which up to here was >related the my sentence just three attribution marks up, I repeat; > >"Air would be warmer than present if there were no GHGs, >that means, without question or need for further study, that >GHGs cool the atmosphere." > > This is more important to the premise of "GHGs hold the temperature >thirty some-odd degrees warmer" than any other factor. GHGs cool the upper atmosphere, mostly around and above the 350 millibar level (I did say 300 before - I miscalculated then). GHGs aloft actually radiate infrared, half of it towards the surface. GHGs low enough to not have their downward IR radiation absorbed by lower GHGs have their downward IR hitting the surface, in addition to the radiation from the Sun. >>> And you totally ignored the entire mass of the 78-20 air atmosphere, >>>which would be heated by convection from the surface, with no way to cool, >>>hence the air would get warmer. >> >> In the case of complete absence of GHGs, the only way a completely >>transparent atmosphere can gain or lose heat is from conduction to/from >>the ground. > Are N2 and O2 completely transparent to solar radiation? O2 absorbs most UV below about 200 nm, maybe more like 220 nm for a few pounds of it per square inch overhead, and some minor bands of IR. O3 absorbs UV long enough to get through O2, up to about 300 nm or so, maybe a little as close to visible as about 310 nm. > Ozone is created by UV and O2, is any other element involved in >that creation? As far as I know, it's entirely or mainly UV and 02. > I just had my hopes up that one knowledgeable AGW proponent or >open minded climatologist would be willing to discuss indisputable facts. > >>Average lower atmosphere temperature would match the average surface >>temperature, to have net heat flow from surface to atmosphere being >>zero. > > Nonsense, since the Earth had mountain building separate and apart >from atmospheric meteorology, N2 and O2 would be convected by conduction >on the slopes strongly in all daylight hours. > > And molecular activity would cause conduction convection over the >entire surface. All rock not eroded to sand or powder by wind would >be extremely porous like volcanic rock, ask a geologist to be sure. However, a perfectly transparent non-radiating atmosphere would still need its net heat transfer from the surface (including mountain surfaces) to be zero in the long term, or else there would be a long term trend of atmosphere temperature changing unidirectionally. If convection is only intermittent (such as stopping when surface cools at night), then lower atmosphere (except very closest to ground) would have temperature determined more by daily high surface temperature than by average surface temperature. >>Forced convection from wind turbulence would >>result in a lapse rate towards a tropopause cooler than the surface. > > Perhaps cooler than the lower layer of air, but certainly not >cooler than the average temperature of the surface. Easily cooler than the surface, since air there would only gain/lose heat from/to the surface, and do so after warming from increased pressure when convected to the surface. >> Modify that with clouds - clouds would radiate, with half the radiation >>towards outer space, cooling the atmosphere, so the atmosphere would then >>take heat from the surface by convection. > > You can't modify it with water clouds, there is no water on my >GHG free planet, this is the GHG theory game, you must not pass GO, >you go to jail if you do not stick to good physics and there are no >"Get out of jail free" cards. Your water-free planet sounds like a cloudless one to me. >>> Actually, I don't see how the air could avoid getting warmer and >>>warmer, because there is some amount of solar UV that is absorbed by >>>the air, and would not be radiated away. >> >> That's pretty much above the tropopause. Earth even has a thermosphere, >>with temperaturer higher than the surface temperature anywhere. > > And the reasons are? The thermosphere has density of GHGs so low as to have extremely low ability to radiate anything at "ordinary atmospheric" temperatures. However, it has significant absorption of the shortest wavelengths of UV and of iozizing radiation. > This discussion is about atmospheric temperatures, those are >the temperatures used to calculate the annual global average temperatures! "Global average temperature" is, depending on determination, generally supposed to be atmosphere either 4 feet or 2 meters above the surface. However, a lot of "global average temperature" involves measurement of sea surface temperature as opposed to that of the air either 4 feet or 2 meters above. >>> The failure of any counter argument to this is proof enough >>>for me to show that all the AGW crowd is simply repeating the gossip >>>or following the party line. >>> >>> Show me one case other than William Asher that even attempted >>>to explain how the N2 and O2 could cool without GHGs. >> >> Portion below the tropopause would heat the surface and increase surface >>radiation. There is also radiation from clouds. >> >> - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) > > Gosh, is my "GHG Game" of a planet absent of GreenHouse Gas too >difficult for educated people. > > There are no clouds, there is no water. > > On this planet the N2 and O2 atmosphere would be warmer than >the real Earth. > > Start all over from the beginning. If we had a planet in Earth's orbit with thermal emissivity matching absorption of solar radiation and a cloudless GHG-free atmosphere, average surface temperature would be about 6 degrees C (279 K). If we had a planet with albedo and surface thermal emissivity like those of Earth and a cloudless GHG-free atmosphere, it would be much colder still, since Earth's absorption of solar radiation is less than its low temperature thermal radiation emissivity (due to absorption varying with wavelength). Surface level atmosphere would have average temperature pretty close to the surface temperature, since it can only gain heat from or lose heat to the surface. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 14 Dec 2008 20:11 In article <pan.2008.12.07.07.55.55.626493(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:45:26 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In article <pan.2008.11.29.05.49.04.133668(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill >> Ward wrote: >>>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:35:59 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>> >>>> On 28 nov, 14:20, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> There's nothing unproven about the "hypothesis" that the partial >>>> pressure of water vapour in contact with liquid water rises with >>>> temperature. It's up there with Newton's law of gravity as one of the >>>> fundamental theories of science. >>>> >>>> And more water vapour does mean more pressure broadening in the carbon >>>> dioxide absorbtion spectrum. >>>> >>>> Carbonic acid (H2CO3) may not be stable in the vapour phase at room >>>> temperature, but it is stable enough that any collision between a water >>>> molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule lasts qute a bit longer than >>>> you'd calculate from a billiard-ball model. >>>> >>>> Eeyore's response isn't random noise either, though it's information >>>> content isn't any more useful - we already knew that Eeyore knows squat >>>> about physics, and he's long since made it clear than he doesn't >>>> realise how little he knows by posting loads of these over-confident >>>> and thoroughly absurd assertions. >>> >>>He may also be aware that increased water vapor lowers the condensation >>>altitude, >> >> Cloud bases lower if relative humidity rises. Relative humidity stays >> about the same if water vapor concentration is only commensurate with >> temperature rise. > >Interesting concept. I'm assuming the surface temperature determines the >absolute humidity, and the condensation altitude would be determined by >the lapse rate downward from the cloud tops (radiation layer). It seems >to me the surface temperature varies a lot more than the higher altitudes. It sure does! In fact, at the pressure level of most of the tropical tropopause (around or a little over 100 mb), on average it is cooler over the equator than over the poles! >Is there any actual data on the altitude of the radiation layer that >radiates the most power? From what I've seen, it's mid troposphere, not >the tropopause. Are there any credible models of the individual >mechanisms from cloud tops to the tropopause? That I know much less about. However, over the range of wavelengths at which the surface produces a lot of thermal IR, the transparency of the atmosphere varies greatly. >>> raising the radiation temperature, and increasing the emitted IR >>>energy by the 4th power radiation law. IOW, it's a negative feedback, >>>not positive. >> >> Radiation from cloud bases is toward Earth. > >I think that concept confuses people, at least me, when I first heard >it. It appears at first glance you are claiming the cloud bases are >warming the surface, which is clearly impossible by the second law. >The clouds are colder than the surface, and energy can never radiate from >cold to hot. Cloud bases slow cooling of the surface in the usual case of cloud bases being cooler than the surface. There is radiation from surface to cloud base and radiation from cloud base to surface. The latter is less in the usual case of cloud base being cooler than surface, but that does subtract from net radiation from the surface. >A little more thought reveals the actual mechanism must be that some of >the radiation that comes from the surface can be considered to be radiated >back to maintain the (Tsource^4 - Ttarget^4) term in the Stefan-Boltzmann >equation. That still requires that the net heat flow is outward, never >inward (unless the surface is cooler). The upper layers may reduce the >cooling rate of the surface, but they can never actually heat it. > >The _net_ radiation has to be from the surface to the clouds. It is. And since clouds emit some radiation towards the surface, and emit more radiation towards the surface than clear air does, they slow radiational cooling of the surface. >> Meanwhile, increasing GHGs cools the lower stratosphere and raises the >> tropopause - cloud tops around the tropopause will be cooler. > >I'm not clear why. Could you explain why a cooler stratosphere raises the >tropopause? Is it because the tropopause is the top of convection, so a >colder stratosphere allows convection to continue higher before the >UV-O2, O3 inversion takes over? > >Thanks for your comments. The tropopause is generally the top of convection - although there is not convection under it everywhere. If the stratosphere is cooler, then the convection can go higher. The tropopause is highest in the tropics. Global circulation has air over the equator generally moving upward, since tropospheric temperature overall is warmest there. Where the upward motion actually exists and it does get localized to the hotspots where air rises most easily, the lapse rate makes a close approximation of the dry adiabatic one from the surface to the cloud base, and the wet adiabatic one from the cloud base to the cloud tops at the tropical tropopause. The tropical deep convection is in part forced by global circulation, and in part (especially on a local scale) natural convection from where the surface is warmer than elsewhere nearby. On a local scale, there is both updraft and downdraft, though in the intertropical convergence zone net air motion is upward. The air rises until it cools so much that it can't rise anymore, and some will descend locally and some will move poleward and descend somewhere outside the ITCZ. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 14 Dec 2008 20:14
In <e0cabb97-2389-455a-8cc8-1d2032bd4743(a)w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 7 dec, 23:36, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: >> Bill Ward wrote: >> > Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> > > � Radiation from cloud bases is toward Earth. >> >> > I think that concept confuses people, at least me, when I first heard >> > it. �It appears at first glance you are claiming the cloud bases are >> > warming the surface, which is clearly impossible by the second law. >> > The clouds are colder than the surface, and energy can never radiate from >> > cold to hot. >> >> > A little more thought reveals the actual mechanism must be that some of >> > the radiation that comes from the surface can be considered to be radiated >> > back to maintain the (Tsource^4 - Ttarget^4) term in the Stefan-Boltzmann >> > equation. �That still requires that the net heat flow is outward, never >> > inward (unless the surface is cooler). �The upper layers may reduce the >> > cooling rate of the surface, but they can never actually heat it. >> >> > The _net_ radiation has to be from the surface to the clouds. >> >> Absolutely. That's kinda basic physics ! > >And singularly uninteresting. The point that Don Klipstein was making >- and "Bill Ward" failed to process, as you'd expect with a computer >program - was that while cloud bases do radiate upwards, I hope you meant either "net radiation", or that the individual water droplets radiate upwards as part of radiating omnidirectionally. > it is only into the rest of the cloud, where the radiation is scattered >and absorbed by droplets of water - which are black-body radiators. The >top of the cloud, which is going to be colder due to the lapse rate, >can radiate to outer-space at wavelengths that will get through the >greenhouses gases above it. > >> I see the AGW crowd heading towards concepts more akin to the 'perpetual >> motion' nuts. If the science doesn't support your case, then just make >> it up. > >That's because you don't know enough physics to actually follow what >they are talking about, and have - once again - been suckered by >plausible nonsense > >-- >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |