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 16 Dec 2008 12:40 On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:22:04 -0800, John M. wrote: > On Dec 16, 10:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:26:00 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> > In <pan.2008.12.03.06.10.49.320...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward >> > wrote: >> >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:31:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> > <edit for space> >> >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.28.16.09.18.798...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward >> >>> wrote: >> >>> Meanwhile, watwer vapor is said to achieve 36-66% of GHG effect, >> >>> while >> >>> CO2 is said to achieve 9-26%. Despite water vapor concentration in >> >>> the atmosphere being generally at least an order of magnitude >> >>> greater. >> >> >>How is the 9 to 26% range determined? What assumptions are required? >> >>Can you explain the mechanisms involved? >> >> > It appears to me that thermal IR radiated from surface and absorbed >> > by GHGs overhead and reradiated towards the surface has breakdown by >> > accountability among the specific GHGs to being 9-26% to CO2. >> >> Then it would appear the estimate assumes only radiative factors, and >> omits convection and other feedback elements. I think I first saw it >> in a realclimate entry, based on removing one GHG at a time. I was >> hoping you had a more credible source and explanation. >> >> I'm skimming through the climate book >> >> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf >> >> and am favorably impressed so far. The explanations are pretty good, >> and on pdf pgs 120-122, he has an actual summary of the greenhouse >> effect and AGW hypothesis that some readers may want to check out. >> It's the first one I've seen that is succinct and coherent. It >> should be interesting, and perhaps useful, to both sides to find out out >> exactly what they are defending or doubting. Note the footnote(4) at the >> bottom of pdf pg 122. >> >> I'm about halfway through, and find the author clear, credible and >> honest in his explanations and examples, but am still skeptical of some >> of his assumptions. Having only a hammer doesn't automatically make >> everything into a nail. >> >> > The absorption spectra recently cited (such as >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png), >> > are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of >> > existence in the atmosphere. >> >> See pdf pg 184 in the above text for a CO2 spectrum that may shed some >> light on the subject. >> >> >> >> > <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything >> > else> >> >> Don't worry about it. You're clearly not trying to confuse readers by >> snipping context and misrepresenting the remaining content. John >> Morgan is a little over-sensitive because every time he tries that, I >> simply repost what he's snipped, exposing his dishonest tactic. He >> gets a bit miffed. >> >> I have no objection to legitimate snipping of dead text. > > You're a lying piece of dried nose excreta, Bilbo, so don't get carried > away by your present approval for snipping dead text. > >> Thanks for your comments. > > But no thanks for yours See what I mean? Miffed, but still kind enough to provide an example confirming my comment.
From: Whata Fool on 16 Dec 2008 15:20 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:26:00 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >[snip] >> The absorption spectra recently cited (such as >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png ), >> are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of >> existence in the atmosphere. > >See pdf pg 184 in the above text for a CO2 spectrum that may shed some >light on the subject. >> >> <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything >> else> > >Don't worry about it. You're clearly not trying to confuse readers by >snipping context and misrepresenting the remaining content. John Morgan >is a little over-sensitive because every time he tries that, I simply >repost what he's snipped, exposing his dishonest tactic. He gets a bit >miffed. > >I have no objection to legitimate snipping of dead text. > >Thanks for your comments. The more I look, worse it looks, the blue in the top color graph is identified as upgoing infra-red, and it looks to me like CO2 is mostly outside those wavelengths. I don't see anything about incoming solar infra-red, isn't there quite a bit of it? AGW seems to be an obsession with upgoing IR, and that absorbed and re-radiated in all directions, and if the color graph is right and the CO2 graph is right, it looks like only water vapor, methane and oxygen are the big players. GreenHouse Gas theory really needs more physics than that graph shows. The multitude of NASA websites with pages devoted to this vain, useless and wasteful endeavor is obscene with an insanity level obsession with CO2 effects. Apparently the news media and even the weather programs have more or less began to ignore it, leaving it as an artifact of a Clinton and Bush era fad. As my utility bill keeps climbing because of unusually cold temperatures, it is actually becoming an aggravation to see and hear just how gullible people are and how fast they accept scuttlebutt. It is a shame talented people can't find something more productive to do.
From: Bill Ward on 16 Dec 2008 17:02 On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:20:32 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:26:00 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: [snip] >>> The absorption spectra recently cited (such as >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png ), >>> are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of >>> existence in the atmosphere. >> >>See pdf pg 184 in the above text for a CO2 spectrum that may shed some >>light on the subject. >>> >>> <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything >>> else> >> >>Don't worry about it. You're clearly not trying to confuse readers by >>snipping context and misrepresenting the remaining content. John Morgan >>is a little over-sensitive because every time he tries that, I simply >>repost what he's snipped, exposing his dishonest tactic. He gets a bit >>miffed. >> >>I have no objection to legitimate snipping of dead text. >> >>Thanks for your comments. > > > > The more I look, worse it looks, the blue in the top color graph > is identified as upgoing infra-red, and it looks to me like CO2 is mostly > outside those wavelengths. > > I don't see anything about incoming solar infra-red, isn't there > quite a bit of it? Look at the yellow title band just below the red and blue graphs. It's divided into UV, Visible and IR. The incoming solar and outgoing terrestrial IR are lumped together to the right of Visible. Notice the three CO2 bands in the "dead zone", around 3u, where there's not much of either. > AGW seems to be an obsession with upgoing IR, and that absorbed > and re-radiated in all directions, and if the color graph is right and > the CO2 graph is right, it looks like only water vapor, methane and > oxygen are the big players. > > GreenHouse Gas theory really needs more physics than that graph > shows. The multitude of NASA websites with pages devoted to this vain, > useless and wasteful endeavor is obscene with an insanity level > obsession with CO2 effects. > > Apparently the news media and even the weather programs have more > or less began to ignore it, leaving it as an artifact of a Clinton and > Bush era fad. > > As my utility bill keeps climbing because of unusually cold > temperatures, it is actually becoming an aggravation to see and hear > just how gullible people are and how fast they accept scuttlebutt. > > It is a shame talented people can't find something more > productive to do.
From: John M. on 16 Dec 2008 17:30 On Dec 16, 6:40 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:22:04 -0800, John M. wrote: > > On Dec 16, 10:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:26:00 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> > In <pan.2008.12.03.06.10.49.320...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward > >> > wrote: > >> >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:31:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > >> > <edit for space> > > >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.28.16.09.18.798...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> Meanwhile, watwer vapor is said to achieve 36-66% of GHG effect, > >> >>> while > >> >>> CO2 is said to achieve 9-26%. Despite water vapor concentration in > >> >>> the atmosphere being generally at least an order of magnitude > >> >>> greater. > > >> >>How is the 9 to 26% range determined? What assumptions are required? > >> >>Can you explain the mechanisms involved? > > >> > It appears to me that thermal IR radiated from surface and absorbed > >> > by GHGs overhead and reradiated towards the surface has breakdown by > >> > accountability among the specific GHGs to being 9-26% to CO2. > > >> Then it would appear the estimate assumes only radiative factors, and > >> omits convection and other feedback elements. I think I first saw it > >> in a realclimate entry, based on removing one GHG at a time. I was > >> hoping you had a more credible source and explanation. > > >> I'm skimming through the climate book > > >>http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf > > >> and am favorably impressed so far. The explanations are pretty good, > >> and on pdf pgs 120-122, he has an actual summary of the greenhouse > >> effect and AGW hypothesis that some readers may want to check out. > >> It's the first one I've seen that is succinct and coherent. It > >> should be interesting, and perhaps useful, to both sides to find out out > >> exactly what they are defending or doubting. Note the footnote(4) at the > >> bottom of pdf pg 122. > > >> I'm about halfway through, and find the author clear, credible and > >> honest in his explanations and examples, but am still skeptical of some > >> of his assumptions. Having only a hammer doesn't automatically make > >> everything into a nail. > > >> > The absorption spectra recently cited (such as > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png), > >> > are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination of > >> > existence in the atmosphere. > > >> See pdf pg 184 in the above text for a CO2 spectrum that may shed some > >> light on the subject. > > >> > <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than anything > >> > else> > > >> Don't worry about it. You're clearly not trying to confuse readers by > >> snipping context and misrepresenting the remaining content. John > >> Morgan is a little over-sensitive because every time he tries that, I > >> simply repost what he's snipped, exposing his dishonest tactic. He > >> gets a bit miffed. > > >> I have no objection to legitimate snipping of dead text. > > > You're a lying piece of dried nose excreta, Bilbo, so don't get carried > > away by your present approval for snipping dead text. > > >> Thanks for your comments. > > > But no thanks for yours > > See what I mean? Miffed, but still kind enough to provide an example > confirming my comment. So which piece of text did I snip? Why don't you repost it? Surely you wouldn't lie?
From: Bill Ward on 16 Dec 2008 20:49
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:30:51 -0800, John M. wrote: > On Dec 16, 6:40 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:22:04 -0800, John M. wrote: >> > On Dec 16, 10:28 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:26:00 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> > In <pan.2008.12.03.06.10.49.320...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. >> >> > Ward wrote: >> >> >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:31:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> >> > <edit for space> >> >> >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.28.16.09.18.798...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. >> >> >>> Ward wrote: >> >> >>> Meanwhile, watwer vapor is said to achieve 36-66% of GHG >> >> >>> effect, while >> >> >>> CO2 is said to achieve 9-26%. Despite water vapor concentration >> >> >>> in the atmosphere being generally at least an order of magnitude >> >> >>> greater. >> >> >> >>How is the 9 to 26% range determined? What assumptions are >> >> >>required? Can you explain the mechanisms involved? >> >> >> > It appears to me that thermal IR radiated from surface and >> >> > absorbed by GHGs overhead and reradiated towards the surface has >> >> > breakdown by accountability among the specific GHGs to being 9-26% >> >> > to CO2. >> >> >> Then it would appear the estimate assumes only radiative factors, and >> >> omits convection and other feedback elements. I think I first saw >> >> it in a realclimate entry, based on removing one GHG at a time. I >> >> was hoping you had a more credible source and explanation. >> >> >> I'm skimming through the climate book >> >> >>http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf >> >> >> and am favorably impressed so far. The explanations are pretty >> >> good, and on pdf pgs 120-122, he has an actual summary of the >> >> greenhouse effect and AGW hypothesis that some readers may want to >> >> check out. It's the first one I've seen that is succinct and >> >> coherent. It should be interesting, and perhaps useful, to both >> >> sides to find out out exactly what they are defending or doubting. >> >> Note the footnote(4) at the bottom of pdf pg 122. >> >> >> I'm about halfway through, and find the author clear, credible and >> >> honest in his explanations and examples, but am still skeptical of >> >> some of his assumptions. Having only a hammer doesn't automatically >> >> make everything into a nail. >> >> >> > The absorption spectra recently cited (such as >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png), >> >> > are for GHGs to the extent they actually have some determination >> >> > of existence in the atmosphere. >> >> >> See pdf pg 184 in the above text for a CO2 spectrum that may shed >> >> some light on the subject. >> >> >> > <SNIP from here, because I believe I edit for space more than >> >> > anything else> >> >> >> Don't worry about it. You're clearly not trying to confuse readers >> >> by snipping context and misrepresenting the remaining content. John >> >> Morgan is a little over-sensitive because every time he tries that, I >> >> simply repost what he's snipped, exposing his dishonest tactic. He >> >> gets a bit miffed. >> >> >> I have no objection to legitimate snipping of dead text. >> >> > You're a lying piece of dried nose excreta, Bilbo, so don't get >> > carried away by your present approval for snipping dead text. >> >> >> Thanks for your comments. >> >> > But no thanks for yours >> >> See what I mean? Miffed, but still kind enough to provide an example >> confirming my comment. > > So which piece of text did I snip? Why don't you repost it? Surely you > wouldn't lie? I was referring to the "miffed". You finally quit your snipping tactic after I rubbed your nose in it a few times. |