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: Don Klipstein on 16 Dec 2008 22:28 In article <3gptj4lkjnd96qvgkdqmi414o8k5il0grq(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>On Dec 8, 8:03 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >>> Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >On Dec 8, 8:52 am, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >>> >> d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >>> >>> >> >In <pan.2008.12.03.05.51.11.802...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,B. Ward wrote: >>> >> >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.26.21.52.54.243...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >>> >> >>> said: >>> >> >>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:52:48 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>> >>> >> ><I snip to edit for space arbitrarily on level of quotation/citation, >>> >> >without snipping perfectly accurately on basis of degree of quotation> >>> >>> >> >>>>> Don't be silly. I was being rude about the phrase "water and water >>> >> >>>>> vapor IR radiation plus phase change _moderate_ the temperature" which >>> >> >>>>> is total nonsense, as the Venus example demonstrates. >>> >>> >> >>>>> You also need to apologse for not knowing what you are talking about. >>> >>> >> >>>>>> Just say how N2 and O2 could cool after daytime heating and >>> >> >>>>>> I will go away. >>> >>> >> >>>>> They emit and absorb in the infra-red just like water and carbon >>> >> >>>>> dioxide; because they are symmetrical molecules the transitions are >>> >> >>>>> forbidden, but pressure broadening/intermolecular collisions means that >>> >> >>>>> the transitions happen anyway, albeit much less often than with >>> >> >>>>> asymmetrical molecules. >>> >>> >> >>>>I think we need a link for that. It would mean N2 and O2 are GHGs. >>> >>> >> >>> I suspect to some extremely slight extent they actually are. >>> >>> >> >>Can you tell us why you suspect that? Perhaps a link to some data? >>> >>> >> > On that point, I am feeling challenged to find links supporting a >>> >> >contention that N2 and O2 have IR absorption spectrum features having any >>> >> >significance at "earthly temperatures". >>> >>> >> > Considering only global average surface temperature of 288-289 K, a >>> >> >blackbody has spectral power distribution over 1% of peak over >>> >> >wavelengths from about 3.4 um to about 66 um. >>> >>> >> > Going so far as .1% of peak spectral power distribution of a 288 K >>> >> >blackbody, the wavelength range is about 2.95 um to close to 100 um. >>> >>> >> > Source: The "blackbody formula". >>> >>> >> > I have strong doubt that the massive amounts of O2 and N2 in the >>> >> >atmosphere completely lack any infrared spectral features in or shortly >>> >> >outside such a range. >>> >>> >> ><SNIP from here on basis of low level of content to show as quoted less >>> >> >than twice> >>> >>> >> > - Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) >>> >>> >> The N2 and O2 in the atmosphere are not dry. N2 would have very >>> >> little infr-red if dry, and O2 would probably have a little more, but not >>> >> worth mention, and definitely not enough to mean that the N2 and O2 in >>> >> the Earth's atmosphere could cool themselves without GHGs. >>> >>> >> (without getting a lot warmer than present).- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >Utter and unmitigated bullshit!! >>> >>> >A pure N2 and O2 atmosphere would develop strong winds of the type >>> >seen on the gas giants driven by the temperature and pressure >>> >differentials on the night and daytime sides of the planet. The >>> >atmosphere would lose heat by winds blowing from the cold regions at >>> >the anti-solar point to the warm sunny side. Where the air would take >>> >heat from the hot surface and rise genrating a circulation pattern. >>> >The surface gets to radiate IR away easily at night since we have >>> >already established that to a very good approximation they are >>> >transparent to IR. >>> >>> Try to break away from the myth, if you really believe the >>> above show some math with wind velocity, distance traveled in the >>> half day periods, and explain how to get the hot N2 to contact the >>> ground or colder N2 that would hug the ground. >> >>There will be the hottest ground and hot N2 rising from it soon after >>the sun has passed directly overhead and the coldest ground at the >>poles with a second cold band just before dawn on the night side of >>the planet. The overall circulation would probably be similar to >>Earths for a similar choice of planet weight, day length and position. >> >>http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/global/circ.htm >> >>Strongest daily winds would be across the dawn terminator where the >>temperature gradient is at its most extreme. >> >>Jestreams can manage quite respectable speeds of the order of 300km/hr >>on Earth and they would probably be faster still on a planet that >>lacks any GHGs and so supports a larger temperature differential. >>> >>> Regardless of how much cooling there would be, the N2 temperature >>> would be higher than at present. >>> >>> A link to any study of the scenario would help erase the myth. >> >>No one else in the world shares your delusions about GHGs. Not even >>other AGW sceptics. >> >>Regards, >>Martin Brown > > > Unfortunately, and you are very closed minded not to work >through the exercise, the atmosphere temperatures would not fluctuate >much from day to day with no GHGs, there would be very little cooling, >is there a planet with a gaseous atmosphere but no GHGs? > > Even with wind at the speed of sound there is no way to >circulate warm air to the poles or to the surface at night, the >distances are too great, and too much volume that needs contact >the surface to cool. > > So GHGs must cool the atmosphere. GHGs cool the upper atmosphere while warming what is underneath. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are made mostly of gas, including the GHG methane, and they exhibit global circulation depending on lower reception of solar radiation towards their poles and higher reception of solar radiation towards their equators. In addition, Jupiter has some heat production ftrom within as a result of still remaining in a latter phase of slight gravitational contraction that fell short of making that bunch of hydrogen-rich gas into a star. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Whata Fool on 16 Dec 2008 22:54 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >........... >> So GHGs must cool the atmosphere. > > GHGs cool the upper atmosphere while warming what is underneath. The word warming in that sentence comes from the assumption that the atmosphere close to the surface would be like the moon without GHGs. If that assumption is not made, then my statement is correct. And GHG theory says that GHGs warm the surface, please specify atmosphere, or solid or liquid surface, rather than "what is underneath". I almost get the impression you are arguing half-heartedly, or just to get me to expand on the idea that GHGs cool the atmosphere. > Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are made mostly of gas, including >the GHG methane, and they exhibit global circulation depending on lower >reception of solar radiation towards their poles and higher reception of >solar radiation towards their equators. In addition, Jupiter has some >heat production ftrom within as a result of still remaining in a latter >phase of slight gravitational contraction that fell short of making that >bunch of hydrogen-rich gas into a star. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) The giant planets are a long way from the sun and the atmosphere can hardly be compared to the Earth. There are far too many situations to talk specifics of what cools the surface, but in many cases it is the air that cools the surface, with cloud cover in place, a cold front is a completely different situation than GHGs warming the surface. It is the generalities and the future telling that most skeptics see wrong with AGW claims.
From: Don Klipstein on 16 Dec 2008 22:58 In <pan.2008.12.03.07.48.28.68248(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:02:41 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.11.29.19.20.39.911773(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> wrote: <I snip greatly with a widely swung broad axe on basis of quotation-level> >>>Why not? This specifically refers to clouds having a greenhouse effect: >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing >>> >>><begin excerpt> >>> >>>Clouds increase the global reflection of solar radiation from 15 to 30%, >>>reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by about 44 >>>W/m². This cooling is offset somewhat by the greenhouse effect of >>>clouds which reduces the outgoing longwave radiation by about 31 W/m². >> >> <SNIP fromthere> >> >> You have posted numbers indicating that clouds have a cooling effect - >> reducing income more than reducing outgo of radiation. >> >> Clouds would have a net heating effect only when nighttime-specific with >> tops high enough to be cooler than nighttime surface is. > >Perhaps if referring to clouds with lifetimes that long. But I'm >describing the situation in the tropics where the nights may be clear, >then during the morning, the surface warms, convection sets in, and the >combination of latent heat transport by cumulus clouds and the feedback >from their shadows stabilizes surface temperatures. In the afternoon, some >rain may fall, then during the night the remaining clouds disappear, and >the cycle begins again. > >Isn't this the typical pattern in the low latitude ocean environment? > >Looking at the globe, there's a lot of surface that should behave that >way. Since that's where most of the solar energy is deposited, and where >most of the cooling must occur, it seems a good place to focus attention. Keep in mind how a significant portion of deep tropical convection is over land - as in the "Amazon Valley" and southern parts of NW Africa. Also, I find that cooling of the tropics is by transport of heat to non-tropical latitudes by ocean currents and "atmospheric global circulation" including advection. >> My experience is that on average, clouds with tops that high and >> varying in extent with time of day have their extent being greater in >> daytime than at nighttime. > >But what fraction of the total cooling is from those clouds? It appears to me that the tallest cumuliform clouds only cool the hotspots of some combination of heat and humidity. >> (One exception I can name is "mesoconvective complex", which sometimes >> follows from "mesoconvective cluster" - both of which "acronym-to" >> "MCC". A "mesoconvective cluster" is a dense thunderstorm cluster of >> size appropriate for leading to a tropical depression if over water >> sufficiently warm - and fades more slowly than other thunderstorms do >> when night hits. A "mesoconvective complex" is what some of those >> evolve into as the night goes on - taking on a bit of some sort of storm >> structure so as to refuse to die until late enough in the morning for >> the air surrounding them to be warmer than the air within them.) > >How common are they? Could they be a significant fraction of the >cooling process? Both kinds of storm systems that "acronym-to" MCC mainly cool local humid hotspots and nothing else. The "mesoconvective complex" version even manages reduction of cooling by putting in place a bunch of deep tall cloud with top temperature around -50 C or so, in lieu of uinclouded surface that would have temperature close to +25 C. The "mesoconvective cluster" version, which is not (or sometimes not-yet but more often falls short of) a more organized storm such as a "mesoconvective complex" or a "tropical depression" (latter of which has great dependency of existence over sufficiently warm sufficiently large body of water) remains a slightly significant though minor storm kind type despite usually croaking during the night it forms - if it lasts into the next morning, it does so as a "mesoconvective complex" (which croaks during the next morning unless becoming a tropical cyclone). >Thanks for your comments. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 16 Dec 2008 23:14 In <pan.2008.12.07.08.16.10.171635(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:51:28 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.12.01.09.34.59.305086(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> wrote: >>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:43:58 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >>> >>>> In article <492FF152.3ED3EC25(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>>z wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > > > Besides, models only model LINEAR systems ! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > Oh really? Then the Spice models of transistors (which exhibit >>>>>> > > > an expotential - not linear - relationship between base voltage >>>>>> > > > and collector current) don't exist. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > That IS a linear system as we describe them now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > This is a minority opinion. Any student sharing it with their >>>>>> > examiner would fail that aspect of their exam, but since you >>>>>> > clearly exercise your mind by believing six impossible things >>>>>> > before breakfast I suppose we can write this off as part of the >>>>>> > price you pay to maintain your genius-level IQ. >>>>>> >>>>>> well to be fair, he only said "linear"; could be he didn't mean the >>>>>> usual sense of "straight line" >>>>> >>>>>Quite so. A LINEAR equation can contain power, log, exp terms etc. >>>>> >>>>>But it CANNOT model CHAOS. And that's what weather and climate are. >>>> >>>> Chaos is in weather, not in climate. >>> >>>Climate is low-passed (averaged) weather. Filters cannot remove chaos. >>>Therefore climate is chaotic. Chaos is unpredictable. >>> >>>> And I would call El Ninos, La Ninas, oceanic Rossby waves and the >>>> surges and ebbs of the North Atlantic and Arctic "oscillations" to be >>>> weather phenomena, even though the longer term ones are oceanic in >>>> origin - chaotic deviations from the much nicer longer term trends that >>>> are climate. >>> >>>They are still chaotic, no matter how low the filter corner frequency is. >> >> But if the filter is below the corner frequency, most of the noise is >> removed. Trends that remain are climate change trends with their own >> causes, such as Milankovitch cycles. > >Chaos involves all frequencies. Like 1/f noise, it doesn't have a corner >frequency. Lowpassing doesn't remove the chaotic nature of the lower >frequencies, such as the ocean currents, biological factors, plate >tectonics, and a whole host of other things we haven't even thought about >yet. But it's still unpredictable chaos, even if we knew all the factors. Except that these sources of noise have lower corner frequencies, below which they approximate "white noise" rather than "1/f noise". - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 17 Dec 2008 00:59
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:58:18 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <pan.2008.12.03.07.48.28.68248(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:02:41 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.29.19.20.39.911773(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >>> wrote: > <I snip greatly with a widely swung broad axe on basis of quotation-level> >>>>Why not? This specifically refers to clouds having a greenhouse >>>>effect: >>>> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing >>>> >>>><begin excerpt> >>>> >>>>Clouds increase the global reflection of solar radiation from 15 to >>>>30%, reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by >>>>about 44 W/mò. This cooling is offset somewhat by the greenhouse >>>>effect of clouds which reduces the outgoing longwave radiation by about >>>>31 W/mò. >>> >>> <SNIP fromthere> >>> >>> You have posted numbers indicating that clouds have a cooling effect >>> - >>> reducing income more than reducing outgo of radiation. >>> >>> Clouds would have a net heating effect only when nighttime-specific >>> with >>> tops high enough to be cooler than nighttime surface is. >> >>Perhaps if referring to clouds with lifetimes that long. But I'm >>describing the situation in the tropics where the nights may be clear, >>then during the morning, the surface warms, convection sets in, and the >>combination of latent heat transport by cumulus clouds and the feedback >>from their shadows stabilizes surface temperatures. In the afternoon, >>some rain may fall, then during the night the remaining clouds disappear, >>and the cycle begins again. >> >>Isn't this the typical pattern in the low latitude ocean environment? >> >>Looking at the globe, there's a lot of surface that should behave that >>way. Since that's where most of the solar energy is deposited, and where >>most of the cooling must occur, it seems a good place to focus attention. > > Keep in mind how a significant portion of deep tropical convection is > over land - as in the "Amazon Valley" and southern parts of NW Africa. OK. Relevance? Are you implying there's not enough water? > > Also, I find that cooling of the tropics is by transport of heat to > non-tropical latitudes by ocean currents and "atmospheric global > circulation" including advection. Some, yes. But how much? I don't trust climate models to tell me. Too much depends on the assumptions. >>> My experience is that on average, clouds with tops that high and >>> varying in extent with time of day have their extent being greater in >>> daytime than at nighttime. >> >>But what fraction of the total cooling is from those clouds? > > It appears to me that the tallest cumuliform clouds only cool the > hotspots of some combination of heat and humidity. Does it really matter what they're cooling? The heat is radiated away. That's all that matters. >>> (One exception I can name is "mesoconvective complex", which >>> sometimes >>> follows from "mesoconvective cluster" - both of which "acronym-to" >>> "MCC". A "mesoconvective cluster" is a dense thunderstorm cluster of >>> size appropriate for leading to a tropical depression if over water >>> sufficiently warm - and fades more slowly than other thunderstorms do >>> when night hits. A "mesoconvective complex" is what some of those >>> evolve into as the night goes on - taking on a bit of some sort of >>> storm structure so as to refuse to die until late enough in the >>> morning for the air surrounding them to be warmer than the air within >>> them.) >> >>How common are they? Could they be a significant fraction of the >>cooling process? > > Both kinds of storm systems that "acronym-to" MCC mainly cool local > humid hotspots and nothing else. The "mesoconvective complex" version > even manages reduction of cooling by putting in place a bunch of deep > tall cloud with top temperature around -50 C or so, in lieu of > uinclouded surface that would have temperature close to +25 C. How does the convected latent heat get back down? The net IR flux must be outward. > The "mesoconvective cluster" version, which is not (or sometimes > not-yet but more often falls short of) a more organized storm such as a > "mesoconvective complex" or a "tropical depression" (latter of which has > great dependency of existence over sufficiently warm sufficiently large > body of water) remains a slightly significant though minor storm kind > type despite usually croaking during the night it forms - if it lasts > into the next morning, it does so as a "mesoconvective complex" (which > croaks during the next morning unless becoming a tropical cyclone). > >>Thanks for your comments. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |