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 17 Dec 2008 01:23 On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:14:10 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > 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". That's news to me. Where did you get that? AFAIK, 1/f noise is everywhere. If you're below the corner frequency, a lowpass filter doesn't appreciably affect the signal. The ocean currents for sure are chaotic. The bifurcation in the conveyor belt guarantees it. > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: John M. on 17 Dec 2008 04:13 On Dec 17, 2:49 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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. More serial lies from the piece of dessicated snot. He just can't stop.
From: Martin Brown on 17 Dec 2008 03:37 Whata Fool wrote: > 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. The physics assumes nothing of the sort. Global circulation of winds would moderate the temperature of a planet even with a pure diatomic or even monatomic gas. Helium is an exceptionally good heat transfer medium for example if the planet was heavy enough to retain it. GHGs just trap more heat in the lower atmosphere (assuming that there is enough of them to be optically dense). This was first reallised more than a century ago. Only demented right wing lunatics deny this reality. It is exactly the same technology that is used to decrease unwanted IR emissions from low pressure sodium lamps with an InO coating. Preventing IR emissions at certain wavelengths from escaping (or slowing the rate of escape) necessarily makes the emitter become warmer. > > If that assumption is not made, then my statement is correct. However, your idea is not applicable in the lower regions of the atmosphere where GHGs are optically dense at their main absorbing wavelengths. Once you are high up and in the zone where the MFP for a photon allows it to get outside the atmosphere if it goes upwards then half of all the photons a GHG emits can escape in one bound. > > And GHG theory says that GHGs warm the surface, please specify > atmosphere, or solid or liquid surface, rather than "what is underneath". They stop certain wavelengths from leaving so easily. There is in effect a partial heat reflector placed in the atmosphere. > > 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. You wanted an example of a planet with a gas atmosphere. Atmospheric circulations on the various planets with atmospheres contain many of the same features it is just using different working gasses. Regards, Martin Brown ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
From: Bill Ward on 17 Dec 2008 11:01 On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:37:28 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: > Whata Fool wrote: >> 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. > > The physics assumes nothing of the sort. Global circulation of winds would > moderate the temperature of a planet even with a pure diatomic or even > monatomic gas. Helium is an exceptionally good heat transfer medium for > example if the planet was heavy enough to retain it. > > GHGs just trap more heat in the lower atmosphere (assuming that there is > enough of them to be optically dense). How do you "trap heat" in a convective atmosphere? Radiation isn't the only game in town. > This was first reallised more than > a century ago. Only demented right wing lunatics deny this reality. > > It is exactly the same technology that is used to decrease unwanted IR > emissions from low pressure sodium lamps with an InO coating. Preventing > IR emissions at certain wavelengths from escaping (or slowing the rate of > escape) necessarily makes the emitter become warmer. And Kr is used to increase the temperature of incandescent filaments. Why don't you explain that one too? It involves convection and thermal conductivity, not radiation. >> >> If that assumption is not made, then my statement is correct. > > However, your idea is not applicable in the lower regions of the > atmosphere where GHGs are optically dense at their main absorbing > wavelengths. Once you are high up and in the zone where the MFP for a > photon allows it to get outside the atmosphere if it goes upwards then > half of all the photons a GHG emits can escape in one bound. >> >> And GHG theory says that GHGs warm the surface, please specify >> atmosphere, or solid or liquid surface, rather than "what is >> underneath". > > They stop certain wavelengths from leaving so easily. There is in effect > a partial heat reflector placed in the atmosphere. >> >> 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. > > You wanted an example of a planet with a gas atmosphere. Atmospheric > circulations on the various planets with atmospheres contain many of the > same features it is just using different working gasses. > > Regards, > Martin Brown > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
From: Bill Ward on 17 Dec 2008 11:10
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:13:24 -0800, John M. wrote: > On Dec 17, 2:49 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> 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. > > More serial lies from the piece of dessicated snot. He just can't stop. Don't judge John too harshly. I think he's doing the best he can. |