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: Charmed Snark on 17 Dec 2008 16:09 expounded in news:f467a6cc-3552-44a5-9255-f74668ada972(a)d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com: > On 10 dec, 22:27, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:53:53 -0600, kT wrote: >> > John M. wrote: >> >> On Dec 9, 7:13 pm, kT <cos...(a)lifeform.org> wrote: >> >>> John M. wrote: >> >>>> both sides of the debate. >> >>> There is no 'debate' about climate change you idiot. >> >> >> If there's no debate then science is all washed up you denk. >> >> > We aren't talking about 'science', we're talking about 'climate >> > change'. >> >> Exactly. "climate change" is NOT "science": it's a religious cult. > > It may look that way to people who don't understand much about science > - and Rich's occasional postings on the subject aren't well-informed - > but anthropogenic global warming does look very like a well-founded > scientific hypothesis to the better-informed. More global warming! It's still too cold up here (in Canada).. at this time of year.. So bring it on man..
From: Whata Fool on 17 Dec 2008 18:47 Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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. Then why do all the early papers talk about the moon? >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. The only helium in the atmosphere is what leaks from wells, and that may escape to space in time. >GHGs just trap more heat in the lower atmosphere (assuming that there is >enough of them to be optically dense). That is the GHG theory, isn't it, but it does not properly address the issue of the Earth as it is except with no GHGs or water. >This was first reallised more >than a century ago. Only demented right wing lunatics deny this reality. A lot of demented people wrote papers more than a century ago. Your use of the "right wing" term exposes your agenda. >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. Rather it is the reverse, GHGs radiate, N2 doesn't, O2 does very little, GHGs add to the cooling process. To warm the atmosphere, remove some GHGs. >> 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. Fortunately there are GHGs, else it could get too warm. >> 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. The "surface", not the atmosphere as a whole. When I say atmosphere, I do not mean surface. I know the difference. >> 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 ** Read the earlier post again, what happened to my question about if there is a planet with an atmosphere but NO GHGs. It is difficult to discuss science with people who forget the question, or side step it, or snip it.
From: Don Klipstein on 17 Dec 2008 21:08 In article <4juoj4lpnt8pmml6srpt2a9vtt2clnmc99(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(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*. >> >>Graham > > > Because it is obvious that more water vapor is a temperature moderator, >and a very beneficial and effective one. Well, when we have more GHGs, the areas that warm the most tend to be cooler ones in/near the Arctic and Antarctic (especially the Arctic). With more water vapor, dry hot areas can fail to have their hottest times of day getting hotter - they would produce thunderstorms more easily. That may explain a climate change forecast model I saw many years ago predicting that Arizona would not get much hotter as the globe is warmed by increase of GHGs. But their nights will be warmer. > All CO2 can do is absorb and emit, which can only cool the huge mass >of the atmosphere, And warm it when it absorbs more than it emits, which it sometimes does. And slow cooling of the surface, since some of the radiation it emits is downward. > CO2 doesn't have enough mass to store or hold any thermal energy. > > The N2 and O2 get warmed by the various processes, solar radiation, >contact and convection, and radiation via water vapor and the trace GHGs, >and the N2 and O2 hold that thermal energy until the GHGs radiate it to >space. > > In order to see what this means, the temperature of an N2 and O2 >atmosphere and NO GHGS has to be estimated, and compared to the present >temperature, and that tells the net result of the GHG effect. For one thing, the world's surface temperature is warmer than it would be than that of a blackbody in Earth's orbit, despite ratio of low temperature emissivity to solar radiation absorption exceeding 1. There is some sort of impedance to outgoing radiation from the surface. > It has to be that GHGs cool the N2 and O2, which is 98 percent of >the mass of the atmosphere, so more GHGs should cool the atmosphere a >little more. The atmosphere above roughly the 350 mb level (about 8 km) would indeed cool, except for surface warming increasing reception of sunlight. > The actual solid and liquid surface temperatures vary so much as >a result of many factors, the "surface" temperature doesn't matter much >during an interglacial period. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 17 Dec 2008 21:21 In article <6rtqj4humr72mcg31j203tulsur5ldnkk3(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>On Dec 8, 1:20 am, 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. > > > Total nonsense resulting from the 19th century comparison of >the Moon and Earth temperatures. > > Lets try to sort this out and resolve it, many texts comment on >the Earth being warmer than the moon because the Earth has an atmosphere, >and that is correct, but it doesn't matter what gases are in the atmosphere >if that is the premise, any atmosphere at all should cause higher average >and more moderate temperatures than the moon. An atmosphere free of GHGs will smooth the peaks and dips. One with GHGs will make the surface warmer than one without GHGs. > Then other texts say that the Earth is warmer because of GHGs, >which jumps over the scenario where the Earth could have an N2 and O2 >atmosphere. > > The N2 and O2 atmosphere, without GHGs would be warmer, maybe >"hotter" is a better word, than present, How? With GHGs, some of the radiation from the surface is absorbed by the GHGs and some of the radiation emitted by the GHGs is back towards the surface. With GHGs, surface warms to have radiation leaving the planet matching what it receives. > and that is what must be >considered before coming up with a comment about GHGs warming the >Earth. GHGs may help the solid or liquid surface stay warmer, but >the annual average global temperature is not of the surface, it is >of the lowest level of the troposphere at about 2 meters above ground. > > N2 and O2 have to be cooled some way at night to get the temperatures >measured, and GHGs are what cools the N2 and O2. At 2 meters above the ground, the air is cooled at night by the surface. Air has enough heat conductivity for the surface to cool the air 2 meters above over a few hours. For that matter, a breeze easily mixes the lowest hundred or two meters of air, allowing radiational cooling of the surface to cool air that high. A strong breeze on a clear night with sufficient humidity can force turbulent mixing high enough to form a low cloud deck, which can itself cool radiationally - and be warmer than otherwise if GHgs above it are throwing any radiation back down. > Scientists consider every thought and premise, but have missed >the fact that the early studies skipped around from the moon to an >Earth with no atmosphere at all, to an Earth with GHGs in the atmosphere, >so with that information posted here, scientists need to consider an >Earth with an N2 and O2 atmosphere and NO GHGs, then decide if they >want to perpetuate the myth that GHGs warm the atmosphere, or the >weather service recorded temperatures, which are atmospheric temperatures. I think that has been modelled already somewhere, and it may not take me long to find such a model. Expect much cooler, with a much lower tropopause. Expect the 350 mb level to have temperature close to what it has now, but to be in the stratosphere. >>Warmer seas and warmer air over them will contain more water vapour as >>a result. >> >>Regards, >>Martin Brown > > Probably, but general statements are tricky, saying a higher annual >global temperature would mean high humidity may not hold true, and saying >moist air causes higher temperatures is definitely misleading. Relative humidity may not rise - in fact should stay about the same if oceans warm to the same extent as everything else on and near the surface. However, percentage of atmosphere being water vapor would increase, and water vapor is a greenhouse gas - currently having roughly double to a few times as much GHG effect as CO2 has now. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 17 Dec 2008 22:27
In article <pan.2008.12.09.15.55.30.33517(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:03:54 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.12.02.00.19.03.512271(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> wrote: >>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:59:25 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >>> >>>> In <pan.2008.11.29.04.28.21.555150(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >>>> said: >>>>>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:38:49 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 28 nov, 19:01, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:54:19 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 27 nov, 19:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:55:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> <SNIP stuff already said more than 6 times> >>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd covered that. In the near and middle infra-red both >>>>>>>>>> water and carbon dioxide have spectra that consist of a lot of >>>>>>>>>> narrow absorbtion lines - rotational fine structure around a few >>>>>>>>>> modes of vibration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Only a few of these lines overlap, so to a first approximation >>>>>>>>>> the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water are >>>>>>>>>> independent. Water doesn't mask CO2 absorbtions and an vice >>>>>>>>>> versa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The situation gets more complicated when you look at the widths >>>>>>>>>> of the individual absorption lines. These are broader in the >>>>>>>>>> atmosphere than they are when looked at in pure sample of water >>>>>>>>>> vapour or carbon dioxide in the lab, which increases the >>>>>>>>>> greenhouse effect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The mechanism of this "pressure broadening" is intermolecular >>>>>>>>>> collisions that coincide with the emission or absorbtion of a >>>>>>>>>> photon - this slightly changes the molecule doing the >>>>>>>>>> absorption/emission, slightly moving the position of the spectal >>>>>>>>>> line. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Polar molecules - like water and carbon dioxide - create more >>>>>>>>>> pressure broadening than non-polar molecules than oxygen and and >>>>>>>>>> nitrogen. They interact more strongly with the molecules they >>>>>>>>>> collide with - creating a bigger spectra shift - and the >>>>>>>>>> collision lasts longer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes water a more >>>>>>>>>> powerful green-house gas and vice versa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Happy now? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you just spewed the dogma again. ÃÂ I think the >>>>>>>>> troposphere is there because of convection lifting the surface >>>>>>>>> energy up to the cloud tops, maintaining a near adiabatic lapse >>>>>>>>> rate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Convection becomes progressively less effective as the pressure >>>>>>>> drops - gas density decreases with pressure, which decreases the >>>>>>>> driving force you get from a given temperature difference in >>>>>>>> exactly the same proportion, and the quantity of heat being >>>>>>>> transported per unit volume is also reduced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the gas is expanding. ÃÂ It's still rising, and the >>>>>>> resistance is decreased. ÃÂ Lift is roughly constant at least >>>>>>> to 14000 ft, from personal observation. It doesn't generally drop >>>>>>> off linearly with altitude. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it is less dense, so it's transporting less heat. >>>>> >>>>>Energy is conserved. Where did the latent heat go, if not up? It's >>>>>carried by convection to the cloud top, and radiates away. >>>> >>>> Not all of it (latent or the majority otherwise) does. >>> >>>Then I repeat: Where did it go? Surely you're not claiming net energy is >>>moving from cold air to warm surface. The second law cops will come and >>>get you. >> >> Some gets radiated. Much ends up on surface farther from the tropics >> than where it came from. A little bit does end up on surface hotter than >> where it came from (in dry subtropical highs), but that is clearly greatly >> a minority. > >That would require a heat pump. Could you explain the mechanism? Global atmospheric circulation driven by troposphere being warmer in the tropics than around the poles but on a rotating planet gives us such things as the subtropical jetstreams and subtropical highs. The heatpump results, and does indeed have a minority of the air ascending in the ITCZ descending to the surface outside the ITCZ hotter than cooler. From surface to roughly the 110 mb level, the average temperature is supposed to be colder where the air descends. The descending air could cool by radiation - when descended to levels of the atmosphere with below-avererage GHG overhead (due to being very dry). Extra heating at some altitudes (sometimes close to surface) results from descent warming at the greater dry adiabatic lapse rate except for such air cooling radiationally from its GHGs - which it has less of (due to being dry), though it has below-average extent of GHG overhead. The air in hotspots of subtropical highs could even get pushed down by local weather features, though when "that hot" has to be a small minority in order for the laws of thermodynamics to hold true. Meanwhile, the highest temperatures in Africa and in North America, also above sea level in North America, are quite far from the equator - I would dare say at least 27 degrees north latitude, maybe more like closer to 30. >>>> And greenhouse gases above the cloudtop will return to the cloud some >>>> of the cloud's thermal radiation. >>> >>>Not net radiation. The net energy flow is always from hot to cold. >>>Always. >> >> GHGs will add impedance to that flow. > >And latent heat transport will decrease the impedance. And increase thereof will decrease temperature difference between where the heat comes from and where the heat goes. Much of the air rising in "tropical deep convection" descends elsewhere in the world, since rising air in "tropical deep convection" is part of global atmospheric circulation. Global atmospheric circulation already contributes to the polar regions being warmer and the tropics being cooler than they otherwise would be. (Global oceanic circulation also does that - reduced exposure to global oceanic circulation makes the Red Sea and nearby areas hotter than otherwise-similar tropical areas.) >>>> And what goes up usually must go down - especially air. The air >>>> rising >>>> through the cloud mass of a Nor'Easter will descend somewhere. >>> >>> And it's dryer and cooler because of precipitation and radiation. >> >> Precipitation cools it? > >No, it drys it. > >> I thought condensation warms it. But radiation >> wil cool it. It ends up on ground somewhere, usually cooler than where it >> came from, and often making the ground warmer than it otherwise would be. > >Of course. Heat is transported poleward. Very true - I would like to note something we agree on! >>>>> The whole notion of somehow "trapping" energy in the atmosphere seems >>>>> ludicrous. It's either sensible heat, latent heat, or radiation. It >>>>> doesn't just disappear. >>>> >>>> It accumulates until radiator temperatures get sufficient to have >>>> radiative outgo to outer space match radiative income from the Sun. > >If by "accumulating", you mean the temperature increases, yes. The >radiation is proportion to the 4th power of that temperature. > >>>Then it's sensible heat subject to upward convection. >> >> It won't convect much until warming achieves lapse rate achieving the >> relevant adiabatic one. > >And accumulating heat will raise the temperature until convection begins. > >> Most of the atmosphere has lapse rate less than the relevant adiabatic one. > >Probably. Half of the atmosphere is in nighttime. Wouldn't you agree >most heat is transported to the radiative layer during the daytime, when >temperatures are higher? I would agree much more heat gets transported there during daytime than at nighttime. However, most of the world lacks cloud tops within 4 km of the 350 mb level, and a lot of the air gettinmg that high or higher manages to not lose a lot of heat by radiation before it descends - a lot of radiational cooling of air occurs where its descent requires cooling as it descends (One good example is polar vortices). >>> The temperature is a function of the gas laws and the specific heat of >>> the air. Warming a parcel of gas doesn't "trap" any radiation. >> >> I did not say warming a parcel of gas makes it trap radiation. What I >> said was that if a parcel of gas was cooler than achieving radiation >> balance, it will warm from radiation. > >True. That warming assists convection. What if it warmed where the lapse rate was short of allowing convection? That describes at least 80% of the troposphere! >>>The surface heat flow is in during the day and out at night, only the >>>net flow is balanced. >>> >>>I think you may be confused by the Trenberth energy flow cartoon, which >>>shows the 45W/m^2 surface IR component as the difference between upward >>>and downward radiation flows. It's misleading, because no net heat can >>>ever flow from cold to hot. >>> >>>Improperly averaging terms that should be integrated seems to be a >>>common factor in the "climate science" domain. >> >> I am not claiming that there is a long term imbalance between >> amount of energy income and amount of energy outgo anywhere. An >> imbalance will result in a temperature change to cause outgo and income >> to match. > >I didn't mean to imply you did. That seems relatively obvious. > >We seem to be basically agreeing on several points. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |