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.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 04:04 On 26 nov, 06:27, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Jim Thompson wrote: > > Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>James Arthur wrote: > > > >>> "With many regions in their fifth year of drought, the > > >>> government yesterday called an emergency water summit > > >>> in Canberra." > > > >>So a shorter drought than the 1880 to 1886 one ! Damn that CO2 in 1880 ! > > > >They could go the way that Santa Barbara does. When I was there, they > > >were in the fifth year of a drought, and started building a > > >desalination plant to provide water. They were encouraging > > >conservation so well, that the sewers were backing up due to lack of > > >flow to keep them clear. > > > >Then, just after I left, they got some rain, and the drought was over. > > >Then, they got some more rain. And, then some more rain, and they > > >were having mudslides and flooding all over the place. > > > >Then, some one did a little research. A hundred years before, there > > >was a great harbor at Santa Barbara, one of the reasons it was > > >settled. But, then they had a drought for six years, and the settlers > > >were hard put to survive. Then it started raining, and raining and > > >raining. The harbor is still a major transportation hub for the town, > > >but it is now called the Airport! > > > Ah, Californica, the epitome of how environmentalism can cause self > > destruction. > > Funny how that phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" eludes the AGWists. So Santa Barbara is hell? And it got that way due to environmentalist activists? Jim Thompson gets it wrong (as usual) - Charlie E.'s Santa Barbara story didn't involve enviromentalists (who don't like desalination plants) - and Eeyore decides that the - premature - decision to build a desalination plant can be equated with the rather better founded plans of the anthropogenic global warming lobby to do something to stabilise atmospheric CO2 levels. Since Eeyore isn't equipped to follow the logic involved, let alone understand the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, he's not inhibited by any fear of making himself look ridiculous all over again. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 04:16 On 25 nov, 23:46, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Rich the Philosophizer wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:56:12 +0000, James Arthur wrote: > > > ... > > > It's all the Mayan's fault. They did it. > > > They also wrote the calendar where the world ends in 2012: > > We're DOOMED ! > > > "The events predicted for 2012 by the ancient Maya are not substantially > > different than those predicted by sages throughout the millennia. > > Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and other seers have > > predicted similar events marking 'the end of time.' And the Maya are > > only one of many indigenous cultures that have spoken of their deeply > > held vision for the events near and immediately after the end of time." > > ---http://godchannel.com/grandfatherinterview2.html > > ;-) > > I recall from archive film footage of around the 1960s that it was popular > for old blokes to walk round the centre of London with 'sandwich boards' > saying "The End of the World is Nigh" and the like. > > Presumably they're all dead now. > > I wonder how they felt considering their prophesy hadn't come true (maybe > they just thought they'd got the timing out slightly) and will Bill Sloman > feel the same ? Probably not. Their propecies were based on their reading of the Book of Revelations, which is to say religious belief. My claim is somewhat less dramatic - something along the lines of "modern industrial civilisation is doomed unless we clean up our act within the next few decades" and it is based on good science. Eeyore to ignorant to appreciate that there is good science involved, so he's wandering around with a sandwich board claiming that "The End of the World is not Nigh" based on revelations passed down to him by Exxon-Mobil funded web-sites (which is a pretty poor choice of religious faith - the fathers of that particular church so love their profits that they are prepared to put their society at risk to preserve them). -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 04:56 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 25 nov, 23:46, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Rich the Philosophizer wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:56:12 +0000, James Arthur wrote: > > > > ... > > > > It's all the Mayan's fault. They did it. > > > > > They also wrote the calendar where the world ends in 2012: > > > > We're DOOMED ! > > > > > "The events predicted for 2012 by the ancient Maya are not substantially > > > different than those predicted by sages throughout the millennia. > > > Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and other seers have > > > predicted similar events marking 'the end of time.' And the Maya are > > > only one of many indigenous cultures that have spoken of their deeply > > > held vision for the events near and immediately after the end of time." > > > ---http://godchannel.com/grandfatherinterview2.html > > > ;-) > > > > I recall from archive film footage of around the 1960s that it was popular > > for old blokes to walk round the centre of London with 'sandwich boards' > > saying "The End of the World is Nigh" and the like. > > > > Presumably they're all dead now. > > > > I wonder how they felt considering their prophesy hadn't come true (maybe > > they just thought they'd got the timing out slightly) and will Bill Sloman > > feel the same ? > > Probably not. Their propecies were based on their reading of the Book > of Revelations, which is to say religious belief. Just like AGW !
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 05:46 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 25 nov, 23:46, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Rich the Philosophizer wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:56:12 +0000, James Arthur wrote: > > > > ... > > > > It's all the Mayan's fault. They did it. > > > > > They also wrote the calendar where the world ends in 2012: > > > > We're DOOMED ! > > > > > "The events predicted for 2012 by the ancient Maya are not substantially > > > different than those predicted by sages throughout the millennia. > > > Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and other seers have > > > predicted similar events marking 'the end of time.' And the Maya are > > > only one of many indigenous cultures that have spoken of their deeply > > > held vision for the events near and immediately after the end of time." > > > ---http://godchannel.com/grandfatherinterview2.html > > > ;-) > > > > I recall from archive film footage of around the 1960s that it was popular > > for old blokes to walk round the centre of London with 'sandwich boards' > > saying "The End of the World is Nigh" and the like. > > > > Presumably they're all dead now. > > > > I wonder how they felt considering their prophesy hadn't come true (maybe > > they just thought they'd got the timing out slightly) and will Bill Sloman > > feel the same ? > > Probably not. Their propecies were based on their reading of the Book > of Revelations, which is to say religious belief. Just like AGW !
From: Whata Fool on 26 Nov 2008 06:28
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide and >> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that >> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and temperature >> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any great >> extent, which allows both gases to make independent contributions to >> the greenhouse effect. Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 much more narrow. >> There's also the point that the vapour pressure of water in the >> stratosphere is pretty low, because the stratosphere is cold, and >> carbon dioxide does more of the greenhouse work up there than it does >> below the tropopause. Water has a very low boiling point in the stratosphere because the pressure is low, does that make the vapor pressure high or low? The stratosphere is cold, so the net energy transfer from the surface to the stratosphere is upward, and the energy transfer to space is great. AGW talkers completely leave out much of the physics, gossip about spectra sounds mystical to the greenhorn greenie, real physicists talk about energy transfer in flux quantities per unit of time. The amount of CO2 in the stratosphere is minute, because the stratosphere has a pressure of less than one pound per square inch, and not much mass. Frankly, if the lower troposphere doesn't provide most of any GHG effect, then how can the lower pressure, colder, less dense with less mass layers above have as much of an affect? Rather than try to put physics to such vague gossip as spectra bands, it would be better to start from scratch, study the temperature, pressure, mass, specific heat and energy content of a quantity of the atmosphere at each level, and the capability to radiate or absorb Infra- Red. CO2 plays such a small part in atmospheric physics, it could be totally ignored without changing the outcome a measurable amount. Water vapor concentration can increase and decrease many times the total concentration of CO2 and it doesn't change the temperature much, in fact, dry air can get hotter faster or colder faster, than moist air. More moisture means more IR absorption, but moist air moderates temperature changes. CO2 has no phase change at atmospheric temperature and pressure, and has a very low activity level compared to water and water vapor and ice. At the temperatures at higher altitudes, IR radiation is sparse, if the AGW "scientist" were to begin good science, they would devise experiments to show how much energy can be transferred in a given time. A colder atmosphere absorbs more from warm solids, liquids and gases, but radiates less. That means the net energy flow is upward, both from surface to high altitude, and from surface to space. And also from low altitude to high altitude. There is no net energy transfer from cold to hot. |