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: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 09:07 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> 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 desribe them now. > Back in 1969 I was modelling a second > order chemical reaction (the thermal decompostion of NOBr, in which > the rate is proportional to the square of the concentration of NOBr) - > including its self-cooling for my Ph.D.project. Would you like to > think that one out again? > > > Climate is CHAOTIC. > > Weather is chaotic. Climate is rather more predictable NO ! > - a fact that farmers have been relying on for several millenia now. UTTER RUBBISH. You only just mentioned droughts. What's LINEAR about those ? Ever heard of the Irish potato famine btw ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 09:11 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > It's successors might be more interesting - the computers available in > 1960 weren't all that impressive. I wrote my first program in 1965 for > Melbourne University's IBM 7040/44 which had 32k of 36bit words of > core memory, and relied on magnetic tape for mass storage, and cost > the university a million dollars. And you're clearly stuck in some surreal time warp. Hey, I programmed on an Elliot Automation 803. And an IBM 360. Then an Epson HX-20 followed by a BBC- Model B with 128kB of memory (bank switched) and then the ubiquitous 8051 family. And don't forget the Z80 ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 09:15 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Bill Ward wrote: > > > You didn't address any of the issues I raised. Are you unable, or do you > > > just know better than to try?# > > > > Of course he didn't. AGWists never do, they just repeat their propaganda. > > Goebbels would have been proud of them. > > > > The fact that REAL DATA totally undermines their case is of no interest to > > them. > > Graham's idea of "real data" is what he's spoon-fed on Exxon-Mobil > funded web-sites. Bwahahahahahahahhaha ! You sloganist ! You have plumbed the depths of ignorance so deep, all you have left is that ? You'll be telling me the earth is flat next and polar bear numbers are falling ! Graham
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 10:53 On 26 nov, 12:28, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >bill.slo...(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. In the near infra-red, which is the region of most interest for global warming, both carbon dioxide and water show line spectra. Both are triatomic molecules which means that they have symmetric and asymmetric stretches and a bending mode. Each of the vibrational lines shows rotational fine structure. The individual rotational lines are quite narrow (to an extent that depends on pressure broadening). Here's a high resolution study of the water vapour spectrum http://www.usu.edu/alo/lidarinfo/spie%204484.pdf both sets of spectra look something like a picket fence at the resolution you need to model the greenhouse effect. > >> 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? That's irrelevant - the temperature of the stratosphere is so low (-55C) that any water vapour around freezes to ice particles and the residual water vapour pressure is very 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. Sure. Most of the mass of the atmosphere - about 90% - is below the tropopause. But the stratosphere stretches out quite a long way. > 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 effect? This is correct - the air temperature declines as you go up through the troposphere whch is to say that you've got a temperature gradient through an insulating blanket, and stabilises once you hit the bottom of the stratosphere at the tropopause, which is to say that the stratosphere isn't functioning as an insulator. Note that the top of the troposphere is also pretty cold and thus nearly as low on water vapour. > 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. That's what the climatologists models do, but they also have to keep track of heat flux carried by mass-transfer - both by simple convection and the heat that is moved upwards as water vapour to be released when the water vapour condenses to liquid water (rain and clouds) and ice (ice clouds and hail). > CO2 plays such a small part in atmospheric physics, it could be > totally ignored without changing the outcome a measurable amount. Wrong. > 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. So what? > 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. But is is very effective in "pressure broadening" the water vapour rotational lines - much more so than oxygen and nitrogen, which are non-polar molecules and don't stick to water during collisons for nearly as long as CO2. > At the temperatures at higher altitudes, IR radiation is sparse, Nonsense, the Earth - or rather the tropopause - is a black body radiator in the near infra-red and the radiation flux out to the rest of the universe only depends on the temperature through the tropopause. > 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. We are living on one that has been running for the last four billion years; NASA put up a bunch of satellites to monitor it in detail a couple of decades ago, and Dr, Hansen supervises the people who process the data they collect. <snipped a bit of elementary thernmodynamics> The earth's energy budget is dominated by the heat flux coming in from the sun, which is balanced by the radiation from the tropopause out to the rest of the universe. We actually radiate a little bit more than we get from the sun because the earth's core is still cooling off, and the tides are slowing down the moon. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 10:55
On 26 nov, 06:16, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > > > On 25 nov, 09:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > > > >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: <snip> > > 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. > > And you KNOW this HOW ? Was it a MODEL ? Thermodynamics.Water is a condensible gas, and it condenses to liquid water or ice if the local vapour pressure is higher than the equilibrium vapour pressure over liquid water or frozen ice at that temperature. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/ice/Vapor2.gif The bulk of the stratosphere sits at around -55C http://www.answers.com/topic/stratosphere > I think this is what's called a 'hypothesis'. And a pretty bloody weak one About as weak a Newton's hypothesis about gravitational forces. > as we > look headed for the coldest winter in decades here in the UK. That's something of a stretch. You are claimig that a little short term random noise on the long-term global warming trend invalidates classical thermodynamics. You do go out of your way to iilustrate how remarkably little you actually know about science. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |