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: DeadFrog on 26 Nov 2008 14:10 "James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:%6hXk.1301$QX3.963(a)nwrddc02.gnilink.net... > Whata Fool wrote: >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide and >>>> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that >>>> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and temperature >>>> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any great >>>> extent, which allows both gases to make independent contributions to >>>> the greenhouse effect. >> >> >> Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers >> showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 >> much more narrow. > > Bill's arguments are qualitative. > > As they must be. So far, AGW is uncomputable, > unpredictable, unverifiable. > > Hence the controversy. > > Cheers, > James Arthur You must have been asleep for the last decade or so.
From: James Arthur on 26 Nov 2008 14:50 DeadFrog wrote: > > "James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > news:%6hXk.1301$QX3.963(a)nwrddc02.gnilink.net... >> Whata Fool wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Bill's arguments are qualitative. >> >> As they must be. So far, AGW is uncomputable, >> unpredictable, unverifiable. >> >> Hence the controversy. >> >> Cheers, >> James Arthur > > You must have been asleep for the last decade or so. No, I just understand a bit about the scale of the problem understanding something so vast, of gathering the necessary data, and the modeling challenges. Models are verified by making predictions, then checking against reality. In science theories are checked by experiment. But that hasn't been done for AGW. (What facet of AGW have computer models successfully predicted? In advance, that is.) Cheers, James Arthur ~~~~~~ �It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong�. --Richard Feynman
From: DeadFrog on 26 Nov 2008 15:05 "James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:CMhXk.1310$QX3.999(a)nwrddc02.gnilink.net... > DeadFrog wrote: >> >> "James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:%6hXk.1301$QX3.963(a)nwrddc02.gnilink.net... >>> Whata Fool wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Bill's arguments are qualitative. >>> >>> As they must be. So far, AGW is uncomputable, >>> unpredictable, unverifiable. >>> >>> Hence the controversy. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> James Arthur >> >> You must have been asleep for the last decade or so. > > No, I just understand a bit about the scale of the > problem understanding something so vast, of gathering > the necessary data, and the modeling challenges. > > Models are verified by making predictions, then checking > against reality. In science theories are checked by > experiment. But that hasn't been done for AGW. > > (What facet of AGW have computer models successfully > predicted? In advance, that is.) > > Cheers, > James Arthur > > ~~~~~~ > �It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't > matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with > experiment, it's wrong�. --Richard Feynman "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections" Rahmstorf et al, Science, Vol 316, 4 May 2007.
From: Bill Ward on 26 Nov 2008 16:17 On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:53:11 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Maybe we're getting somewhere now. How do you account for the fact the tropospheric lapse rate stays close to adiabatic? Is it primarily by radiative transfer, or convection? It seems to me it must be convective, simply because warm, wet air is less dense than cold, dry air, and quickly rises to maintain the lapse rate. IR radiated from the surface would be quickly absorbed by WV, clouds, CO2, and other GHGs, and at 500W/m^2 would be overwhelmed by the 10's of kW/m^2 available from convection of latent heat. At night, convection stops, but cooling is not required at night. Convection kicks in during the day, when cooling is needed. I don't see how radiative cooling is even necessary below the cloud tops, since there's plenty of cooling capacity from convection. Once the energy reaches the tropopause, as you imply, it's a pretty straight shot to 3K deep space, since there's not much atmosphere left to absorb IR. Perhaps it's easier to see if you look at the lapse rate as bounded at the top by the effective radiating temperature, and consider the surface temperatures as derived from that and the adiabatic lapse rate. > >> 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.
From: DeadFrog on 26 Nov 2008 16:27
"Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:pan.2008.11.26.21.17.23.310423(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com... > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:53:11 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> 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. > > Maybe we're getting somewhere now. How do you account for the fact the > tropospheric lapse rate stays close to adiabatic? Is it primarily by > radiative transfer, or convection? It seems to me it must be convective, > simply because warm, wet air is less dense than cold, dry air, and quickly > rises to maintain the lapse rate. > > IR radiated from the surface would be quickly absorbed by WV, clouds, CO2, > and other GHGs, and at 500W/m^2 would be overwhelmed by the 10's of kW/m^2 > available from convection of latent heat. > > At night, convection stops, but cooling is not required at night. > Convection kicks in during the day, when cooling is needed. Really? When? At sundown, half past eight maybe, what about five past midnight? Not required...needed. Anthropomorphic don't you think? |