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 26 Nov 2008 16:31 On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:43:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 26 nov, 06:57, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > On 25 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:42:55 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> > 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> > >> > The issues that you seem to be wanting to raise are the heat transfer >> > through the lower atmosphere by convection and by evaporation and >> > condensation, which are interesting enough - here's the abstract of a >> > 1960 paper on the subject >> >> >http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113519112/abstract?CRETRY=... >> >> > but you'd need to have access to a univerity libary to be able to read >> > the full paper (and it's numerous successors) for nothing. >> >> For a 48 year old paper? Yeah, right. > > 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. > >> You don't show much promise. All you seem to be able to do is posture, >> bluff, and hope nobody calls you on it. Can you explain as I asked >> above or not? >> >> I'm betting not. > > In theory, I could produce an explanation - I did elementary versions of > this sort of modelling for my Ph.D. project back in the late 1960's, so it > ought to be a practicable project. > > It certainly wouldn't be a practical project, and there's no way in which > I would waste my time re-inventing the wheel, when the climatologists have > been working on exactly that project for the last forty-odd years. > > The IPCC exists to provide exactly that kind of explanation, and they got > to share a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore precisely because the Nobel > Prize committe thought that they had made a good job of it. > > If you seriously thought that it would be worth my time getting into the > public education business in competition with them, you'd have to be as > far out of touch with reality as Jim Thompson and Eeyore. That requires > remarkably extensive ignorance, so my betting is that you are more likely > to be trying to score some kind of recherché debating point. Actually, I was trying to see if you had anything to offer to help me understand why no one can explain what seems to be some basic contradictions in the AGW belief system. As often occurs, I was over optimistic. You appear know very little about the AGW hypothesis, and apparently understand even less. Go blow your smoke elsewhere.
From: James Arthur on 26 Nov 2008 16:33 DeadFrog wrote: > > "James Arthur" wrote in message > news:CMhXk.1310$QX3.999(a)nwrddc02.gnilink.net... >> DeadFrog wrote: >>> >>> "James Arthur" wrote in message >>> news:%6hXk.1301$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. That paper says warming and sea-level rise have been much faster than projected, and CO2 increase has been slower. Which underscores my point: if this were all understood, if the models were true-to-life, if climate were computable with current models, these gross discrepancies wouldn't (and couldn't) exist. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG. The paper then offers up a number of /possible/ explanations as to why that might be, first being "intrinsic variability," next being forcings other than CO2. /Possible/, of course, means they don't know. That's not a criticism, just a fact. Again, if it were science, they would measure, test, and /know/. And the fact that they don't know doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they don't know. Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Ward on 26 Nov 2008 17:49 On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:27:22 +0000, DeadFrog wrote: > > "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? Well, I was trying to keep it simple so you could understand it. I see I need to wait for a more sophisticated reader. Just do the best you can to follow along, I don't expect you to be able to comment on the more substantive aspects.
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 18:51 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. Oh biut the AGWists use noise to support their hypothesis when it suits them.
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 18:53
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Bill Ward wrote: > > > bill.sloman wrote: > > > > > > I work in NMR, FTMS, atom probing, various TOF technologies, and of > > > > course electronic spectroscopy. > > > > > Actually, you build instruments for the physicists who do the work. > > > You can't do that without having some grasp of what is going on, but > > > your implicit claim that your practice of electronic spectroscopy > > > gives you some insight into optical spectroscopy makes it pretty clear > > > how superfical this grasp actually is. > > > > Actually he doesn't WORK ! > > > > He's been unemployed for years. He blames it on his age. I blame it on his attitude. > > That's a John Larkin quote. No, it's MY quote. If it happens to co-incide with John Larkin's that doesn't surprise me one bit. > He claims to be still working. He IS still working. Graham |