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: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 27 Nov 2008 01:19 On Nov 26, 9:32 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:" Which is above most of the atmosphere, and dry, so the postulated positive feedback from WV also looks highly unlikely" Well that would be incorrect, see the observations from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on the aqua satellite NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change 11.17.08 http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASAs Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of theatmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere .AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback. Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2008 09:16 JosephKK wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > >bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > > I certainly don't command the computing capacity required to run that > >> > > kind of model > >> > > >> > Wouldn't matter if you did. The models are FUCKED ! > >> > >> You may think so, but - as you demonstrate below - you don't know > >> anything about mathematical modelling either. > > > >I was using mathematical modelling software 20 years ago. MathCad for DOS ! > > Compared to decent thermal modeling for houses mathcad is an > incomplete and flimsy tool. I have and use it, it is nice within its > area of capability. It is a non-starter for anything like weather or > climate models. Oh indeed, I wouldn't dream of doing so. Graham
From: bill.sloman on 27 Nov 2008 09:33 On 27 nov, 01:04, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > For some bizarre reason you put your trust in a bunch of web-sites > > funded by Exxon-Mobil and other groups with a financial interest in > > being able to continue to extract and sell the maximum amount of > > fossil fuel, despite the dangers that this poses to our environment. > > Oh really ? > > http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php This does seem to be another industry front group - New Zealand doesn't seem to have the sort of public information laws that would let us find out who is paying, but the members do show up at fuel industry funded jamborees acoss the world, > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ The Register seems to have trouble filling it's news pages, and will publish any old rubbish. which includes a lot of rubbish anti-global warming propaganda. > http://www.climateaudit.org/ McIntyre is still boasting of his success in discrediting Mann's "hockey stick", some ten years after the event'. He does appear to suffer from some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder. > http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 Funded by 75 forest products industries spread across the US and Canada. > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89619306&ft=1&f=... A heart-warming - if rather more tongue-in-cheek than you seem to have noticed - story about a bright 15-year-old (which means she knows about as much science as you do) who also doesn't know enough to be able to recognise lying anti-global warming propaganda for what it is, and was pleased to have got a letter of support from James Imhofe. > http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htmhttp://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24178942-952,00.html The late John Daley also lacked scientific training, and seems to have been just as obsessive-compulsive as Steve McIntyre, if less fortunate in his choice of targets. http://www.john-daly.com/obituary.htm > Funded by Exxon-Mobil eh ? or other industry sources. Quite a lot of what you have presented here comes from sites that obviously weren't directly funded but which have been exploited by the fuel-industry-funded propaganda machine, in much the same way that your gullibility is exploited. > You've lost your marbles, you unemployable old gasbag. Eeyore does seem to want to take over from Jim Thompson as the group's poster who is most reliably out of touch with reality. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 27 Nov 2008 09:55 On 27 nov, 02:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:09:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 26 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Since you didn't bother to mention what these contradictions are, we can > > presume that this is the usual dumb debating ploy. > > You snipped that earlier in the thread, apparently your ploy to avoid a > rational discussion. > > Here, I'll repost it: > > <begin repost> > > Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:50:37 -0800 > > [...] > > Now explain in your own words how traces of CO2 can affect Earth's surface > temperatures in the presence of a large excess of water. Include the > effects of latent heat convection, the near adiabatic lapse rate through > the troposphere, and the observation that the effective radiating altitude > and cloud tops are near each other. > > Can you do that, or are you just blowing smoke? > > <end repost> > > At this point, you're not only blowing smoke, you're looking a bit > dishonest with your snipping, then complaining. 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? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Al Bedo on 27 Nov 2008 10:21
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: > On Nov 26, 9:32 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:" > Which is above most of the atmosphere, and dry, so the postulated > positive feedback from WV also looks highly unlikely" > > Well that would be incorrect, see the observations from the > Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on the aqua satellite� > > NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change > 11.17.08 > http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html The error in this thinking is one of omission. Water vapor is a dynamic component. It gets swept up by atmospheric motion such that the wettest atmosphere is the ITCZ (Inter tropical convergence zone). This may roughly correspond with temperature, but it is the dynamics, not the temperature which causes the distribution. Indeed, the upper levels of the atmosphere appear to have dried out over the longer term according to re-analysis of the radiosonde data. The temperature record is also an indicator that no significant feedback is occurring. The surface warming rate over the last thirty years is around 1.5 K / century. That is less than the GCMs model project. The atmospheric rate has been considerably less. And of course, over the last eight years, all measures indicate cooling. That includes the SSTs which have been on a cooling trend ever since the AIRS started operating. If there were a significant feedback, it would be a cooling feed back now. -- - When the Rapture comes, can I have your car? When global warming comes, can I have your coat? |