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 27 Nov 2008 10:26 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > 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, Who are we, and why? The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was formed in April 2006 by a group of New Zealanders, mostly resident here but some overseas, who are concerned at the misleading information being disseminated about climate change and so-called anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The group is led by accredited New Zealand experts in climate and disciplines related to climate change, and includes others with a range of professional qualifications, as well as interested citizens who share the Coalition's concern. The Coalition is committed to ensuring that New Zealanders receive balanced scientific opinions that reflect the truth about climate change and the exaggerated claims that have been made about anthropogenic global warming. The Coalition has three main roles. � To publish and distribute papers and commentaries produced by members of the Coalition. � To audit statements by other organizations, both in New Zealand and overseas, which are published in New Zealand, or are expected to influence New Zealand public policy and public opinion. � To audit the forthcoming 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), either on its own, or through the Asia Pacific Climate Science Coalition, or equivalent when formed. Inaugural Climate Scientists The inaugural founders of the coalition were: Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China. Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand). Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer Jr, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand (now deceased). Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist Professor David J. Bellamy OBE an English botanist, author, broadcaster and environmental campaigner, who originally trained as a botanist at Durham University, where he later held the post of senior lecturer in botany until 1982, and still holds the post of Honorary Professor for Adult and Continuing Education. Dr Len Walker Associated disciplines: Also foundation members of the Coalition are such people as: Owen McShane, director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, who is convenor of the Coalition�s establishment committee. Dr Bryce Wilkinson, founder of Capital Economics, a one time Treasury official and Harvard Fellow, current president of the Law and Economics Association of New Zealand. Brian Leyland, MSc , FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, an Electrical and Mechanical Engineer specialising in power generation and power systems, now a power industry consultant. Prof. Denis Dutton, associate professor of philosophy, University of Canterbury Professor David Henderson, former Head of Department of Economic & Statistics of OECD, now Visiting Professor at Westminster University School of Business, London. Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP, inaugural CEO Wine Institute of New Zealand 1976-91, editor industry magazine, �New Zealand WineGrower� since 1997; national co-ordinator of Bluegreens, 1998-2003. Advisers: Dr Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, Associate Professor, The University of Auckland. Dr John Maunder, of Tauranga, former president of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 22 years with the New Zealand Meteorological Service (including 5 years as Assistant Director). Dr Willem de Lange, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, The University of Waikato . YOU WERE SAYING ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2008 10:28 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 > > Funded by 75 forest products industries spread across the US and > Canada. So NOT Exxon-Mobil at all and why shouldn't forestry people take an interest ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2008 10:30 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com>wrote: > > > Funded by Exxon-Mobil eh ? > > or other industry sources. So you accept you were wrong. Good. I presume in that case you think all 'industry' is a bad thing and automatically anti-AGW ?. Funny you can't get a job isn't it ? Graham
From: bill.sloman on 27 Nov 2008 10:50 On 27 nov, 06:32, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:09:40 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 26 nov, 22:17, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> 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: <snip> > As you put it up thread, "the stratosphere isn't functioning as an > insulator." > > If the stratosphere is transparent, and there is an excess of convective > capacity in the troposphere (driven by the lapse rate), how can trace > amounts of CO2 affect surface temperatures? If convection is sufficient > to get latent heat to the tropopause, where it can radiate from cloud > tops, etc, it has a clear shot at 3K deep space. The tropopause is there > because it represents the top of the convective mixing layer. Because of > increasing UV heating, the stratosphere has an inverted lapse rate, which > prevents convection. You seem to have set up a straw man by claiming that you can slice the atmosphere into three layers - - the trophosphere where heat transfer is only by convection - a very thin tropopause which does all the radiation - the stratosphere which does nothing which - unsurprisingly - leads you to incorrectly conclude that CO2 can do anything. > >> 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. > > > Clouds scatter infra-red radiation rather than absorbing it. as do the > > greenhouse gases, but that's enough to sustain a thermal gradient. > > Surely you're not proposing the lapse rate is sustained by outgoing IR. > All the sources I've seen say the troposphere is due to convection, not > radiation. Can you find one to the contrary. Don't have to. Convection and transport as latent heat both decrease rapidly as you move up through the troposphere, and radiation progressively takes over, becoming responsible for 100% of the heat transfer by the time you get to the tropopause. This is clearly implied by what I wrote earlier (which is why I've not snipped it). > > Convection becomes progressively less potent as air pressure and thus > > density declines with height, and as the partial pressure of water > > vapour declines with decreasing temperature as it climbs up through the > > tropopause, so the amount of energy transferred as latent heat falls > > away with height in the same sort of way. <snip> > Exactly. It's a heat engine, with water as the working fluid. It cools the > surface by using solar energy to convect latent heat to the cloud > tops, from which it radiates as a black body to deep space. Cloud shadows > are a strong, easily observable negative temperature feedback, since they > cut off surface heating as the clouds develop. > > >> 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. 25% of the mass of the atmosphere lies above the tropopause, and 25% of the CO2. There's very little water vapour in the stratosphere - at -55C any water around is ice. > >> 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.. > > > This approach doesn't make it easy to see how increasing levels of > > greenhouse gases produce more greenhouse warming. > > Correct. Now show me how greenhouse warming is supposed to work, in view > of the inconsistencies I've pointed out. This was a pedagogic point. I didn't intend to suggest that CO2 wasn't an effective greenhouse gas, merely that this wasn't a way of looking at what was going on that was helpful in letting you see where the greenhouse effect is going on. > > CO2 isn't effective in the troposphere, because radiation is swamped by > the convective transfer required to maintain the lapse rate. CO2 isn't > effective in the stratosphere, partly because there's so little left, and > partly because it would actually cool by radiating IR at the higher > stratospheric temperatures. > > So where is the CO2 causing global warming? CO2 is not effective at the bottom of the troposphere, but it becomes progressively more effective as you climb up through the troposphere towards the tropopause. and presumably exerts most of its effect in the upper layers of the troposphere, where - incidentally - there isn't much water vapour left, since it freezes out as the air gets higher and colder. > > Convective heat > > transfer normally stops at the tropopause - though energetic thunder- > > heads can go higher for a while - and slows down a lot before it gets to > > the tropopause, so presumably the greenhouse effect is mainly active in > > the upper layers of the troposphere. > > Which is above most of the atmosphere, and dry, so the postulated > positive feedback from WV also looks highly unlikely. Only if you persist in thinking that everything has to happen in an infinitely thin layer, which isn't a realistic model (which might not matter if it gave the right sort of answer, which it doesn't), nor - more important - a useful model, > I'm slightly encouraged by your post. Did I misinterpret any of the > points where you appear to agree with me? Obviously. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 27 Nov 2008 13:38
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:55:09 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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? No, you just spewed the dogma again. I think the troposphere is there because of convection lifting the surface energy up to the cloud tops, maintaining a near adiabatic lapse rate. Radiative transfer is blocked by GHG's, and plays little part below the tropopause. Radiation models are thus largely irrelevant. You completely ignored this part of my post: "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." Your failure to address the issue will be taken as a tacit admission you can't, unless you want to claim a reading disability and try again. |