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 27 Nov 2008 14:50 On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:50:47 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Where did I say the radiation all comes from a thin layer? You must be misinterpreting the concept of effective radiating altitude. > >> >> 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). So you don't really understand convection or radiation. If you did, you might see that radiation could not generate a "thermal gradient". Radiation tends to equalize temperatures, you know. It's described by all that second law stuff you must have somehow skipped over. The lapse rate is set by gas laws. Convection occurs because warm air is less dense than cold air, so it rises, expands, and adiabatically cools, still maintaining a higher temperature than its surroundings. It continues up until it reaches an altitude where the air around it is slightly warmer (the lapse rate changes) than its adiabatic temperature, where it releases its excess energy and stops, moving the lapse rate toward adiabatic. If the air rises to its dewpoint temperature, WV condenses, releasing latent heat and giving the rising parcel a boost. Go out and watch a cumulus cloud and you can see the flat bottom at the condensation altitude, and the energetic billowing of the cloud upward from the latent heat release. The principle is scalable, that's why thunderstorms can billow up well into the stratosphere, yielding the "anvil" shape. >> > 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. See above, then consider what happens when an airplane encounters a TS at 20000 feet. IR doesn't disassemble aircraft in flight. There's plenty of energy in convection, even at altitude. > > <snip> Now why did you try to hide what I was responding to? You should know that won't work. <unsnip> >> 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. > > And there's solar energy availalbe to fuel it. <end unsnip> > >> 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. You need to keep your stories straight: Up thread, on: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:53:11 -0800 (PST) You said: "Sure. Most of the mass of the atmosphere - about 90% - is below the tropopause. But the stratosphere stretches out quite a long way." Do you always adjust the facts to match your argument? How do you expect to retain any credibility? >> >> 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. So where is your explanation of how greenhouse warming is supposed to work, in view of the inconsistencies I've pointed out? >> 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, First, the thin layer bit is yours - I never even implied it. Second, apparently you think a model is only useful if it, "(gives) the right sort of answer". Yet you continue to prattle on about radiative transfer models even though you admit they would only be useful in a limited region at the top of the troposphere. > >> I'm slightly encouraged by your post. Did I misinterpret any of the >> points where you appear to agree with me? > > Obviously. Well, optimism loses again.
From: John M. on 27 Nov 2008 15:40 On Nov 26, 11:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:27:22 +0000, DeadFrog wrote: > > > "Bill Ward" <bw...(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. A classic piece of 'I'm-the-smarter-so-don't-argue-with-me' BW. I think I'll print it out and frame it.
From: Malcolm Moore on 27 Nov 2008 18:07 On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:26:27 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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. snip direct paste from <http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45> > >YOU WERE SAYING ? > >Graham The page you have quoted gives no information about the funding of that organisation. YOU WERE SAYING ? It's unsure where their funding for direct running costs comes from. That said, the costs of running a website are very small. The members are either retired or are employed elsewhere and possibly fund it themselves. However, some costs of their members attending international conferences has been paid for by The Heartland Institute, which does receive direct funding from Exon-Mobil. "Leyland says CFACT did not pay him to attend the Bali talks, but acknowledges some expenses were met by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute" <http://www.thelistener.co.nz/issue/3541/columnists/10716/some_like_it_hot.html> The page you quote is interesting in what it doesn't say about their members. For example, Vincent Gray spent a large part of his working life employed as chemist at the NZ Coal Research Institute. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2008 21:53 Whata Fool wrote: > bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > >The oxygen and nitrogen molecules exchange energy with carbon dioxide > >molecules whenever they collide, so the carbon dioxide radiates for > >them. > > Ignoring water vapor again? Is that a mental problem, or > an order from control? LMFAO ! I though it was an acknowledged fact that water vapour is the big factor in climate. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2008 21:56
Malcolm Moore wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:26:27 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >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. > > snip direct paste from > <http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45> > > > > >YOU WERE SAYING ? > > > >Graham > > The page you have quoted gives no information about the funding of > that organisation. > > YOU WERE SAYING ? > > It's unsure where their funding for direct running costs comes from. > That said, the costs of running a website are very small. The members > are either retired or are employed elsewhere and possibly fund it > themselves. > > However, some costs of their members attending international > conferences has been paid for by The Heartland Institute, which does > receive direct funding from Exon-Mobil. > > "Leyland says CFACT did not pay him to attend the Bali talks, but > acknowledges some expenses were met by the Chicago-based Heartland > Institute" > <http://www.thelistener.co.nz/issue/3541/columnists/10716/some_like_it_hot.html> > > The page you quote is interesting in what it doesn't say about their > members. For example, Vincent Gray spent a large part of his working > life employed as chemist at the NZ Coal Research Institute. SO ? I spent some time working in radar. Does that make me ineligible for any other branch of electronics, or will I always be a 'radar shill' ? That, quite frankly is what your pitiful 'argument' boils down to. Graham |