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: Don Klipstein on 28 Nov 2008 00:38 In article <pan.2008.11.23.19.40.32.15464(a)example.net>, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:12:40 -0800, Bill Ward wrote: >> >> Perhaps you could explain in your own words the scientific basis and >> evidence for your beliefs, then we could debate it properly. > >When you say, "the scientific basis and evidence for your beliefs", >are you talking about the beliefs or the warmingsts, or the belief >of the real scientists? In real science, we believe in the facts, >which the warmingists avoid like a vampire avoids mirrors. > >In fact, by the scientific method, we're DOING an experiment with >all the warmingism mandates, and have ALREADY observed adverse effects, >all the way up to exacerbation of starvation in the third world! > >Further evidence is they use "computer models", which, as a programmer, >I know first-hand, can give you any answer you want. It's one level >above "garbage in garbage out" - it's Garbage into a Garbage Model -> >Garbage Squared out. > >All of these "models" deny the existence of clouds, for cry sakes! No they do not, as I have pointed out specifically in response to you before in my article-ID <slrnghk90s.dd0.don(a)manx.misty.com> on 11/11/08 in response to your article-ID that I can currently best-note as <pan.2008.11.11.19.08.46.435...(a)example.net> where you previously repeated that claim that I see you repeating a lot? > And they deny the validity of things like variations in solar output, What, the item with great satellite monitoring since late 1970's showing no upward trend outside the 11 year sunspot cycle since then? But Earth surely warmed up a lot since then? >orbital perturbations, precession of the Earth's axis, The Milankovitch Cycles, showing very great positive feedback from change in surface albedo? > and Gaw knows what else. > >They've got the faith, just like any other cultist, and are on a crusade >to convert everybody to their religion, Damn the Facts! It's the same old >"I'm gonna save your soul if I have to burn you at the stake to do it!" >crusader mentality. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 28 Nov 2008 00:44 In article <492ABBF2.D31CEB5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: > >bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...(a)example.net> wrote: >> > Bill Ward wrote: >> > >> > > Perhaps you could explain in your own words the scientific basis and >> > > evidence for your beliefs, then we could debate it properly. >> > >> > When you say, "the scientific basis and evidence for your beliefs", >> > are you talking about the beliefs or the warmingsts, or the belief >> > of the real scientists? In real science, we believe in the facts, >> > which the warmingists avoid like a vampire avoids mirrors. >> >> Not exactly true. When I do point you at facts, you proceed to ignore >> them. > >Because 'AGW facts' are rarely facts at all but 'masssaged' or 'corrected' or >otherwise tinkered with, excused or eliminated to fit the theory. Such as HadCRUT-3v global and "temperature lower troposphere" interpretation of satellite data by RSS, good enough for The Register for attacking NASA's GISS and their most-named-here scientist Hansen? What The Register calls "good enough" to dispute existence of global warming actually shows global warming! - Don
From: Bill Ward on 28 Nov 2008 01:03 On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:40:45 -0800, John M. wrote: > 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. Whatever, if that will help you understand. I'm still waiting for a rational, substantive response.
From: Don Klipstein on 28 Nov 2008 01:17 In article <492ABC59.859D8492(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: > >bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> growing corn the American way requires burning enough oil to more >> than counter-balance the carbon capture in the growing corn > >Even that's untrue. It's a common myth. The ROEI is a good 2:1 with modern >processes. So the naysayers quote old methods and studies only. I do find that largely true. Also what I am suspecting (possibly truly finding) to be true is that there is an alternative to corn for biofuel ethanol in USA. That alternative even grows easily in semi-arid areas where it is difficult to grow anything useful for putting food onto tables for humans to eat. That alternative is to some extent or another, even minor, a weed - and something even horses would rather not eat! But it has some significant notation for ability to make ethanol from, in part from a major difference in chemistry of *at least a significant* portion of that plant's carbohydrate chemistry! But that weed-more-than-a-crop does not have a lobby. And I hope against-all-odds that Obama favors that one over corn, despite Obama being from Illinois, which I suspect to produce more corn than anything else worthwhile, especially since Schwinn offshored production of most of their bicycles. I give some hope since in recent modern times Republicans in large part gave USA an ethanol mandate mandated to come specifically from *USA-grown corn* in response to lobbyists! The alternative crop for ethanol, enough of a weed to lack a lobby, is switchgrass! - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 28 Nov 2008 02:37
In <9279da83-e0f9-4979-b132-0aedb088eade(a)r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: <SNIPPED to modern times droughts in Australia> >As an Australian, I'm more inclined to emphasise the importance of the >collapse of Australian wheat production due to the string of droughts >that has struck southern Australia (which may well be one of the >consequences of the anthrogenic global warming that we are already >seeing, and is certainly representative of the sorts of problems >everybody else will be running into as it gets worse). > >And at least one of those "dim semi-educated Americans" can run rings >around both of us when it comes to the fine detail of global warming. >Don Klipstein seems to have access to a voluminous armory of the kind >of facts that you and Rich Grise seem bent on ignoring. Sadly, specifically for precipitation patterns (or for that mater temperature patterns) in regions of the globe, the multidecadal oscillation mucks things up. I do suspect that there is a long term trend moving northward the "intertropical convergence zone". The ITCZ is a roughly-equatorial "belt" of enhanced precipitation, having high positive correlation with existence of tropical rainforests when over land. The northern fringe of the ITCZ spawns many of the tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere from mid August through early October. I wonder how the BLEEP that affects precipitation in southern Australia, although the south-extratropical storms could be weakened by decreased temperature gradient when equatorial warmth is most-northward. For long term trend of global warmth being disproportionately north - there is a reason: Surface albedo change occurs mainly in the latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere where snow cover and ice cover are both significantly present and significantly reduced by global warming. Keep in mind that Antarctic sea ice usually retreats to just a little above nonexistant every year, while Arctic sea ice erosion (or lack thereof) during "melt season" achieves greater change from year-ago to reinforce a trend when a trend favoring existence (or lack thereof) of polar sea ice exists. One more thing to consider that confounds things is the Multidecadal Oscillation. That one involves surging/ebbing and shifting of major ocean currents on a worldwide basis. It has a period around or a bit over 60 years. One thing that one gives us is global temperature spiking in 1878, around 1940 and around 2000. Another thing that one gives us is trends of weather in major regions of the globe peaking and dipping at times other when when global temperature is peaked and dipped by the "Multidecadal Oscillation". The Arctic and the North Atlantic appear to me to be "lagging" here, as in during the decade when global warming enters a temporary slowdown those northern regions of the globe warm rapidly for another decade - especially the Arctic. The other hand explains how the Antarctic has had its warming largely failing to progress since a few or several years before 1998. Spectacular heatwaves befell eastern and central USA from 1932-1936 and also in roughly the first half of the 1990's. "North Atlantic Basin" hurricanes also appear to follow that oscillation, with peaking a bit after global temperature does )or finishes an upturn). I would check for how weather patterns in any modern/recent decade compare to 60 years ago (for major regions of the world). I expect that to support a contention for global warming. The big Australian drought will probably go away soon. The big worry is whether it will repeat and do so worse about 60 years later. |