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.sloman on 28 Nov 2008 08:38 On 28 nov, 03:56, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Malcolm Moore wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:26:27 +0000, Eeyore > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >bill.slo...(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=blogsec...> > > > >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...> > > > 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. The radar industry doesn't seem to have any obvious motivation to deceive the public about the scientific concensus on any subject, and I've not seen any evidence that they were subsidising organisations that spread this kind of misinformation. The coal industry is less innocent. The significance of Vincent Gray's long association with NZ Coal Research Institute isn't the association itself, but the fact that it isn't mentioned on the The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition's web- site. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2008 08:52 Bill Ward wrote: > John M. wrote: > > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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. It's likely to be a long time ........ never probably. Graham
From: bill.sloman on 28 Nov 2008 08:54 On 27 nov, 19:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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> > >> 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. Convection becomes progressively less effective as the pressure drops - gas density decreases with pressure, which decreases the driving force you get from a given temperature difference in exactly the same proportion, and the quantity of heat being transported per unit volume is also reduced. > Radiative transfer is blocked by GHG's, But only at the specific narrow bands of frequencies at which the GHG's absorb. As the pressure decreases and the water vapour contnet drops, these absorption lines get narrower, which facilitates radiative transfer >and plays little part below the tropopause. Evidence? > Radiation models are thus largely irrelevant. So you claim, on the basis of a model that strikes me as seriously over-simplified. > 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." Scarcely. I was going to some trouble to point out that it was oversimplified. You've got a steady heat flux going up through a column of air whose density decreases with height, and you are assuming that the same heat transfer mechanism that works at ground level is working equally effectively when the pressure has halved, convection has been cut to 255 of ground level value, and all the latent heat being carried up by water vapour has already condensed out. > 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. Your failure to appreciate the inadequacy of your model conveys its own message. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2008 08:57 Whata Fool wrote: > don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > > 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! > > Where were you when the grain elevators were filled to overflowing > with corn, and the price was so low many people were burning it for space > heating (In England and other places). We've beeen burning wheat for space heating recently due to surpluses. Sorry I don't have a cite. Oh maybe .... http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=IOj&q=wheat+space+heating&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB Graham
From: John M. on 28 Nov 2008 11:18
On Nov 28, 2:54 pm, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 27 nov, 19:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > 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> > > > > > >> 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. > > Convection becomes progressively less effective as the pressure drops > - gas density decreases with pressure, which decreases the driving > force you get from a given temperature difference in exactly the same > proportion, and the quantity of heat being transported per unit volume > is also reduced. > > > Radiative transfer is blocked by GHG's, > > But only at the specific narrow bands of frequencies at which the > GHG's absorb. As the pressure decreases and the water vapour contnet > drops, these absorption lines get narrower, which facilitates > radiative transfer > > >and plays little part below the tropopause. > > Evidence? > > > Radiation models are thus largely irrelevant. > > So you claim, on the basis of a model that strikes me as seriously > over-simplified. > > > 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." > > Scarcely. I was going to some trouble to point out that it was > oversimplified. > > You've got a steady heat flux going up through a column of air whose > density decreases with height, and you are assuming that the same heat > transfer mechanism that works at ground level is working equally > effectively when the pressure has halved, convection has been cut to > 255 of ground level value, and all the latent heat being carried up by > water vapour has already condensed out. > > > 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. > > Your failure to appreciate the inadequacy of your model conveys its > own message. I'm afraid Bilbo's grasp of science is limited to that which fits his personal political and social agenda. Don't bother him with facts, because his mind is made up. Oh, yes, he'll also try to throw you with obfuscation, dissembling, failure to snip irrelevant text - with false accusations of underhandedness if you do it - and a 1001 other ploys to distract you from the nub of the argument. |