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 28 Nov 2008 11:34 On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:39 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > > > 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 The sad thing is...he may be doing the best he can.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 28 Nov 2008 12:07 On Nov 28, 8:34 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:" The sad thing is...he may be doing the best he can" wow that says it all, but in reality the the sad thing is you think you are making some sort of point by acting the way you do, and in my opinion that makes you the worst of the bunch.........
From: Bill Ward on 28 Nov 2008 13:36 On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:18:55 -0800, John M. wrote: > 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. John gets jealous when I don't give him enough attention. Maybe he'll grow out of it.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 28 Nov 2008 14:08 On Nov 28, 10:36 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:"" <snip> Laughing, bills ego needs to be self inflated daily, he has no chance of growing out of it, all we can do is be empathetic, understanding and pacify him....
From: Whata Fool on 28 Nov 2008 15:14
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 28 nov, 03:53, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: >> Whata Fool wrote: >> > bill.slo...(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. > >Whata Fool doesn't seem to appreciate that there isn't much water >vapour in the stratosphere - at -55C the vapour pressure of water is >low enough that it's a waste of time to include it in the model. > >He doesn't seem to know much more science than you do. Radiation at -55 C and barometric pressure of .5 PSI may not mean much, and the water vapor in the troposphere can easily absorb any small amount of radiation headed downward from the stratosphere and send half of it upward. Since you seem to concede that the N2 and O2 would be hotter without GHGs, doesn't that mean GHGs cool the whole atmosphere? The mass of the N2 and O2 is huge, and it takes time to cool it after convection from the ground warms it. So much for "greenhouse theory". |