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: John M. on 29 Nov 2008 13:29 On Nov 29, 11:14 am, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > On Nov 29, 12:49 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:35:59 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > On 28 nov, 14:20, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> z wrote: > > >> > and the fact that water vapor partial pressure rises with temperature, > > >> > thereby making it an amplifier of other effects, such as CO2. > > > >> An unproven hypothesis. i.e random noise. > > > > There's nothing unproven about the "hypothesis" that the partial pressure > > > of water vapour in contact with liquid water rises with temperature. It's > > > up there with Newton's law of gravity as one of the fundamental theories > > > of science. > > > > And more water vapour does mean more pressure broadening in the carbon > > > dioxide absorbtion spectrum. > > > > Carbonic acid (H2CO3) may not be stable in the vapour phase at room > > > temperature, but it is stable enough that any collision between a water > > > molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule lasts qute a bit longer than you'd > > > calculate from a billiard-ball model. > > > > Eeyore's response isn't random noise either, though it's information > > > content isn't any more useful - we already knew that Eeyore knows squat > > > about physics, and he's long since made it clear than he doesn't realise > > > how little he knows by posting loads of these over-confident and > > > thoroughly absurd assertions. > > > He may also be aware that increased water vapor lowers the condensation > > altitude, raising the radiation temperature, and increasing the emitted IR > > energy by the 4th power radiation law. IOW, it's a negative feedback, not > > positive.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > oh, we're back to the unfortunate theory that greenhouse effect, as > embodied by water vapor for instance, cools the planet, are we? but > if water vapor is a negative feedback, then CO2 must be warming the > planet, by the definition of negative feedback. of course. between the > one guy who doesn't understand the definition of linear equations but > deigns to sit in judgment on the entire concept of a "model" and the > other guy who thinks the greenhouse effect cools the planet, i think > it's pretty clear we're not going to actually do anything until > penguins evolve sweat glands. and that's rather sad. idiocracy is here. Don't panic just yet. Neither Bilbo nor Whata are influential where it matters - in the corridors of power. And nowadays, few politicians are taking the denialist line.
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2008 15:22 "John M." wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > Have you never heard of snipping ? > > > > Posting hundreds of lines of repeated text is as idiotic as you are. > > Bilbo uses the snipping of text as a pretext for special pleading. > Chop even a full stop and he will claim you have obscured the very > piece of information that clinches his argument. Furthermore, he will > go on to obfuscate further by re-posting the snipped text either whole > or in part as though it really were relevant (it never is). The only > way one can halt this outrageous behaviour is not to snip, even though > ultimately it fulfills Bilbo's objective - the sheer weight of > material hides his errors from most people's view. When you say Bilbo, do you mean Bill Slow Man or Bill Ward ? The former, I'm familiar with having this problem. I ignore it. Long past discussions are rarely relevant. Graham
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2008 15:23 "John M." wrote: > Don't panic just yet. Neither Bilbo nor Whata are influential where it > matters - in the corridors of power. And nowadays, few politicians are > taking the denialist line. Wait til the public wise up ( 60% in the UK are now sceptics ) and the next elections come along. Graham
From: Whata Fool on 29 Nov 2008 15:54 z <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: >On Nov 29, 12:49 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:35:59 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On 28 nov, 14:20, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> z wrote: >> >> > and the fact that water vapor partial pressure rises with temperature, >> >> > thereby making it an amplifier of other effects, such as CO2. >> >> >> An unproven hypothesis. i.e random noise. >> >> > There's nothing unproven about the "hypothesis" that the partial pressure >> > of water vapour in contact with liquid water rises with temperature. It's >> > up there with Newton's law of gravity as one of the fundamental theories >> > of science. >> >> > And more water vapour does mean more pressure broadening in the carbon >> > dioxide absorbtion spectrum. >> >> > Carbonic acid (H2CO3) may not be stable in the vapour phase at room >> > temperature, but it is stable enough that any collision between a water >> > molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule lasts qute a bit longer than you'd >> > calculate from a billiard-ball model. >> >> > Eeyore's response isn't random noise either, though it's information >> > content isn't any more useful - we already knew that Eeyore knows squat >> > about physics, and he's long since made it clear than he doesn't realise >> > how little he knows by posting loads of these over-confident and >> > thoroughly absurd assertions. >> >> He may also be aware that increased water vapor lowers the condensation >> altitude, raising the radiation temperature, and increasing the emitted IR >> energy by the 4th power radiation law. IOW, it's a negative feedback, not >> positive.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >oh, we're back to the unfortunate theory that greenhouse effect, as >embodied by water vapor for instance, cools the planet, are we? There is nothing unfortunate about the GHG cooling theory, or the fact that GHGs cool the atmosphere from what it would be on Earth without GHGs. This obvious fact has the AGW nuts all in a dither, they don't know what to say and their leader doesn't know what to tell them. It is very fortunate that there is water on the planet, and lots of it, as water vapor alone is all that is needed to cool the atmosphere down to tolerable temperatures from what it would be without water vapor and water. >but >if water vapor is a negative feedback, then CO2 must be warming the >planet, by the definition of negative feedback. Try to refrain from using silly terms like feedback, climate science is not a superheterodyne radio circuit, it is just simple physics. Why in the world is sci.electronics-design in this thread, did some Infra-Red obsessed add it? >of course. between the >one guy who doesn't understand the definition of linear equations Maybe he went to a different school. > but >deigns to sit in judgment on the entire concept of a "model" If the model is 1800s GreenHouse Theory, then try to keep up with modern thought, science evolves, some men think. >and the >other guy who thinks the greenhouse effect cools the planet, Cools the atmosphere from what it would be without GHGs, try to keep up, without GHGs, there would not be enough cooling processes to avoid the N2 and O2 from getting too hot. >i think >it's pretty clear we're not going to actually do anything until >penguins evolve sweat glands. and that's rather sad. idiocracy is here. It really won't affect the climate no matter what we do, there is little chance of organized programs to intentionally emit large quantities of sulfur smoke, and increases in CO2 cause very little change in the GHG effect. So unless you can show just how N2 and O2 could cool after being warmed by sunshine and convection from the rocky surface, spend your time looking for the answer, but your search will be in vain, some people are able to think rather than spreading gossip, outhouse rumors and old wives tales
From: bw on 30 Nov 2008 03:28
"Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:pan.2008.11.29.04.28.21.555150(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com... > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:38:49 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> On 28 nov, 19:01, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:54:19 -0800, bill.sloman 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. >>> >>> So the gas is expanding. It's still rising, and the resistance is >>> decreased. Lift is roughly constant at least to 14000 ft, from >>> personal observation. It doesn't generally drop off linearly with >>> altitude. >> >> But it is less dense, so it's transporting less heat. > > Energy is conserved. Where did the latent heat go, if not up? It's > carried by convection to the cloud top, and radiates away. The whole > notion of somehow "trapping" energy in the atmosphere seems ludicrous. > It's either sensible heat, latent heat, or radiation. It doesn't just > disappear. > >>> >> Radiative transfer is blocked by GHG's, >>> >>> > But only at the specific narrow bands of frequencies at which the >>> > GHG's absorb. >>> >>> Water vapor is pretty much broadband, except for the window around 9u. >> >> Only if your spectrometer can't resolve the rotational fine structure. >> And the partial pressure of water vapour drops off very rapidly with >> altitude because the any water vapour is condensing as the air >> temperature falls, so there's very little of it left to do any >> absorbtion or pressure broadening by the time you get to the tropopause. > > I'm talking about the effective radiation layer which happens to be at the > cloud tops. >> >> Water vapour can only be an effective greenhouse gas in tolerably warm >> air, and the infra-red frequencies that water vapour blocks gets a free >> run to outer space well below the tropopause. > > OK, that's my point. Once convection carries it to the cloud tops, where > it has a clear shot to space, what role can CO2 play? There's not much > left, and the 15u band is well off the peak. > >> The earth radiates as if it's temperature - averaged over all radiation >> wavelengths - is -14C which is a lot warmer than the -55C of the >> mid-latitude tropopause, and in fact the equivalent radiating level is >> about 6 km above ground, about half-way through the troposphere. > > Good. You finally seem to be following my argument. Now what happens to > the condensation layer if absolute humidity increases? It drops, because > the dewpoint is at a higher temperature/lower altitude. What happens when > the condensation layer drops? The source temperature of the emitted IR > increases. Then the emitted energy increases by the 4th power of the > change in temperature, which provides gain for a negative feedback loop. > So increasing surface T and humidity thus increases the cooling rate. > > How hard is that? > >> This also seems to coincide with the global average cloud top height >> >> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19121191 > > Thanks for the link. It confirms what I'd puzzled out on my own. > >> I don't really like the concept of a single equivalent radiating level - > > Nature doesn't really seem to care what I like, but maybe you're on > better terms. > >> it looks to me as if we should be able to calculate an equivalent >> radiating level for each infra-red wavelengths. > > Why? Cloud tops should act as black bodies. > >> For those wavelengths >> where CO2 and other non-condensing gases absorb strongly, this will be >> presumably be somewhere in the stratosphere, at -55C (and I appreciuate >> that the exact temperature does vary with latitude). This sin't going to >> represent all that much of the total infra-red flux, so it isn't all >> that surprising that the equivalent radiation level is close to the >> height where you run out if water vapour and cloud cover. >> >>> > As the pressure decreases and the water vapour contnet drops, these >>> > absorption lines get narrower, which facilitates radiative transfer. >>> >>> The radiative transfer is indeed facilitated above the cloud tops - >>> that's my point. Water vapor transfers the surface energy to those >>> cloud tops, not radiation. When it does radiate, it's got a clear >>> shot. > >>> >>and plays little part below the tropopause. >>> >>> > Evidence? >>> >>> Are you off on that "WV is not a GHG" kick again? >> >> That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there isn't much >> water vapur in the top half of the troposphere, so it can't act as a >> greenhouse gas in this region, which does complement the observation the >> "equivalent radiating level" seems to lie about half way between the >> ground and the tropopause. > > Thunderstorms have been seen well into the stratosphere, and they carry > quite a bit of energy. I think there's way too much averaging going on > where there should be integration. Correct. The answers are in understanding how to define the "homogeneous" eleements, boundries, etc. Meteorology has been doing this for a century, application of scientific method to earth's physical properties. You have reached a level understanding climate that should compel you to write a concise summary of the major components. Then take a break before adding biological feedback !! It is not surprising that one of the defining characteristics of life on a water planet is "homeostasis" |