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: Whata Fool on 30 Nov 2008 23:43 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:48:14 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > >> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:02:11 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>>>>[snip] >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body >>>>>> >>>>>> work it out for yourself. >>>>> >>>>>Let me rephrase: I don't think there's a significant difference. Show >>>>>why you think there is. Start by showing why you think it's a BB >>>>>distribution. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That page contains the following sentence; >>>> >>>> "This is the black body temperature as measured from space, while the >>>> surface temperature is higher due to the greenhouse effect." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I claim, and strongly suggest that thinking scientists must >>>> understand >>>> that statement does not represent the true physics, because it ignores >>>> the probability that an N2 and O2 (78 + 20) atmosphere would be hotter >>>> than at present without GreenHouse Gases. >>>> >>>> >>>> Unless somebody can explain how N2 and O2 could cool after being >>>> warmed by solar energy and convection from the surface. >>> >>>I suspect the equatorial to polar temperature gradient would invoke >>>convection bands that would tend to equalize the temperatures by >>>conduction to the surface. >> >> >> Not in the short time of 8 to 16 hours, there would likely be very >> strong torus wind low up in the tropics and down near the poles, but even >> with 500 MPH winds, there would only be time for one rotation or less, and >> not enough mixing. > >One rotation of what per what? Of the Earth, the changing rocky surfaces would be getting hot and then cooler/colder every revolution. >> Remember, in air [after the gas properties are established] the >> speed of sound depends on temperature. >> >> >>>The nighttime surface would be colder then the adjacent atmosphere, the >>>daytime would be hotter and, "on the average", it looks to me like the >>>(lower) atmosphere still might be warmer than the surface, because of the >>>day/night asymmetry in convection. >> >> >> The fraction of thermal energy the rocky surface could take back >> at night would not be enough to stabilize temperature below the present >> atmospheric temperatures. >> >> The surface radiation would be more time constrained than the >> present atmospheric radiation that can take place at all levels in all >> directions at the same time. >> >> >>>I think adding GHG's with no latent heat would overall cool the >>>atmosphere and warm the surface via the nighttime IR blanket effect. >> >> >> That is a different scenario than the present Earth or the Earth >> with NO GHGS, which AGW mistakenly assumes would be as cold as the moon. >> >> The correct physics of an Earth with N2 and O2 atmosphere and >> NO GHGs is required before comparing with the present Earth and the >> premise of a warming GreenHouse effect. >> >> >>>But I also think that on Earth, latent heat transport by water >>>overwhelms any IR warming by CO2. >> >> My opinion is that you are overestimating latent heat transport, >> and that most convection is simply warm air convection (outside storm >> regions). > >If you look at a satellite image, you'll notice a lot of clouds. Many, >especially in the tropics, came from convection of humid air. I don't >think Trenbuth's method of estimating latent heat from estimated total >precipitation is correct. It ignores virga, recirculation in deep >convection, and all the other ways that clouds can evaporate without >falling to the ground. Virga may cool as it falls and absorb latent heat as it becomes vapor again, but there is only virga below clouds. Condensation and re-evaporation may be more considerable (quantity) within clouds, but still probably a small part of the total convection. Are there strong thermals above small lakes or other bodies of water? >We've discussed the immense power density available in updrafts, so I >think there's some burden now to explain how there can be updrafts >_without_ transporting a lot of latent heat. I think the existence of a >near-adiabatic lapse rate guarantees it. I haven't had much experience with updrafts, they don't affect a B-25 as much as a sailplane. I suspect the total latent transport might be somewhere within a factor of two times that as measured as total annual global precip. >>>If someone has a lucid explanation showing otherwise, I'd like to see >>>it. >> >> >> >> I don't see how any AGW proponent can say that the Earth's >> atmosphere is warmer now than it would be with NO GHGs at all, to >> do that they >> would have to show how the N2 and O2 would be cooled after solar heating >> and convection from the rocky surface. > >I'm not sure how relevant it is, but it's an interesting question. You don't? If the atmosphere would be warmer with only N2 and O2, then doesn't that mean that GHGs cool the atmosphere (regardless of the temperature of the solid or water surface)? And if GHGs cool the atmosphere, then adding CO2 should cool the atmosphere one or two degrees in 100 years.
From: z on 1 Dec 2008 01:10 On Nov 25, 8:06 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > It may stand popular thought on it's head, but not reality, > unless you can explain how N2 and O2 could cool from daytime heating > without GHGs. so a ball of gas composed entirely of N2 and/or O2 in space, with no GHG, would never cool? and, as a corollary, of course, it would have to be invisible, by conservation of energy. hey, you've solved the mystery of dark matter!
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 02:14 In article <492A4D45.717664(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: > >z wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > More snow here last night. >> > >> > Graham- >> >> a week before thanksgiving? damn, it's global cooling after all. > >We haven't had snow before Xmas here in years. A decade even ? Or more ? I have found snowfall in lower-snowfall areas like near London and in Philadelphia as well as USA farther south to be very irregular, maddeningly random, with little correlation to global temperature on a time scale of a decade or less. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 02:25 In <79f81868-bc58-4ccb-91fb-6fa498794d49(a)t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, z wrote: >On Nov 21, 6:00�pm, Me <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> The world has never seen such freezing heat >> By Christopher Booker > >This Christopher Booker? >"The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous >misinformation >The Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has published 38 >articles about asbestos - and every one is wrong" >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinsc... > > >> A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the >> temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. >> On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run >> by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four >> bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last >> month was the hottest October on record. > >I've searched and can't find any such announcement. Do you have a >link >to one? Does Booker? Could it be he's the one making stuff up, >without >even the excuse of an error? > >> This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow >> and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to >> China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency >> reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the >> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall >> records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as >> only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. > >Actually, the 2nd warmest. >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/glob-oct-pg.gif >Maybe he copied that wrong too. >>This only made the >> confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in >> Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - > >Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as 5th highest >in the historical record >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt; >i.e., LESS extreme warmth that NOAA, cited above. Still sticking with >that accusation of GISS inventing a phony hotspot to make it look >warmer? > >You guys not only can't pick 'em, but you figure if you repeat >yourselves it will be true. I would like to add that according to HadCRUT-3, October 1998 was the world's 6th warmest October on record. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt Same story according to HadCRUT-3v, good enough for The Register to use to attack NASA's GISS (and the scientist Hansen there) in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 02:30
In article <4928C455.B83FA9E3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: > >Whata Fool wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >z wrote: >> > >> >> Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as 5th highest >> > >> >But they LIED initially ANYWAY ! >> >> Maybe not, just sloppy, incompetent, and biased. >> >> To be called a lie, they would have needed to know the >> truth, can anybody be sure the latest correction is correct? > >Can you believe ANY of it any more ? It's religion, not science any more. Hansen/GISS is now saying 5th warmest. A source used by The Register to attack Hansen/GISS says 6th warmest since 1850. (HadCRUT-3v global) - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |