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 1 Dec 2008 02:43 In article <492FF152.3ED3EC25(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: > >z wrote: > >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> > > > > Besides, models only model LINEAR systems ! >> > >> > > > Oh really? Then the Spice models of transistors (which exhibit an >> > > > expotential - not linear - relationship between base voltage and >> > > > collector current) don't exist. >> > >> > > That IS a linear system as we describe them now. >> > >> > This is a minority opinion. Any student sharing it with their examiner >> > would fail that aspect of their exam, but since you clearly exercise >> > your mind by believing six impossible things before breakfast I >> > suppose we can write this off as part of the price you pay to maintain >> > your genius-level IQ. >> >> well to be fair, he only said "linear"; could be he didn't mean the >> usual sense of "straight line" > >Quite so. A LINEAR equation can contain power, log, exp terms etc. > >But it CANNOT model CHAOS. And that's what weather and climate are. Chaos is in weather, not in climate. And I would call El Ninos, La Ninas, oceanic Rossby waves and the surges and ebbs of the North Atlantic and Arctic "oscillations" to be weather phenomena, even though the longer term ones are oceanic in origin - chaotic deviations from the much nicer longer term trends that are climate. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 03:11 On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:43:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > 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. Yes, that seems obvious. I don't see the relevance. It's as different as night and day, literally, same as now. > >>> 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? Not usually. The surrounding area is generally hotter than the water surface. > > >>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 bet you've felt some pretty good bumps under clouds though, even in a B-25. > I suspect the total latent transport might be somewhere within > a factor of two times that as measured as total annual global precip. Could be, but the question then is, why is it so low, when there is so much available? And why is the lapse rate so close to adiabatic? If the troposphere were in radiative equilibrium, there would be no lapse rate. The temperature at all altitudes would be the same, and it wouldn't be a troposphere. There simply has to be convection to support the observed lapse rate. > > >>>>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)? It would seem so. In the real world, I suspect cloud tops have a key role as BBs. > And if GHGs cool the atmosphere, then adding CO2 should cool > the atmosphere one or two degrees in 100 years. Maybe, but I think in reality, on Earth, the negative feedbacks from water would obscure it.
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 03:12 In <pan.2008.11.27.01.31.49.247702(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward 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> >>> >>>>>> The issues that you seem to be wanting to raise are the heat >>>>>> transfer through the lower atmosphere by convection and by >>>>>> evaporation and condensation, which are interesting enough - here's >>>>>> the abstract of a 1960 paper on the subject >>> >>>>>>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113519112/abstract?CRETRY=.. >>> >>>>>> but you'd need to have access to a univerity libary to be able to >>>>>> read the full paper (and it's numerous successors) for nothing. >>> >>>>> For a 48 year old paper? Yeah, right. >>> >>>> It's successors might be more interesting - the computers available in >>>> 1960 weren't all that impressive. I wrote my first program in 1965 for >>>> Melbourne University's IBM 7040/44 which had 32k of 36bit words of >>>> core memory, and relied on magnetic tape for mass storage, and cost >>>> the university a million dollars. >>> >>>>> You don't show much promise. All you seem to be able to do is >>>>> posture, bluff, and hope nobody calls you on it. Can you explain as >>>>> I asked above or not? >>> >>>>> I'm betting not. >>> >>>> In theory, I could produce an explanation - I did elementary versions >>>> of this sort of modelling for my Ph.D. project back in the late >>>> 1960's, so it ought to be a practicable project. >>> >>>> It certainly wouldn't be a practical project, and there's no way in >>>> which I would waste my time re-inventing the wheel, when the >>>> climatologists have been working on exactly that project for the last >>>> forty-odd years. >>> >>>> The IPCC exists to provide exactly that kind of explanation, and they >>>> got to share a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore precisely because the >>>> Nobel Prize committe thought that they had made a good job of it. >>> >>>> If you seriously thought that it would be worth my time getting into >>>> the public education business in competition with them, you'd have to >>>> be as far out of touch with reality as Jim Thompson and Eeyore. That >>>> requires remarkably extensive ignorance, so my betting is that you are >>>> more likely to be trying to score some kind of recherché debating >>>> point. >>> >>> Actually, I was trying to see if you had anything to offer to help me >>> understand why no one can explain what seems to be some basic >>> contradictions in the AGW belief system. >>> As often occurs, I was over >>> optimistic. >> >> Since you didn't bother to mention what these contradictions are, we can >> presume that this is the usual dumb debating ploy. > >You snipped that earlier in the thread, apparently your ploy to avoid a >rational discussion. > >Here, I'll repost it: > ><begin repost> > >Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:50:37 -0800 > >[...] > >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. That has already been done - it has been mentioned that water vapor and CO2 have different absorption spectra. CO2 abosorbing and reradiating IR at wavelengths that water vapor does not allows it to account for 9-26% (there is variation in the determinations) of global greenhouse effect. > Include the effects of latent heat convection, As it turns out, most heat both convected and advected in the world is not latent, as indicated by wet adiabatic lapse rate being a majority of the dry one, along with considerable amount of convection and warm advection being through clear air. > the near adiabatic lapse rate through the troposphere, The old "standard atmosphere" does have lampse rate close to the "wet adiabatic lapse rate" of about 3.5 degrees F per 1,000 feet. However, about half the world does not have clouds overheat at any altitude, and the dry adiabatic rate is about 5.4 degrees F per 1,000 feet. That leaves some upward mobility. Furthermore, where the globe has warmed more and is expected by most more-credible models to warm more, the lapse rate from surface to tropopause is less. Warming where there is usually either convection or lapse rate just short of convection requires decrease in albedo so that the world can receive more heat from sunlight. That is indeed occurring and is predicted by many models. > and the observation that the effective radiating altitude >and cloud tops are near each other. What do you mean by that? Half the world has little or no clouds at any altitude, and the other half has cloud tops over a very wide range of altitudes. It is very common for tops of the uppermost clouds to be as low as about 7,000 feet (maybe less) and as high as over 35,000 feet. Tropical cyclones and tropical thunderstorms and cirrus blowing from them often have cloud tops around 60,000 feet. I often enough see a fair amount of clouds with tops around/under 6,000 feet (and bottoms higher than 1500 feet - excluding fog) and mainly or entirely clear air above them. >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. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 03:15 z <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: >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! AGW and as far as I know, all spectra articles say that N2 does not radiate much at all at atmospheric temperatures, and that O2 radiates very little. It isn't me that says it, why did you think it was?
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 03:29
In article <pan.2008.11.27.18.38.37.222361(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward 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> >>> >>> >> >> > The issues that you seem to be wanting to raise are the heat >>> >> >> > transfer through the lower atmosphere by convection and by >>> >> >> > evaporation and condensation, which are interesting enough - >>> >> >> > here's the abstract of a 1960 paper on the subject >>> >>> >> >> >http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113519112/abstract?CRETRY=... >>> >>> >> >> > but you'd need to have access to a univerity libary to be able >>> >> >> > to read the full paper (and it's numerous successors) for >>> >> >> > nothing. >>> >>> >> >> For a 48 year old paper? Yeah, right. >>> >>> >> > It's successors might be more interesting - the computers available >>> >> > in 1960 weren't all that impressive. I wrote my first program in >>> >> > 1965 for Melbourne University's IBM 7040/44 which had 32k of 36bit >>> >> > words of core memory, and relied on magnetic tape for mass storage, >>> >> > and cost the university a million dollars. >>> >>> >> >> You don't show much promise. All you seem to be able to do is >>> >> >> posture, bluff, and hope nobody calls you on it. Can you explain >>> >> >> as I asked above or not? >>> >>> >> >> I'm betting not. >>> >>> >> > In theory, I could produce an explanation - I did elementary >>> >> > versions of this sort of modelling for my Ph.D. project back in the >>> >> > late 1960's, so it ought to be a practicable project. >>> >>> >> > It certainly wouldn't be a practical project, and there's no way in >>> >> > which I would waste my time re-inventing the wheel, when the >>> >> > climatologists have been working on exactly that project for the >>> >> > last forty-odd years. >>> >>> >> > The IPCC exists to provide exactly that kind of explanation, and >>> >> > they got to share a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore precisely >>> >> > because the Nobel Prize committe thought that they had made a good >>> >> > job of it. >>> >>> >> > If you seriously thought that it would be worth my time getting >>> >> > into the public education business in competition with them, you'd >>> >> > have to be as far out of touch with reality as Jim Thompson and >>> >> > Eeyore. That requires remarkably extensive ignorance, so my betting >>> >> > is that you are more likely to be trying to score some kind of >>> >> > recherché debating point. >>> >>> >> Actually, I was trying to see if you had anything to offer to help me >>> >> understand why no one can explain what seems to be some basic >>> >> contradictions in the AGW belief system. >>> >> As often occurs, I was over >>> >> optimistic. >>> >>> > Since you didn't bother to mention what these contradictions are, we >>> > can presume that this is the usual dumb debating ploy. >>> >>> You snipped that earlier in the thread, apparently your ploy to avoid a >>> rational discussion. >>> >>> Here, I'll repost it: >>> >>> <begin repost> >>> >>> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:50:37 -0800 >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> 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. Radiative transfer is blocked by >GHG's, and plays little part below the tropopause. Radiation models are >thus largely irrelevant. The lapse rate is well short of adiabatic in much of the world, especially much of the time where surface albedo is prone to change from temperature change. Those parts of the world have upward mobility in surface temperature. Should the arctic and antarctic warm, then global convection from the tropics to the arctic and antarctic will slow down until the tropics warm - though I still expect the arctic and antarctic (especially the arctic) to warm more than the tropics. I do expect much warming in the portions of the world where there is usually convection or lapse rate just short of causing convection to depend on global albedo change - which is actually occurring, and expected to occur as global warming causes loss of snow and ice cover. Furthermore, much of the actual problems to result from global warming is from loss of snow and ice cover - and most of that is in parts of the world where the lapse rate from surface to tropopause is mostly far short of producing thunderstorms. Radiative transfer is actually significant within the troposphere. Radiative transfer can easily involve repeated absorption and emission of photons along the way, such as (for extreme example) within the "radiative layer" of the Sun. That excluding the core is a layer over 100,000 km thick, and most of the heat produced by the sun is produced in the core and has to pass through the core-exluding portion of the "radiation zone", there is no convection, and most radiation gets absorbed before going mere micrometers. Likewise, the Earth's surface receives significant radiation from clear air below the 500 millibar level. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |