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 1 Dec 2008 04:04 On 1 dec, 00:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > >> On 29 nov, 21:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:58:21 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >>> > On 28 nov, 16:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:26:40 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >>> >> > On 27 nov, 23:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >>> >> >> >On 27 nov, 02:59, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> "DeadFrog" <DeadF...(a)Virgin.net> wrote: > > >>> >> >> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote in message > >>> >> >> >> >news:fdeni4p8pptdaacn58utfjlehk9jcbfmff(a)4ax.com... > >>> >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > He is confusing me, doesn't the AGW consensus claim that AGW has > caused the stratosphere to cool to a lower than normal temperature? I'm not confusing Whata Fool. His confusion is entirely self- inflicted. <snip> > 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. It's obvious that you don't know enough to follow any kind of worthwhile explanation. Go off and get yourself some education from people who are paid to sort out your kinds of delusions. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 04:55 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:43:58 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > 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. Climate is low-passed (averaged) weather. Filters cannot remove chaos. Therefore climate is chaotic. Chaos is unpredictable. > 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. They are still chaotic, no matter how low the filter corner frequency is.
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 05:59 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:12:31 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <pan.2008.11.27.01.31.49.247702(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > wrote: <snip old post> >>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. That's a declaration. I asked for an explanation. For example, exactly how is the 9-26% range derived? What assumptions are involved? >> 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. Humidity carries considerable latent heat. Surface air is usually moist (most surface is water). I don't understand the term "wet adiabatic lapse rate being a majority of the dry one". Do you mean the most common lapse rate is wet? AIUI, a wet lapse rate generally indicates cloud formation, and a dry one indicates no phase changes occurring. What's the relevance? Again you have simply stated dogma, not explained the physical basis and assumptions supporting your claim. BTW, I'm not very convinced by Trenberth's assumption that all the convected water returns to the surface as precipitation. > >> 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 > [overhead?] at any altitude, and the dry adiabatic rate is about 5.4 > degrees F per 1,000 feet. That leaves some upward mobility. I assume you left out an "at any given time" in the above, since 70% of the surface is covered with water. Most of the surface cooling has to take place in the low latitudes, because that's where most of the solar energy is absorbed. That area doesn't seem short on clouds. > 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. Which would cause more convection, since adiabatic expansion of a parcel of air would cause it to become warmer than the surrounding air. > 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. How do you "require a decrease in albedo"? Convection causes the clouds, the clouds increase the albedo, cutting off the solar energy supply to the surface, reducing the convection. It's a classic negative feedback loop. I think you've got your causality backwards. > That is indeed occurring and is predicted by many models. I think reliance on poorly understood models (or at least poorly explained) is a big part of the problem. >> 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. OK, a few logical steps. Clouds form from water vapor convected to the condensation level and above. In order to condense, they must lose their latent heat. That latent heat is emitted from the surface of the cloud via blackbody radiation. No matter what the altitude, there will be BB radiation at the temperature of the cloud. Above the cloud tops, there will be little WV, because it's already condensed, so the radiation can continue unhindered to deep space. Recently in this thread, a link was posted that confirmed the average radiating altitude is near the average height of cloud tops. So I don't really see the relevance of your observation that cloud tops vary in altitude. Wherever they are, they are radiating to space, cooling the planet. The lower the cloud tops, the more radiated power density, per the T^4 relation. Thanks for your comments. I'd appreciate your explaining in more detail the assumptions and physical principles behind them.
From: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 06:31 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >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. Aren't you confusing lapse rate with moisture laden air and maybe also low pressure caused by precipitation volume reduction of 200 to one? I don't understand Bill W saying something about lapse rate depending so much on convection, all air has to do to cool is to expand, it doesn't have to rise to normalize the lapse rate. > 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) And convection is what warms that air. The bottom line is that _IF_ N2 and O2 can't cool without GreenHouse Gases, then the atmosphere would be warmer than now, meaning the present GreenHouse Gas theory is faulty, as the basis was a comparison of Earth and moon temperatures. So when will somebody start thinking, rethink the basics, and concede that GreenHouse Gases cool the atmosphere?
From: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 06:34
don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: [snip] > Cloud top altitude actually has a very wide diversity. I find it fairly >common to see plenty of cloudiness (with bottom at least 1500 feet) having >top around/under 6,000 feet, which is below roughly 82% of the mass of the >atmosphere. Clouds as high as 60,000 feet are a bit common in and near >the tropics, and that is above roughly 89% of the mass of the atmosphere. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) Isn't there a typo in there? |