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: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2008 10:22 Don Klipstein wrote: > 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) Another Hansen 'correction' ? There seem to be a lot of those when the finger gets pointed. Like the hottest years in the USA being suddenly found to be in the 1930s, not recently at all. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2008 10:56 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > growing corn the American way requires burning enough oil to more > > > than counter-balance the carbon capture in the growing corn > > > > Even that's untrue. It's a common myth. The ROEI is a good 2:1 with modern > > processes. So the naysayers quote old methods and studies only. > > And your evidence to support this claim can be found where? In RECENT studies instead of 1980s ones. Do you know how to find Google ? Graham
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 12:08 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:29:43 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In article <pan.2008.11.27.18.38.37.222361(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > Ward wrote: <big snip of old post> >> 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. Can you explain more clearly what you mean and the physical mechanisms involved? It appears to me they would still cool faster from increased convection, unless you're talking about places that are already cold, and thus don't do much cooling. > 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. Why would the polar regions warm, when they already don't receive enough heat from the sun to maintain their existing temperature? Again, your causality seems backward. > 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. The polar regions must receive additional heat from low latitudes to keep from getting colder. Convective heat flow tends to equalize temperatures, unless weather is somehow immune to the second law. > 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. The Sun is operating at considerably higher pressures and temperatures than the Earth. Can't you find a more relevant and convincing explanation that includes convection? > Likewise, the Earth's surface receives significant radiation from > clear air below the 500 millibar level. Not more than it radiates, unless the WV is warmer than the surface. The Second law won't allow it. (OK, very very rarely by quantum theory.) But no actual radiative heating unless the source is hotter than the target. Net heat flow is from the surface to space. Thanks for your comments, but they aren't really specific enough to explain the physics behind the mechanisms you infer. I try to understand things down to the basics, with assumptions clearly stated. I think you must be making some assumptions I don't know about.
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 12:23 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > 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: <big snip> >>> 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. If it expands, where can it go but up to the new pressure level? Another way of looking at it is that warm air is less dense than cold air, so it must rise to be replaced by cold air. As it rises, it expands into the lower pressure, cooling in the process. If the lapse rate is low enough that the new temperature is still warmer than the new environment, it repeats. >> 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? I think they do, but in the process, they keep the surface from cooling as fast as it would otherwise.
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 12:32
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:38:37 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In article <pan.2008.11.28.18.01.09.524861(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > Ward wrote in part: >>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. >> >>>> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >>>>and plays little part below the tropopause.  >>> >>> Evidence? >> >>Are you off on that "WV is not a GHG" kick again? >> >>>> 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. >> >>Funny, I'm pointing out yours is overcomplicated, worrying about >>radiative transfer through the lower troposphere, which is basically >>translucent to LWIR, and ruled by convection. >> >>> 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. >> >>Until you can show different, yes. It's not just the energy that's >>moving, it's the column of air itself. When you lift water vapor, you're >>transferring heat. A lot of heat, relative to radiation. Below cloud >>base, how do you think the effectiveness is reduced? If the heat left >>the surface, where can it go but up? Lift (upward velocity) is >>relatively constant in a thermal, and often increases just under cloud >>base. >> >>Above cloud base, you can see externally the billowing from release of >>latent heat, and internally, (not recommended), you can feel it quite >>convincingly in the form of turbulence. > > I see plenty of clouds that are stratiform from bottom to top - and I > mean besides "fog-like low stratus". Most of those are formed from water > vapor in air that ascended from lower altitudes not underneath but dozens > or hundreds of miles away somewhere warmer. Sorry. I was referring to convective clouds, of course. I wrongly thought it would be clear from context. But the clouds you refer to are still radiating away their formerly latent heat as black bodies at the temperature corresponding to their altitude. > > <SNIP everything after the point that I responded to here> > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |