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 Ward on 1 Dec 2008 12:37 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:45:55 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <bde209ce-3792-4e1b-9474-f83210132440(a)3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, > bill.sloman(a)ieee.org 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. >> >>> >> 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. >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>This also seems to coincide with the global average cloud top height >> >>http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19121191 > > <SNIP beyond that point> > > 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. True enough. Now what difference do you think that makes? > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 13:36 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:55:01 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 30 nov, 22:41, 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: > > <snip> > >> >> >> That needs a little explanation. CO2 gas is not a BB radiator. >> >> >> At the temperatures in question, the 15u band should be the only >> >> >> radiation it can absorb or emit. How do you come to the >> >> >> conclusion it emits in a -55C BB spectrum? Do you have a link >> >> >> supporting that? >> >> >> > I didn't say that it emitted a black body spectrum. It emits the >> >> > same spectrum as any volume of carbon dioxide at 218K would, which >> >> > is different from the spectrum emitted by warmer carbon dioxide. >> >> > What I should have said here is that the radiation it does emit has >> > the same intensity as a blackbody radiator would emit at that >> > temperature. >> >> > This follows from the second law of thermodydnamics - if it wasn't so >> > a blob of CO2 surrounded by a blackbody would end up at a temperature >> > other than that of the blackbody. >> >> >> You said, "a spectrum that matches the roughly -55C temperature of >> >> the bulk of the stratosphere", not a "218K CO2 spectrum". >> >> > Same thing. >> >> Isn't the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum a band, not a BB >> distribution? In part of your previous post (which you snipped) you >> linked to this: >> >> http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif >> >> It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping your >> stories straight again? > > You seem to be having some trouble understanding what is going on. Carbon > dioxide has two stretching vibrational modes in the infra-red - the > symmetrical stretch doesn't emit or absorb (because it is symetrical). > > The aysymmetircal stretch at 5u and the bending mode at 15u are both > active, and both will have a rotational fine structure (I'd expect to see > P,Q and R branches, but can't guarantee it). > > The relative intensities of the peaks of the active absobtion lines will > be the same as the corresponding wavelengths of infra-red emitted from a > blackbody at the same temperature. So far, so good. > >> >> > This follows from the second law of thermodynamics. The fact that >> >> > the 218K spectrum is going to be different from the spectrum >> >> > emitted by a warmer lump of gas depends on the proposition that the >> >> > numbers of molecules occupying higher energy vibrational and >> >> > rotational quantum states changes with temperature, and it is this >> >> > distribution across the accessible quantised energy levels that >> >> > dictates the shape of the emission spectrum. >> >> The "lump" would need to absorb and emit just enough to stay in thermal >> equilibrium. Why would the general spectrum suddenly change? What you >> are saying doesn't make sense to me. Please explain. > > Why do you think that there is a "general spectrum" and why do you think > it has to "suddenly change"? You are apparently referring to specific lines in the general band structure. By "general spectrum", I'm referring to CO2 spectral graphs such as: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png which show a band structure. Are you claiming that CO2, at atmospheric conditions, can emit or absorb significant radiation outside the bands shown? If so, can you explain how, and why this, and the other transmission graph you posted, don't show it? >> >> Outside the 15u band? How much difference is there between the >> >> energy in the spectra at the two temperatures? >> >> >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. > > I very explicitly said that it wasn't a broad-band distribution. The > second law of thermodynamics - heat can only flow from a hotter body to > a colder body - dictates that those wavelengths that CO2 emits and > absorbs have the same intensity as the corresponding slices out of > blackbody distribution that you get from a blackbody at the same > temperature. > > And why do you think that the 5u band is turned off when the CO2 gets > cold? It will be less intense than it is at higher temperatures - > looking at it from the emission point of view, the proportion of > intemolecular collisions that have enough energy to excite the the > asymmetric stretch is reduced when the gas gets cold - but there's no > on/off switch. Of course. The issue is whether it's significant. For that, you'd need to get quantitative. Judging by the graph I posted above, it looks out on the tail of the distribution.
From: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 17:40 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> 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. Does GISS use surface temperatures for anything? The temperature of the air is the big factor, think of your windshield on a summer night and a winter night with the same humidity. And it is the N2 and O2 that hold most of the thermal energy. While radiation is clearly the mechanism for cooling the Earth, the amount of sideways radiation warming/cooling of the atmosphere has not been shown to be as active as the vertical radiation claimed. With all the resources available, there just hasn't been the documentation of things like horizontal radiation. The amount of effort in computer models and averaging numbers is lopsided compared to the testing of assumptions.
From: bill.sloman on 1 Dec 2008 17:53 On 1 dec, 16:14, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Malcolm Moore wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Malcolm Moore wrote: > > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >Malcolm Moore wrote: > > >> >> Eeyore wrote: > > > >> >> >I spent some time working in radar. Does that make me ineligible for any other branch of >> >> >> >electronics, or will I > > always be a 'radar shill' ? > > > >> >> >That, quite frankly is what your pitiful 'argument' boils down to. > > > >> >> If you were advocating that any harmful effects of radar were a > > >> >> nonsense, I'd expect your previous employment to be made known. > > >> >> I also hope you wouldn't attempt to give your advocacy more credence > > >> >> by claiming to be a physiologist. > > >> >> That is effectively what the NZCSC is doing when it claims the first > > >> >> eight names on it's list are all "Climate Scientists". > > > >> >You're a screaming LOONIE ! > > > >> Given your tendency to write in upper case, the epithet "screaming" is > > >> more applicable to yourself. > > > >> As for thinking I'm "loonie", you introduced the radar analogy so it > > >> can't be that. Therefore I guess you think I'm loonie because I > > >> thought you might behave ethically by declaring previous employment, > > >> and not using undeserved titles. Your habit of making unattributed > > >> snips should have warned me that was unlikely. > > > >A very lame attempt at obfuscation. > > > You're becoming absurd. > > > >Expalin why certain groups of people should be 'disallowed' from discussing AGW or not taken >seriously and only 'believers' allowed > > to contribute, in a rational scientific manner please. > > > Your statement is a nonsense. I've not attempted to disallow anything. > > But the AGW movement does. > > > On the contrary, I've > > suggested NZCSC should publish more information, namely full CV's of > > their members. At present, they are disallowing you from considering > > that information. > > Why should they publish their CVs ? They do publish partial CV's to make it appear the people involved look like serious scientists with relevant experience. More complete CV's would make it more obvious that they are bunch of liars for hire. > I don't see pro-AGW sites do that. They don't have to. Their scientists publish reguarly in relevant peer- reviewed literaute, and anybody who is interested can use scholar.google.com to pull out their publication >They provide relevant background info from which any competent Googler can find more. Who? The anti-global warming sites or the one reporting serious science? > > > You however seem to believe that others shouldn't be able to critique > > organisations for which you have a fondness. > > I believe that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Failing - as usual - to realise that the anti-global warming organisations are fundamentally different from the pro-gobal warming organisations (who never got money from Exxon-Mobil). -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 19:07
In article <MPG.2392668d7650646298a3ef(a)news.individual.net>, krw wrote: >In article <pan.2008.11.22.18.29.19.7288(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, >bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com says... >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:13:45 -0800, a7yvm109gf5d1 wrote: >> >> > On Nov 22, 1:03 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> z wrote: >> >> > Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as 5th highest >> >> >> >> But they LIED initially ANYWAY ! >> >> >> >> Graham >> > >> > That's absurd. Science works by self-correction mechanisms like this. >> >> But that's exactly the point. They didn't correct themselves. They >> posted incorrect data which was found and corrected by amateurs, and it's >> not the first time. > >Ever notice that all the "errors" are in one direction? No. For one example of an organization monitoring global temperature, UAH has had to correct upwards its determination of temperature trend for the lower troposphere. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |