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 19:14 In <pan.2008.11.23.15.47.04.647543(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote in part: > >Wrong fiasco. I meant this one: > >http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm <SNIP> >Here's the original, with graphics: > >http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf > >> but subsequent observations doesn't suggest that it is to slowing down >> any more. >> >> Do try to get your facts right. > >Right about now, you should be feeling a bit foolish. Check out HadCRUT-3v - good enough for The Register! Graph: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm Data in text form: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 19:19 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:59:25 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <pan.2008.11.29.04.28.21.555150(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > said: >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:38:49 -0800, bill.sloman 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: > <SNIP stuff already said more than 6 times> >>>>>>> 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. Â 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. Â It's still rising, and the resistance is >>>> decreased. Â 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. >> >>Energy is conserved. Where did the latent heat go, if not up? It's >>carried by convection to the cloud top, and radiates away. > > Not all of it (latent or the majority otherwise) does. Then I repeat: Where did it go? Surely you're not claiming net energy is moving from cold air to warm surface. The second law cops will come and get you. > And greenhouse gases above the cloudtop will return to the cloud some > of the cloud's thermal radiation. Not net radiation. The net energy flow is always from hot to cold. Always. > And what goes up usually must go down - especially air. The air > rising > through the cloud mass of a Nor'Easter will descend somewhere. And it's dryer and cooler because of precipitation and radiation. >> The whole notion of somehow "trapping" energy in the atmosphere seems >> ludicrous. It's either sensible heat, latent heat, or radiation. It >> doesn't just disappear. > > It accumulates until radiator temperatures get sufficient to have > radiative outgo to outer space match radiative income from the Sun. Then it's sensible heat subject to upward convection. The temperature is a function of the gas laws and the specific heat of the air. Warming a parcel of gas doesn't "trap" any radiation. The surface heat flow is in during the day and out at night, only the net flow is balanced. I think you may be confused by the Trenberth energy flow cartoon, which shows the 45W/m^2 surface IR component as the difference between upward and downward radiation flows. It's misleading, because no net heat can ever flow from cold to hot. Improperly averaging terms that should be integrated seems to be a common factor in the "climate science" domain.
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 19:19 In <4af7b00c-7776-415a-bf71-f008a2e38c72(a)j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 23 nov, 16:47, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:03:45 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On 23 nov, 05:33, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: <SNIP to edit for space> >> Wrong fiasco. =A0I meant this one: >> >> http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm > >Scarcely. The cooling was real enough, if insignificant - and probably >had something to do with sulphur-dioxide-generated haze, which went >away when we tackled acid rain. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png Some of the up-and-down looks to me like being in a 60 year cycle - maybe the Multidecadal Oscillation. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 1 Dec 2008 20:54 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:40:46 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > 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. That's for sure! They went for the details before they really understand the basics.
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 21:08
In article <492d7873$0$87074$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net>, Al Bedo wrote: >bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >[regarding orbital variation with feedback] > >> The point is that we need a healthy dose of positive feedback to make >> the explanation work and similar positive feedback mechanisms could >> turn today's barely significant global warming into an end-Permian >> style global extinction. It isn't a high probability scenario, but we >> are taling about the only planet we've got. > >So what feedback are you suggesting? > >Not ice/albedo feedback of the glacials since that ice >extended to mid-latitudes where there was enough insolation >to matter. Insolation at even the North Pole in late spring is very significant. Have a look at 1366 watts times sine of 23 degrees, 24 hours a day. And only 2.35 times as much atmosphere to go through as when sun is at zenith. Ice melt in the Arctic matters a lot in the second half of spring and the first half of summer. The Antarctic also has seasonal sea ice - though more stable than that of the Arctic, since minimum late summer extent of Antarctic sea ice is close to nonexistent. Changes in Arctic sea ice carry into the next year. >Not water vapor feedback because that doesn't seem to be occurring. It did as the Ice Ages surged and ebbed. The thermal time constant of the oceans is a century or two - I think a degree rise sustained for a few decades will produce a measurable increase in atmospheric water vapor worldwide. >What then? Both those, along with ability of oceans to dissolve CO2 decreasing as they warm. Add up those 3 positive feedbacks, and their combined effect to amplify effects of the Milankovitch cycles was apparently great. <SNIP from here> - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |