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 23:17 In article <ha3pi452m5ov21dcacf1rpqqijblmnajcc(a)4ax.com>, Charlie E. wrote: >On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:30:44 +0000, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>James Arthur wrote: >> >>> bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Besides, droughts are normal. They happened long before "AGW". Read a bible for instance. >>> > >>> > The current series of drought years in Australia doesn't look any too >>> > normal. Modern records didn't start until January 1788 and weren't >>> > all that comprehensive for the next fifty years, but they don't record >>> > anything like as bad as the current sequence of dry years >>> > >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia >>> >>> "1880 to 1886 Drought in Victoria" >>> >>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/08/australia.drought >>> >>> "With many regions in their fifth year of drought, the >>> government yesterday called an emergency water summit >>> in Canberra." >> >>So a shorter drought than the 1880 to 1886 one ! Damn that CO2 in 1880 ! >> >>Graham > >They could go the way that Santa Barbara does. When I was there, they >were in the fifth year of a drought, and started building a >desalination plant to provide water. They were encouraging >conservation so well, that the sewers were backing up due to lack of >flow to keep them clear. > >Then, just after I left, they got some rain, and the drought was over. >Then, they got some more rain. And, then some more rain, and they >were having mudslides and flooding all over the place. > >Then, some one did a little research. A hundred years before, there >was a great harbor at Santa Barbara, one of the reasons it was >settled. But, then they had a drought for six years, and the settlers >were hard put to survive. Then it started raining, and raining and >raining. The harbor is still a major transportation hub for the town, >but it is now called the Airport! Southern California has rainfall being notably irregular and notably very much at the whim of El Ninos. Other, more-random events such as extremes of the Arctic Oscillation and Pacific Rossby waves in ocean currents (which can last for years) also affect rainfall in Southern California. My joke is that LA (according to this joke of mine) averages 12-13 inches of rainfall per year - including 4 feet +/- 3.5 feet every El Nino winter. Except I think that is halfway true. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 23:25 In <dbabb465-4a8d-4d2f-9c97-5740557d92ac(a)o2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 26 nov, 06:27, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: >> Jim Thompson wrote: >> > Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >>James Arthur wrote: >> >> > >>> "With many regions in their fifth year of drought, the >> > >>> � government yesterday called an emergency water summit >> > >>> � in Canberra." >> >> > >>So a shorter drought than the 1880 to 1886 one ! Damn that CO2 in 1880 ! >> >> > >They could go the way that Santa Barbara does. �When I was there, they >> > >were in the fifth year of a drought, and started building a >> > >desalination plant to provide water. �They were encouraging >> > >conservation so well, that the sewers were backing up due to lack of >> > >flow to keep them clear. >> >> > >Then, just after I left, they got some rain, and the drought was over. >> > >Then, they got some more rain. �And, then some more rain, and they >> > >were having mudslides and flooding all over the place. >> >> > >Then, some one did a little research. �A hundred years before, there >> > >was a great harbor at Santa Barbara, one of the reasons it was >> > >settled. �But, then they had a drought for six years, and the settlers >> > >were hard put to survive. �Then it started raining, and raining and >> > >raining. �The harbor is still a major transportation hub for the town, >> > >but it is now called the Airport! >> >> > Ah, Californica, the epitome of how environmentalism can cause self >> > destruction. >> >> Funny how that phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" eludes the AGWists. > >So Santa Barbara is hell? And it got that way due to environmentalist >activists? > >Jim Thompson gets it wrong (as usual) - Charlie E.'s Santa Barbara >story didn't involve enviromentalists (who don't like desalination >plants) <I snip from that point> Why should environmentalists oppose desalination plants? Would not doing so support contention that environmentalists are Luddites, causing enviromentalists to end up having shot themselves or each other in their feet? Or are desalination plants only opposed by the NIMBY kind of "environmentalists" that oppose *everything* including thermal destruction of organochlorines such as PCBs, to an extent practically opposing defusing of any live bombs found in their backyards or neighborhoods (my words)? - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 23:29 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In <ipdni4lcbe7eq0541k5c1svijan3cvkh7t(a)4ax.com>, W. Fool said in part: >>bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >>>On the evidence available, you've screwed yourself, by confusing >>>optimistic claims about how bioethanol might score like if some >>>researcher or other got enough research grants to support the >>>development of their favourite scheme with the dire reality of of the >>>schemes that Dubbya has been subsidising. >> >> You are overemphasizing the political aspect of US ethanol >>production. >> >> In summer, regulations (EPA, etc.) require lower emission >>fuels, and 10 percent ethanol is one way gasoline is blended for >>big city use. >> >> >> Also, to reduce oil imports, a long term project of ethanol >>(from sugar, not corn) is important. >> >> In case of corn shortages, ethanol plants can be closed, >>which is a much better situation that the existing problem with >>rice, which will become a real bad problem for people unable or >>unwilling to switch to a lower cost or more plentiful staple food. >> >> Rice farmers are leaving the farms and going into other, >>higher paying and less labor intensive jobs, and people will >>suffer. > > How about switchgrass? That has been noted a fair amount as an ethanol >crop. Grows even where food cash crops don't and it's good for little but >ethanol and feeding grasshoppers and maybe goats. Sure, as soon as the fermenting process and fungi are developed. > By any chance is the main obstacle the lack of a lobby for what is >currently not a crop? > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) I don't think so, first sugar should be grown in quantity again because it doesn't need grinding or cooking down like corn. As long as corn prices are high enough to keep farmers in business the corn lobby should not object, and the ethanol lobby should be for any lower cost feedstock. But technology can handle any problem involving disadvantages in burning fossil fuel. If all moderate climate homes had heat pumps like I made from an old air conditioner, then natural gas could be used instead of coal for all power plants. But new low cost heat pumps are not available even though the 5000 BTU/Hr window A/Cs only cost about $100 and would pay back in one or two years. Just half the money being spent on useless projects would retool factories for the high efficient appliances, a heat pump can provide 3 or 4 times as much heat per dollar as an electric furnace, and would be more efficient than natural gas central air.
From: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 23:36 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:14:02 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> 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 > >It's all depends on how you pick your data: > >http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG > >http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2400 So much for "trends". :-)
From: Don Klipstein on 2 Dec 2008 00:28
In article <sfaqi41dau09mn1jdb9508t3f2t2hsj9ba(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>> >>> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide and >>> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that >>> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and temperature >>> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any great >>> extent, which allows both gases to make independent contributions to >>> the greenhouse effect. > > Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers >showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 >much more narrow. Cite? Also, CO2 has absorption at wavelengths where water vapor has little to none, to an extent giving CO2 9-26% of total "greenhouse gas effect". >>> There's also the point that the vapour pressure of water in the >>> stratosphere is pretty low, because the stratosphere is cold, and >>> carbon dioxide does more of the greenhouse work up there than it does >>> below the tropopause. > > Water has a very low boiling point in the stratosphere because >the pressure is low, does that make the vapor pressure high or low? The water vapor pressure in the stratosphere is low due to low temperature. > The stratosphere is cold, so the net energy transfer from the >surface to the stratosphere is upward, and the energy transfer to space >is great. Increased presence of greenhouse gases actually cools most of the stratosphere. That would increase lapse rate - which would mean a negative feedback mechanism. However, there are a few positive feedback mechanisms, including surface albedo (increases heat reception from the Sun) - so lapse rate increase instead raises the altitude of the tropopause. (Temperature difference between surface and stratosphere has to increase by about 3.5 degrees F in areas of the globe having convection to raise the tropopause by a mere 1,000 feet.) > AGW talkers completely leave out much of the physics, gossip >about spectra sounds mystical to the greenhorn greenie, real physicists >talk about energy transfer in flux quantities per unit of time. > > The amount of CO2 in the stratosphere is minute, because the >stratosphere has a pressure of less than one pound per square inch, >and not much mass. More like 20% of the mass of Earth's atmosphere is in the stratosphere. Even in the tropics where the tropopause is higher, the pressure at the tropopause is about 1.4 PSI. > Frankly, if the lower troposphere doesn't provide most of any >GHG effect, then how can the lower pressure, colder, less dense with >less mass layers above have as much of an affect? The lower half of the troposphere does have significant GHG effect. The lower troposphere has warmed a lot more since 1979 than the middle troposphere has. (Remss.com provides among other things "lower troposphere" and "middle troposphere" determinations of temperatuire trend. The "lower troposphere" determination is from weighting of atmospheric thermal radiation readings in a way to concentrate on the lowest 4 km, and that excludes areas where the surface is at least 3 km above sea level. The "middle troposphere" determination is done with weighting of atmospheric thermal radiation readings weighted in a way to concentrate onto 4-7 km above sea level.) > Rather than try to put physics to such vague gossip as spectra >bands, it would be better to start from scratch, study the temperature, >pressure, mass, specific heat and energy content of a quantity of the >atmosphere at each level, and the capability to radiate or absorb Infra- >Red. > > CO2 plays such a small part in atmospheric physics, it could be >totally ignored without changing the outcome a measurable amount. But anywhere from 9-26% of GHG effect via having absorption at wavelengths where water vapor does not? > Water vapor concentration can increase and decrease many times >the total concentration of CO2 and it doesn't change the temperature >much, in fact, dry air can get hotter faster or colder faster, than >moist air. Dry air heats at surface more easily since adiabatic lapse rate is at the greater dry rate over a greater range of altitudes. Air also heats more easily when the land under it lacks water to be evaporated (big heat burden). Dry air cools more easily since lack of water vapor means less latent heat (realized if dew or frost or fog or foggy low clouds form) and dry air has less of a known greenhouse gas. > More moisture means more IR absorption, but moist air moderates >temperature changes. CO2 has no phase change at atmospheric temperature >and pressure, and has a very low activity level compared to water and water >vapor and ice. CO2 has GHG effect in the range of 9-26% of the total GHG effect. > At the temperatures at higher altitudes, IR radiation is sparse, At -40 C, IR intensity is about 43% of that achieved by the 15 degree C that was close enough to the 1930-1980 average of global surface temperature. -40 C is a fairly usual temperature for upper part of the troposphere. Even -60 C has IR radiation intensity about 30% of that achieved by +15 C. >if the AGW "scientist" were to begin good science, they would devise >experiments to show how much energy can be transferred in a given time. > A colder atmosphere absorbs more from warm solids, liquids and >gases, but radiates less. > > That means the net energy flow is upward, both from surface to >high altitude, and from surface to space. > And also from low altitude to high altitude. > > There is no net energy transfer from cold to hot. The truth of those (when considering source to be Sun-heated Earth surface) does not negate AGW via increase of GHG. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |