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: John M. on 2 Dec 2008 06:46 On Dec 1, 9:31 am, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 30 nov, 18:04, "John M." <john_howard_mor...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Nov 30, 4:28 pm, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > <big snip> > > > > 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. > > > Err... Isn't it the Zeroeth Law that assures temperature homegeneity? > > Who cares how the laws were numbered in your lessons. You should, for one. Because without some coherence in the jargon, we will argue interminably without resolution of anything. Not that this isn't happening on alt.global-warming every single day.
From: Malcolm Moore on 2 Dec 2008 06:54 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:14:06 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: snip >> >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. The AGW "movement" eh! That well known figment of your imagination. >> 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 ? I don't see pro-AGW sites do that. You don't look very thoroughly. Here's a well known group <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10> that provide fairly comprehensive info. >They provide relevant background info from which any competent >Googler can find more. > The NZCSC provide minimal information designed to inflate the expertise of their members. Let's look at the first on their list.; "Inaugural Climate Scientists The inaugural founders of the coalition were: Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China." Describing a retired Industrial Chemist as a Climate Scientist is a bit of a stretch. Expert Reviewers for the IPCC are self appointed from <http://www.ipieca.org/activities/climate_change/downloads/publications/ipcc_guide.pdf> "Expert Reviewers register their interest to review drafts of specific reports with the IPCC Working Groups, and act on an individual basis." His claim to fame is the sheer number of submissions he has made, easily dwarfing anyone elses. The editors of IPCC AR4 commented "We thank Vincent for his diligence in writng so many comments. However, the comments would be much more useful if they were backed up by other than opinion. ..." His claim to be a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre is correct in the sense he delivered three lectures there during a trip to China. The trip was under the auspices of the NZ China Friendship Society. He accompanied his wife Mary who is a renowned teacher of Chinese Language. I won't comment on your competence as a Googler. >> 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. You've not established there is sauce for the goose. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: bill.sloman on 2 Dec 2008 08:21 On 2 dec, 04:10, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > >In article <492d7873$0$87074$815e3...(a)news.qwest.net>, Al Bedo wrote: > >>bill.slo...(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> > > The oceans don't need to dissolve CO2 to remove it from the air, > there is enough carbonate life and algae to handle pretty much all that > man is releasing. Except that they aren't. Only about 30% of the CO2 that we are emitting is being captured at the moment, and as the oceans get more acid (due to dissolved CO2) the capacity of foraminifera and the like to sequester carbon dioxide will be progressively reduced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera > If forests were harvested before they burn, it could help a lot, > and when/if ethanol or butanol or biodiesel is made from cellulose, that > will help. Cellulose is a long-chain polmer of sugar, but finding bugs that can break it down to fermentable sugars is tricky. The termites have mastered the problem, but theri bugs can only survived in a termite stomach. > Every little thing can help, and an important one is battery and > ultracapacitor technology for electric cars. > > As if a mere 388 parts per million could make a big difference. Get an education - 388ppm may not look like much, but without it the surface of the earth would be quite a bit cooler. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Whata Fool on 2 Dec 2008 14:44 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >[snip] >True, but radiation is peanuts compared to the available cooling capacity >of latent heat during the day. If the surface radiation were blocked, >convection could easily make it up. >[snip] I think you overestimate the latent heat, considerably. Evaporative cooling on land is dependent on moisture, no moisture is the reason for most of the UHI. Dry spells locally mean very little latent heat (except trees are pretty much always able to get a little water). I would have to guess that average daytime convection is better than 90 percent dry on average globally, I suspect you disagree, but ok. In the 1930s my uncle liked to launch alcohol wick tissue paper hot air balloons, I wonder how many forest fires he caused. :-) I guess the proportion of the reduced density due to moisture cold be calculated knowing the alcohol combustion details and the absolute humidity. I have tried to buy one of those but I suspect the FAA frowns on them and the Forest Service may have a law against their use.
From: John M. on 2 Dec 2008 17:08
On Dec 2, 8:44 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >[snip] > >True, but radiation is peanuts compared to the available cooling capacity > >of latent heat during the day. If the surface radiation were blocked, > >convection could easily make it up. > >[snip] > > I think you overestimate the latent heat, considerably. > > Evaporative cooling on land is dependent on moisture, > no moisture is the reason for most of the UHI. 4/5ths of the planet is open water. No shortage of evaporative cooling and consequent latent heat there. > Dry spells locally mean very little latent heat (except > trees are pretty much always able to get a little water). > > I would have to guess that average daytime convection is > better than 90 percent dry on average globally, I suspect you > disagree, but ok. > > In the 1930s my uncle liked to launch alcohol wick tissue > paper hot air balloons, I wonder how many forest fires he caused. :-) > > I guess the proportion of the reduced density due to moisture > cold be calculated knowing the alcohol combustion details and the > absolute humidity. > > I have tried to buy one of those but I suspect the FAA frowns > on them and the Forest Service may have a law against their use. |