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: Whata Fool on 2 Dec 2008 18:47 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 2 dec, 04:10, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> 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. I am afraid that is wrong, but very few people have enough of an open mind to discuss it intelligently, only in your case, the added burden of a suffering ego makes it worse. Your statement above mentions the surface, which on the real Earth is mostly water, but not much data exists for temperatures of the land surfaces. It would seem reasonable to expect that trained climatologists (which you ain't one) mean the "surface" when they say surface, but temperature measurements (the ones you refer to) are taken in the air about 2 meters above the surface. And to with the present real Earth but with no CO2, the "surface" temperature would not be "a lot cooler", it might be a couple of degrees warmer (or cooler), which is not "quite a bit). But to since the usual line expressed in GreenHouse Gas theory is "without GreenHouse Gases the Earth's surface would be a lot cooler". So apparently some brainwashing has caused CO2 to be considered the only GreenHouse Gas, have you been to the planet Algore? Without any GHGs, meaning no water or water vapor (the others, including carbon dioxide have too little effect to matter much), the surface of Earth would get very hot in daytime, and cool some at night, but would NOT have temperatures identical to the moon, for several very good reasons. So it is abundantly clear you are just repeating the gossip jargon, and making mistakes, you should have said "GreenHouse Gases" instead of CO2 if you want stars on your paper.
From: Don Klipstein on 2 Dec 2008 23:28 In <777d692f-ab43-49ce-986f-257f56574b58(a)y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 27 nov, 23:09, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org �wrote: >>>On 27 nov, 04:41, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: <SNIP everything said more times than that> >>>> � � � �Obviously you are in denial of facts, the range of temperatures >>>> on Earth is smaller than those of the moon or Mars, and not as extreme >>>> as on Venus. >> >>>> � � � �The entire tropics, which involves 23.5 + 23.5 degrees under >>>> the path of the sun, stays in a narrow range of temperatures, year round. >> >>>> � � � �That means moderated temperatures, and that is what moderated >>>>means. >> >>>But they aren't moderated by the greenhouse mechanism. The deserts do >>>exhibit large temperature swings between day and night, which flsifies >>>your claimed "narrow range of temperatures". >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert >> >>><snipped the rest of the rubbish> >> >> � � � The tropics apparently moderated by water vapor, except for deserts >> which are usually dry, did you forget about water vapor being a GHG? >> >> � � � Geez, talk about a slanted viewpoint. > >The "moderation" you are talking about involves the evaporation of >liquid water and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. My >viewpoint may look "slanted" from your position, but your position >needs some reconstruction - an elementary science course would be a >good start. Deserts have less moderation for a few reasons: 1. Less coud cover allows more daytime warming and nighttime cooling. 2. Drier ground allows more daytime warming due to less evaporative cooling. That is a factor in how someplace in North Dakota achieved 121 degrees F in early July 1936. (Nowhere else in USA east of the Rockies has ever been measured to get any hotter - longer daylight hours farther north probably also helped.) 3. Lower water vapor concentration allows nighttime surface temperature to fall more before condenstion occurs. 4. Less water vapor does allow more nighttime cooling. 5. (In some desert areas - where the soil is dry sand): There is greater thermal insulation of most of the ground from the atmosphere - allowing greater temperature swing in both directions of the surface. Swing can be a lot less a few inches (~10 cm) down. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: bill.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 06:08 On 1 dec, 10:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:43:58 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In article <492FF152.3ED3E...(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: > > >>z wrote: > > >>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >>> > > > > Besides, models only model LINEAR systems ! > > >>> > > > Oh really? Then the Spice models of transistors (which exhibit an > >>> > > > expotential - not linear - relationship between base voltage and > >>> > > > collector current) don't exist. > > >>> > > That IS a linear system as we describe them now. > > >>> > This is a minority opinion. Any student sharing it with their > >>> > examiner would fail that aspect of their exam, but since you clearly > >>> > exercise your mind by believing six impossible things before > >>> > breakfast I suppose we can write this off as part of the price you > >>> > pay to maintain your genius-level IQ. > > >>> well to be fair, he only said "linear"; could be he didn't mean the > >>> usual sense of "straight line" > > >>Quite so. A LINEAR equation can contain power, log, exp terms etc. > > >>But it CANNOT model CHAOS. And that's what weather and climate are. > > > Chaos is in weather, not in climate. > > Climate is low-passed (averaged) weather. Filters cannot remove chaos.. > Therefore climate is chaotic. Chaos is unpredictable. > > > And I would call El Ninos, La Ninas, oceanic Rossby > > waves and the surges and ebbs of the North Atlantic and Arctic > > "oscillations" to be weather phenomena, even though the longer term ones > > are oceanic in origin - chaotic deviations from the much nicer longer > > term trends that are climate. > > They are still chaotic, no matter how low the filter corner frequency is. The planetary orbits in the solar system are chaotic, but they look pretty regular over periods of a few million years, and low-pass filtering works fine there. The human heart rate is also chaotic, but - with a healthy heart - it looks pretty regular (at least until you get into the fine detail and find out that stroboscopic imaging of the heart doesn't work too well) and low pass fitlering works fine. Waving your magic wand and cyring "chaotic"doesn't actually invalidate modern climatology - though it does tend to invalide any claim you might kmake to know something about it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 06:21 On 1 dec, 23:40, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(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. Only from your eccentric and ill-informed point of view. Pretty much all of your comments about the "defects"of modern climate science reveal gross defects in your understanding of elementary physics. Nobody worries about "horizontal" radiaton because it doesn't lead to significant heat transfers. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 06:25
On 2 dec, 02:54, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:40:46 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > > Bill Ward <bw...(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. This from someone who thinks that a chaotic system always generates 1/ f noise in any frequency band, ignoring the obvious fact that the solar system is chaotic, which doesn't prevent the sun from coming up at a predictable time every day. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |