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 3 Dec 2008 13:22 On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. And obviously Sloman has no idea what a corner frequency is. Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-off_frequency
From: John M. on 3 Dec 2008 13:28 On Dec 3, 7:12 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:08:12 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > 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. > > So math is a magic wand to you. I think I see your problem. > > If you really believe what you say, you should make a fortune in the > chaotic stock market. Let us know how that goes. The analogy is good - if you equate making a fortune with weather forecasting, and steady accumulation of capital, by careful investment in a long-term portfolio, with climate prediction.
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 13:45 On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:32:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 3 dec, 00:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> bill.slo...(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. > > You show no signs of being able to follow intelligent discussion. Pointing > out that you are both dim and ill-informed isn't egotistical, though you > may find it damaging to your ego. > >> 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. > > Oh? Really? > >> 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. > > Which happens to give the most stable and consistent results. This goes > back to the time of Buys Ballot > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._D._Buys_Ballot > > but you want to re-invent the wheel (or rather replace it with your > preferred form of sled). >> >> 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). > > And the evdience for you claim is? > >> 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? > > See > > http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php > > for the answer to this (and a number of other) foolish arguments. > > Knocking out all the CO2 in our atmosphere would reduce the greenhouse > warming by 9%, Do you have a source and an explanation of how this figure was derived? What assumptions were made? > from the current 33C to 30C, which would cool the surface > by 3C in the first instance, which would lower the partial pressure of > water vapour in the atmosphere (giving futher cooling) but enven on its > own it would be enough to restore the snow cover of the northern > hemisphere and bring on another glaciation. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png I think you have causality reversed. Closer examination of the data should show temperature leading CO2 by about 800 years. Is that graph all you have? >> 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. > > None of which you can actually produce, which is a pity, since I'd have > fun knocking them down > >> 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. > > It may be clear to you. To the better-informed rest of the world, you > are merely a posturing ignoramus who has been taken in by Exxon-Mobil- > funded propaganda. And if he's right?
From: bill.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 13:56 On 3 dec, 19:45, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:32:18 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > On 3 dec, 00:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> bill.slo...(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. > > > You show no signs of being able to follow intelligent discussion. Pointing > > out that you are both dim and ill-informed isn't egotistical, though you > > may find it damaging to your ego. > > >> 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. > > > Oh? Really? > > >> 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. > > > Which happens to give the most stable and consistent results. This goes > > back to the time of Buys Ballot > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._D._Buys_Ballot > > > but you want to re-invent the wheel (or rather replace it with your > > preferred form of sled). > > >> 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). > > > And the evdience for you claim is? > > >> 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? > > > See > > >http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php > > > for the answer to this (and a number of other) foolish arguments. > > > Knocking out all the CO2 in our atmosphere would reduce the greenhouse > > warming by 9%, > > Do you have a source and an explanation of how this figure was derived? > > What assumptions were made? Why not check out the URL that immediately preceded my comment? The 9% figure comes up regularly, so if you can't find your own source you shouldn't be posting on the subject. > > from the current 33C to 30C, which would cool the surface > > by 3C in the first instance, which would lower the partial pressure of > > water vapour in the atmosphere (giving futher cooling) but enven on its > > own it would be enough to restore the snow cover of the northern > > hemisphere and bring on another glaciation. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png > > I think you have causality reversed. Closer examination of the data > should show temperature leading CO2 by about 800 years. Is that graph > all you have? That old chestnut again. If you knew anything at all about the theory behind anthropogenic global warming you'd be aware that the 800 year lag in the ice core data reflects the delay between the small Milankovitch warming/cooling due to the change in the Earth's orientation and the subsequent movement of CO2 out of (warming) or into (cooling) the oceans, which is one of the positive feedback effects that make the theory work. > >> 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. > > > None of which you can actually produce, which is a pity, since I'd have > > fun knocking them down > > >> 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. > > > It may be clear to you. To the better-informed rest of the world, you > > are merely a posturing ignoramus who has been taken in by Exxon-Mobil- > > funded propaganda. > > And if he's right? Watch out for pigs flying overhead. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 14:03
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:43:15 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 2 dec, 05:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:19:20 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> > In >> > <4af7b00c-7776-415a-bf71-f008a2e38...(a)j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >> > bill.slo...(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. >> >> Could be. Or just a mind seeing pattern where there is none. It's >> chaotic. There is no pattern. > > This is an article of faith with you? > > The solar system is chaotic. Everybody else can still see patterns, but > you are surprised when spring follows winter and gives way to summer and > totally shocked when autumn then sets in, and bewail our ill-luck when > autumn falls off into winter. You must live an exciting life. Working out > when to planet bulbs in the garden must be really difficult for you. Perhaps if you learned a little systems theory you wouldn't make such embarrassingly ludicrous errors as often. OTOH, then you would be embarrassed by the above. You could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory |