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.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 14:01 On 3 dec, 19:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > 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 Since it doesn't mention 1/f noise, it represents just one more case of Bill Ward trying to look clever by citing stuff he doesn't understand.
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 15:14 On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 3 dec, 19:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> > 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 > > Since it doesn't mention 1/f noise, it represents just one more case of > Bill Ward trying to look clever by citing stuff he doesn't understand. The 1/f was yours. I don't remember mentioning it, but it is a good example of the limitations involved in trying to filter noise out of signals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise "Interestingly, there is no known lower bound to pink noise in electronics. Measurements made down to 10−6 Hz (taking several weeks) have not shown a ceasing of pink-noise behaviour.[citation needed] Therefore one could state that in electronics, noise can be pink down to ƒ1 = 1/T where T is the time the device is switched on." In physics, it goes back to the big bang. And of course, it doesn't change the fact you can't filter out chaos. Try reading the filter link for content, or look deeper into chaos theory. It's quite interesting.
From: V for Vendicar on 3 Dec 2008 15:13 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > I recall from archive film footage of around the 1960s that it was popular > for old blokes to walk round the centre of London with 'sandwich boards' > saying "The End of the World is Nigh" and the like. Ya well KKKonservative Christians have never been very bright.
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2008 15:25 V for Vendicar wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > I recall from archive film footage of around the 1960s that it was popular > > for old blokes to walk round the centre of London with 'sandwich boards' > > saying "The End of the World is Nigh" and the like. > > Ya well KKKonservative Christians have never been very bright. Never met a Socialist or Liberal Christian ? Graham
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 15:29
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:56:44 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. RealClimate is not a credible source. Gavin assumes only radiative effects, convective transfer isn't even mentioned. > >> > 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. That's downright loony. That much positive feedback would drive the system to the rail. Sounds like it's too late for you, you've already drunk the KoolAid. >> >> 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. Right now I see more evidence of nearby bulls underfoot. |