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 3 Dec 2008 16:41 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:32:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>Whatafool; >>> 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? It pays to be ignorant. :-) I put my air conditioner in backwards, on purpose.
From: bill.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 19:03 On 3 dec, 21:29, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:56:44 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > 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. Since we are talking about CO2 here, which does most of its work up in the stratosphere, convection would seem to be utterly immaterial. > >> > 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. Enough positive feedback and systems do run away. About half the positve feedback invoked to explain the connection between the tiny forcing produced by the basic Milankovitch mechanism and the 10C swings visible in the Vostock ice-core data involves the changing snow cover in the northern hemisphere, which is self-limiting - when the norther hemisphere runs out of snow cover, that particular positive feedback stops feeding back, so I'm at lost to understand why you should think that the CO2 solubility feedback should be big enough to drive the system into runaway. This does seem to represent magical thinking on your part, rather than a rational appreciation of what might be going on. > Sounds like it's too late for you, you've already > drunk the KoolAid. You don't like the data, can't produce a rational counter-argument, and switch to ad hominem. Very persuasive. > >> >> 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. Unsurprising, since you are churning it out. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 19:14 On 3 dec, 19:12, 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. I've certainly found it useful, not least in catching out frauds like you. > If you really believe what you say, you should make a fortune in the > chaotic stock market. Let us know how that goes. Bad call. The stock market isn't chaotic. Too many impulsive speculators inject an irreproducible element of genuine randomness. Your magic wand has failed you yet again. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: V for Vendicar on 3 Dec 2008 19:28 "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > And of course, it doesn't change the fact you can't filter out chaos. The earth's orbit is chaotic, and there is no numerical proof that it will not be flung from the solar system. However we know precisely where the sun and earth will be tomorrow. Chaos Filtered.
From: V for Vendicar on 3 Dec 2008 19:29
> V for Vendicar wrote: >> Ya well KKKonservative Christians have never been very bright. "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > Never met a Socialist or Liberal Christian ? I have, and they have all been vastly brighter than KKKonservatives. |