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 19:28 On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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 > 1 = 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. Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate modelling over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are interested. You can't see 1/f noise when it is swamped by good old white noise, right down to the 1/f noise corner frequency. In the solar system everything looks like clockwork for the first few tens of millions of years. The climate records over the last million years also look pretty regular - Milankovich cycles don't look like a drunkards walk or 1/f noise - and your invocation of chaos still looks exactly like a loser retreating in a cloud of obfustication. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 19:35 On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:03:07 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. In the stratosphere, the work it does is cooling. In the troposphere, it's convected H20 doing the work. >> >> > 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. The CO2 lags the temperature. You can't turn causality around with positive feedback, no matter how wildly you speculate. > This does seem to represent magical thinking on your part, rather than a > rational appreciation of what might be going on. I'm not the one proposing to turn time around with positive feedback - that's you. > >> Sounds like it's too late for you, you've already drunk the KoolAid. > > You don't like the data, You haven't shown any that can reverse time. You'd need a DeLorean for that. > can't produce a rational counter-argument, To an irrational argument, no. > and switch to ad hominem. Very persuasive. Not ad hom, just sympathetic. >> >> >> 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. Dream on.
From: V for Vendicar on 3 Dec 2008 19:32 >> 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. "Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > 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. Stupid. Stupid Ward. Can't understand that it takes 800 years for the oceans to warm and release the CO2 they stored during the previous 80,000 year long ice age. As always... Ward is a ... MMMMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 21:22 On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:14:08 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/~infinity/Infinity9/lorenz.html <begin excerpt> Lorenz's discovery shocked the scientific world. Chaotic systems soon began to be recognised in all branches of science. As mathematicians started to unravel its mysteries, science reeled before the implications of an uncertain world intricately bound up with chance. The human heartbeat is chaotic, the stock market, the solar system and of course the weather. In fact the more we learn about chaos the more closely it seems to be bound up with nature. Fractal structures seem to be everywhere we look: in ferns, cauliflowers, the coral reef, kidneys… Rather than turn its back on chaos, nature appears to use it and science is beginning to do the same. <end excerpt> Does that help?
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 22:04
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate modelling > over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are interested. Chaos theory is relevant in that it proves mathematically that you can't predict climate with any model, no matter how much history you have. The prediction will soon rapidly diverge from the signal. > You can't see 1/f noise when it is swamped by good old white noise, > right down to the 1/f noise corner frequency. In the solar system > everything looks like clockwork for the first few tens of millions of > years. You still can't seem to keep your stories straight. Above you complained I was "ignoring the obvious fact that the solar system is chaotic", now you seem to be denying it. It is, has always been, and always will be, chaotic. So is weather and climate. The time scales are different, which you don't seem to understand. > The climate records over the last million years also look pretty regular > - Milankovich cycles don't look like a drunkards walk or 1/f noise - and > your invocation of chaos still looks exactly like a loser retreating in > a cloud of obfustication. The Milankovich cycles are part of the solar system, chaotic on very long time scales. Weather is chaotic, with a much shorter time scale. The M cycles modulate the weather, and the result can be lowpassed down to "climate" to ignore the short time fluctuations, but it's still chaotic and can't be predicted. Trends mean nothing in chaotic systems. All you can know is that the signal will change slope, not when or how much. Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory |