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: Martin Brown on 4 Dec 2008 03:51 On Dec 4, 3:04 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > 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. That isn't what chaos theory says at all. The heart beat and solar system planetary orbits are both formally chaotic systems but they are also quasi periodic with a very high degree of long term reproducibility. You are deliberately confusing "random" with chaotic. Typical chaotic systems for modest amounts of non-linear feedback tend to gryrate around a limit cycle centred on one or more stable attractors with some kind of roughly periodic behaviour but never returning to exactly the same state. They only become random and in effect totally unpredictable for the more extreme cases. Weather is hard to predict but long term climate can smooth this out well enough to extract any systematic trends. > > 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. Although the solar system is chaotic (and no formal proof of stability is known - although Ovendens conjecture of minimum interaction is widely believed to be true and relevant) that does not preclude it having properties that can be accurately determined and simulated for millions of years past and future (especially when the integrations are tied in to known total solar eclipses recorded in the historical record). VSOP87 is still widely used for predicting planetary positions for epochs +/- 4000 from present with a high degree of accuracy. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1988A%26A...202..309B&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf > > > 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. Chaotic does not mean that it cannot be predicted. You are confusing random with chaotic. I am inclined to believe that this is deliberate misdirection on your part. > > Trends mean nothing in chaotic systems. All you can know is that the > signal will change slope, not when or how much. Chaotic systems can also be quasi periodic. The really nasty problem with a chaotic system is that you can have *very* unpleasant surprises when you slightly change the driving parameters so that the old dominant attractor is outflanked by a new one. In the case of the Earths climate this could result in a very rapid shift to a new metastable state quite different to the weather patterns we see at present. Regards, Martin Brown
From: John M. on 4 Dec 2008 04:20 On Dec 4, 9:51 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Dec 4, 3:04 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > 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. > > That isn't what chaos theory says at all. The heart beat and solar > system planetary orbits are both formally chaotic systems but they are > also quasi periodic with a very high degree of long term > reproducibility. You are deliberately confusing "random" with chaotic. Bilbo is good at deliberate obfuscation. Pity he can't use this talent in a more suitable field than science - politics and/or theology spring to mind.
From: Martin Brown on 4 Dec 2008 04:24 Bill Ward wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.11.26.21.52.54.243812(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> said: >>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:52:48 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>> >>>> On 26 nov, 02:06, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >>>>> Just say how N2 and O2 could cool after daytime heating and >>>>> I will go away. >>>> They emit and absorb in the infra-red just like water and carbon >>>> dioxide; because they are symmetrical molecules the transitions are >>>> forbidden, but pressure broadening/intermolecular collisions means that >>>> the transitions happen anyway, albeit much less often than with >>>> asymmetrical molecules. >>> I think we need a link for that. It would mean N2 and O2 are GHGs. Very weak ones. Their absorption of IR radiation is measurable with modern equipment ... but they are to a very good approximation transparent to IR at STP and lower pressures. N2 transparent enough in the IR to be used as a cheap carrier gas for some experiments. >> I suspect to some extremely slight extent they actually are. > > Can you tell us why you suspect that? Perhaps a link to some data? OK and this link dates back to military research in the early 70's long before AGW was thought to be a potential problem. It is left as an excercise to the reader to work out why they might be interested. It was declassified in 1981. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD882876&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Incidentally you would also have ozone O3, nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 formed in your initially pure N2 O2 atmosphere before too long since UV photons from the nearest star will facilitate the relevant reactions albeit slowly in a pure gas atmosphere. And they are all GHG through being poly atomic or having an asymmetric dipole moment. A pure argon atmosphere would behave as close as possible to the theoretical ideal gas solution - monatomic with no molecular bonds (and a high enough molecular weight that a terrestrial sized planet could hold onto it). BTW If you are interested in the science rather than in trying to pretend that AGW does not exist. You might find it interesting and helpful to read the IPCC scientific reports which deal with quite a lot of the questions you have been asking and the relative certainties and uncertainties that exist within the present models. Altering surface IR emissivity to trap long wave radiation and heat inside a space is used in much less controversial settings such as InO coatings on some types of lamp and Pilkingtons Low-E glazing for instance. Regards, Martin Brown
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 07:26 On 4 dec, 01:35, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:03:07 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > 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: <snip> > >> > 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. Which doesn't explain why you think that neglecting convective heat transfers invalidates an estimate of the percentage of greenhouse warming due to CO2, despite the fact that CO2 does its work in the stratosphere, where there's no convection. Another of your stupid debating tricks. > >> >> > 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 is a singularly idiotic comment, even for you. In the Vostock ice- core data one can see Milankovitch orientation effects producing a small amount of warming, which takes around 800 years to percolate through the depths of the oceans, forcing CO2 out of solution into the atmosphere, where it produces extra warming, which frees up a little more CO2. Meanwhile the snow cover in the northern hemisphere is retreating, decreasing the albedo and trapping more solar radiation, giving yet more warming. There's no violation of causality around in any of that. Moronic global warming deniers try to argue that because this pattern of warming isn't the same as the one we are curently producing by digging up fossil carbon and burning it, we can't use ice-core evidence to validate our our climate models. You seem to have taken over their mindless argument without actually thinking about what you are saying. > > 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. Another example of magical thinking. "Turning causality around" is not a magic formula for winning debates, and your making the claim in this context doesn't do anyting positive for your credibility. > >> 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. Since I don't need to, despite your specious and irrational claim, I can do without the DeLorean. > > can't produce a rational counter-argument, > > To an irrational argument, no. The fact that you don't seem to be equipped to follow my arguments doesn't happen to make them irrational. > > and switch to ad hominem. Very persuasive. > > Not ad hom, just sympathetic. Very funny. Save your sympathy for your own reputation. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 07:35
On 4 dec, 04:07, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > The CO2 lags the temperature. > > Easily provable using a bottle of carbonated drink and warming it. And irrelevant if you are digging up fossil carbon and burning it to inject fresh carbon dioxide into the system. In fact the fossil-derived carbon dioxide we inject into the system has a slightly different carbon isotope ratio than the carbon dioxide that circulates between the atmosphere and the oceans, and we have been able to monitor to carbon isotope ration in atmospheric carbon dioxide for some years now - a fact that you didn;t seem to know a while ago, when you claimed that the rising carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere reflected the warming of the oceans - one more of the nonsensical chunks of misinformation that you have taken over from an Exxon-Mobil funded web-site and passed off as one of your own "scientific" insights. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |