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 4 Dec 2008 07:44 On 4 dec, 04:06, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > V for Vendicar wrote: > > >> 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" <bw...(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. > > I thought that was what he was saying at some earlier point. I mean it's > obvious that CO2 must lag temperature by that process. If we produce more CO2 > by industrial etc means, who knows what happens ? Probably zilch since CO2 is > such a weak GHG. > > It's just the AGW religion that thinks otherwise. Graham lacks the scientific education that would let him distinguish between science and religion. In his ignorance he has fallen for the irrational dogma preached by Exxon-Mobil-funded web-sites (they do get money from other people with vested interests in denying global warming but we need to keep it simple for Graham and his gullible colleagues) and perforce regards people who believe the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming as apostates. One hopes that his relatives can afford to have him deprogrammed - and the sooner the better. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 07:43 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:30:18 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.12.01.00.23.21.593448(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward said: >>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:02:11 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> <And I snip most previously quoted material to edit for space> >>>>>> >>>>>> What I should have said here is that the radiation it does emit has >>>>>> the same intensity as a blackbody radiator would emit at that >>>>>> temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>> This follows from the second law of thermodydnamics - if it wasn't so >>>>>> a blob of CO2 surrounded by a blackbody would end up at a temperature >>>>>> other than that of the blackbody. >>>>>> >>>>>> <SNIP response to snipped point> >>>>> >>>>>Isn't the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum a band, not a BB >>>>>distribution? In part of your previous post (which you snipped) you >>>>>linked to this: >>>>> >>>>>http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif >>>>> >>>>>It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping your >>>>>stories straight again? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> He is confusing me, doesn't the AGW consensus claim that AGW has >>>> caused the stratosphere to cool to a lower than normal temperature? >>>> >>>>>The "lump" would need to absorb and emit just enough to stay in thermal >>>>>equilibrium. Why would the general spectrum suddenly change? What you >>>>>are saying doesn't make sense to me. Please explain. >>>> >>>> Haven't all measurements shown that the stratosphere has cooled, >>>> and that added CO2 concentration [AGW] caused it? >>>> >>>>>>> Outside the 15u band? Â How much difference is there between the >>>>>>> energy in the spectra at the two temperatures? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body >>>>>> >>>>>> work it out for yourself. >>>>> >>>>>Let me rephrase: I don't think there's a significant difference. Show >>>>>why you think there is. Start by showing why you think it's a BB >>>>>distribution. >>>> >>>> That page contains the following sentence; >>>> >>>> "This is the black body temperature as measured from space, while the >>>> surface temperature is higher due to the greenhouse effect." >>>> >>>> I claim, and strongly suggest that thinking scientists must >>>> understand >>>> that statement does not represent the true physics, because it ignores >>>> the probability that an N2 and O2 (78 + 20) atmosphere would be hotter >>>> than at present without GreenHouse Gases. >>>> >>>> Unless somebody can explain how N2 and O2 could cool after being >>>> warmed by solar energy and convection from the surface. >>> >>>I suspect the equatorial to polar temperature gradient would invoke >>>convection bands that would tend to equalize the temperatures by >>>conduction to the surface. The nighttime surface would be colder then >>>the adjacent atmosphere, the daytime would be hotter and, "on the >>>average", it looks to me like the (lower) atmosphere still might be >>>warmer than the surface, because of the day/night asymmetry in >>>convection. >> >> That does indeed occur. >> >>>I think adding GHG's with no latent heat would overall cool the >>>atmosphere and warm the surface via the nighttime IR blanket effect. >> >> That is indeed true. >> >>> But I also think that on Earth, latent heat transport by water >>>overwhelms any IR warming by CO2 >> >>>If someone has a lucid explanation showing otherwise, I'd like to see it. >> >> Could well be greater, without negating significance of warming of >> surface and lower levels of the atmosphere by CO2. Also consider that >> significant heat transport by atmospheric movement is not latent heat. > >But transport of water vapor is, by definition. When the WV condenses, >the latent heat has been transfered from wherever it evaporated. Are you assuming the evaporated water vapor is the same or higher temperature as the water it came from? A "swamp cooler" air system on the roof of house in pre-Lake Mead Las Vegas puts out air the is 10 to 20 degrees or more cooler than the water it came from. >If there is a significant cooling contribution from water vapor, it >wouldn't take much negative temperature feedback in the water cycle to >compensate for the hypothetical ~1.5W/m^2 "forcing", from anthropogenic >CO2. Not only that, but just the cooling of the solid surface by the air in early morning and evaporation of the dew or frost may be a lot more than the "forcing" averaged over 24 hours. There are just too many small factors that may be ignored or neglected or under/over estimated in any computer model or even in any attempted energy budget accounting attempt. >> Just as an example of an extreme - cyclones of baroclinic nature (the >> "usual extratropical cyclone") where water vapor presence is low. Such >> things do occue in central and northern Canada in mid and late winter, >> when water vapor presence is low enough to not account for much heat >> movement. Such things do occur in desert areas. > >"Dust devils"? > >> They even occur on Mars without a cloud anywhere. >> >> I remember a demonstration by a Sunday School teacher showing >> baroclinic cyclones and baroclinmic events in general forming without >> latent heat - in a big pot of water on a record player turntable, with >> red food dye dropped in over the circumference, and blue dye dropped in >> at the center - and then heat the circumference with a propane torch. >> Baroclinic events result in global or regional convection and heat >> transport across latitudes through the otherwise-barrier of local lapse >> rate being short of allowing local vertical convection. > >That's some Sunday school. I'm envious. I was in the middle of two extratropical cyclonics, the 1969 sudden storm from nowhere in Lakewood Ohio where a number of people were killed by falling trees, more mature trees felled than a thousand men could fell in a year (I estimate well over 110 MPH), and the sudden and unexpected downburst wind storms over the Ohio Valley this September that was also unofficially over 100 MPH in some places. But both of those involved extremely localized pressure differentials from unusual causes, in September it was the end of hurricane Ike, and in 1969, it was a Great Lakes derecho. Freak weather happens totally without warning, and there are some very rare events. The most extraordinary thing I have seen is the cloud deck of a tropical cyclonic over the Gulf reaching to Austin, Texas and causing the bottom of the cloud to "fall" in cotton ball puffs suddenly for hundreds of feet. I have no idea what caused that.
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 08:05 Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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 insult very politely, but insult nevertheless. Nobody (with one or two exceptions that I know of) claims CO2 concentrations are not increasing because of man, but that does not mean that even the basic premise of GHG theory is correct. And if the basic premise is wrong, then AGW likely does not exist. The fact that the Earth has more moderate temperatures than the moon is not a certainty caused by GHGs "trapping" or holding heat in, the N2 and O2 are capable of that, with no GHG effect at all, or at least no IR absorption or radiation at all, even though they may have trivial IR response and some fairly minor poly atomics. >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. The general meteorological discussion of weather and climate change is pretty solid, it is the IPCC, Gore and Hansen that add the extremism to the situation, and any good scientist should resent exaggerations for whatever reasons, even if caused by a strong personal belief. >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 That goes from a bad to worse example, what will you say if it turns out that added CO2 causes long term cooling, and the British Isles become as cold as central Europe? And that the 1990s temperatures were a freak, or biased data due to a short data set and difficult to sort out UHI, along with major changes in method, instruments, and loss of a stable base of observing stations.
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 09:19 On 3 dec, 20:36, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:12:28 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 1 dec, 19:36, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:55:01 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> > On 30 nov, 22:41, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> > On 29 nov, 21:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:58:21 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> >> > On 28 nov, 16:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:26:40 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> >> >> > On 27 nov, 23:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >On 27 nov, 02:59, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> "DeadFrog" <DeadF...(a)Virgin.net> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >> >> >news:fdeni4p8pptdaacn58utfjlehk9jcbfmff(a)4ax.com... > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: <snip> > > The reason why I think that there is a difference between the emission > > spectrum of carbon dioxide at 10C and at -55C is the second law of > > thermodynamics. As I've mentioned several times before, I don't think that > > carbon dioxide produces a black-body distribution, but the distribution it > > does emit - at those wavelengths where it does emit and absorb - must > > match the emissions of a blackbody radiator at the same temperature which > > also follows from the second law of thermodynamics. > > I don't see why. Then you need to learn a bit more. > At any given wavelength, absorption and emissivity are > related. In the absorption bands, emissivity is high, in the transmission > bands, emissivity is low. Where's the second law violation? At any given > temperature, the absorbed and emitted energy always match. But the distribution of emitted energy between wavelengths depends on the distribution of the molecules across their possible vibrationally and rotationally excited states which is defined by their temperature (and defines their temperature). The distribution of emitted energy between wavelengths has to reflect temperature, and this defines the interaction with a blackbody emitter at the same temperature. You've managed to avoid mentioning the distribution of energy across the emitting wavelengths, which makes it difficult for you to appreciate how the second law of thermodynamics gets into the act. <snip> > So you really don't understand the subject well enough to explain your > points or even answer my questions coherently. So far I haven't been able to over-simplify the arguments to the point where you find yourself compelled to accept them. Granting you willingness to come up with nonsensical counter-arguments, you'd probably find some reason to object to a claim that 2+2=4. > If you don't understand what I meant by the "tail of the distribution" in the context of the graph > I posted, you are a sad case indeed, and are likely fooling no one but > yourself. Unfortunately for you, I know exactly what you had in mind, which was to find a technical-sounding phrase to add body to an otherwise thin and unconvincing argument. Because you don't know what you are talking about, you failed to appreciate that it was exactly the kind of irrelevant interjection that confirms that you are a posturing nitwit. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 09:25
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >Unfortunately for you, I know exactly what you had in mind, which was >to find a technical-sounding phrase to add body to an otherwise thin >and unconvincing argument. Because you don't know what you are talking >about, you failed to appreciate that it was exactly the kind of >irrelevant interjection that confirms that you are a posturing nitwit. The horoscopes are getting longer and longer. |