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 09:32 On 4 dec, 09:03, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:45:45 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In article <pan.2008.11.30.21.41.11.102...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > > Ward wrote: > >>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > >>> On 29 nov, 21:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >>>> > On 28 nov, 16:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > <SNIP deeper levels of quotation> > >>>> >> That needs a little explanation. Â CO2 gas is not a BB radiator. > >>>> >> Â At the temperatures in question, the 15u band should be the > >>>> >> only radiation it can absorb or emit. Â How do you come to the > >>>> >> conclusion it emits in a -55C BB spectrum? Â Do you have a link > >>>> >> supporting that? > > >>>> > I didn't say that it emitted a black body spectrum. It emits the > >>>> > same spectrum as any volume of carbon dioxide at 218K would, which > >>>> > is different from the spectrum emitted by warmer carbon dioxide. > > >>> 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. > > >>>> You said, "a spectrum that matches the roughly -55C temperature of the > >>>> bulk of the stratosphere", not a "218K CO2 spectrum". > > >>> Same thing. > > >>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 > > > That appears to be a sampling of a layer of CO2 representing less CO2 > > than one has to pass through from surface to outer space. > > > Another version of CO2 IR spectrum is at: > > >http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > >http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html > > >>It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping your > >>stories straight again? > > > But CO2 is close to blackbody within some range of wavelengths where > > emission is close to peak of a 218 K blackbody. And the range does > > widen somewhat when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. > > Look at this graph: > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transm... > > Now please tell me if you think the CO2 absorption spectrum (3rd graph) is > similar to the 210K blackbody emission spectrum line in the top graph. > Assuming you agree they are different, please explain how CO2 bonds > could emit in wavelengths they can't absorb. > > > > > > >>>> > This follows from the second law of thermodynamics. The fact that > >>>> > the 218K spectrum is going to be different from the spectrum > >>>> > emitted by a warmer lump of gas depends on the proposition that the > >>>> > numbers of molecules occupying higher energy vibrational and > >>>> > rotational quantum states changes with temperature, and it is this > >>>> > distribution across the accessible quantised energy levels that > >>>> > dictates the shape of the emission spectrum. > > >>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. > > >>>> 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. > > > CO2 acts fairly like a blackbody at wavelengths within the 15 um band. > > 15 um is a wavelength where a blackbody has spectral power distribution > > about 96% of peak. > > It appears to me both tails of a 210K blackbody spectrum are missing > (looks like about half the total area). Cold CO2 is not a black body - > it's a narrowband source. As I've been telling you in successive posts for several days now. The point that you have been striving to ignore with such dim-witted enthusiasm is that despite the fact that it emits at a restricted number of wavelenghts, the shape of the spectrum being emitted reflects the temperature of the molecules doing the emission, and the shape of that emission spectum is constrained by the second law of thermodynamics. As far as I can see you don't know enough to have any principled objection to this point and in fact are too dim to appreciate that your objecting to the obvious makes it clear just how little you really know. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 09:41 On 4 dec, 06:14, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > >In article <pan.2008.11.28.15.55.03.836...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > >Ward wrote: > >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:26:40 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > >>> 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> > I really don't want to aggravate you with beating the proposition > of a planet without GHGs having an N2 and O2 atmosphere warmer than present > to death, but wouldn't the solid rock surface of Earth at low latitudes > have an afternoon temperature of more than 373 K? Who cares? > And does that mean there would be some 100 + C N2 and O2 billowing up? All things are possible in your fantasy world. Grownups do tend to concentrate on questions that have useful answers. Granting your interests you need to spend any free time that you have got learning about basic physics, and I - for - one would take it kindly if you spent less time on posting questions to remind us that your studies haven't yet got to first base. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 09:50 On 4 dec, 07:47, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:35:12 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In article <pan.2008.11.28.15.55.03.836...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > > Ward wrote: > >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:26:40 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > >>> 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> > Surely you're not supporting Sloman's claim that cold CO2 gas can radiate > a blackbody spectrum, are you? It seems unlikely, since that never was my claim - it is merely the the straw man that you persist in attacking despite my equally persistent attempts to get you to understand the slightly more intellectually demanding proposition that I have been advancing, which is that even a narrow-band radiator like cold carbon dioxide has a emission spectrum that changes with temperature in a way that is constrained by the second law of thermodynamics. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 10:10 On 4 dec, 09:24, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:30:18 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In <pan.2008.12.01.00.23.21.593...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward said: > >>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:02:11 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > > >>> Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: <snip> > >> 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. > > 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. Wrong. The latent heat transfer by water vapour is essentially restricted to the bottom half of the troposphere, below the equivalent emitting altitude, so it won't make a blind bit of difference to the nature of the earth's long wavelength emission spectrum, and in any event you've just been told that most of heat transferred within the atmosphere isn't moved by condensation and evaporation. I'm sure that your flown through a few anedotal thunderstorms that have broken through into the stratosphere, but the energy involved is a negligible proportion of the global energy budget. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 10:19
On 4 dec, 13:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:30:18 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > >> In <pan.2008.12.01.00.23.21.593...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward said: > >>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:02:11 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > > >>>> Bill Ward <bw...(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 <snip> > >>> 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. Sure, But there isn't enough of it to figure large in the enenergy budget. > 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. All of which happens well below the effective emitting altitude, and is consequently irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. > 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. Whata Fool can't follow the science and consequently denies that it is worth anything - what he should be doing is realising that his opinion isn't worth anything, but he doesn't seem to have developed the idea that other people can know more than he does. <snip> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |