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 Ward on 4 Dec 2008 13:25 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:26:43 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. I think there are obvious negative feedbacks in convection that are being ignored. Even a small feedback could explain the lack of correlation between recent surface temperatures and CO2. >> >> >> > 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. What I see is a data set with temperature leading CO2, and a lot of handwaving distraction trying to deny the obvious conclusion. Show some tangible evidence supporting your unlikely hypothesis, or give it up. You're fooling no one but yourself, assuming you really believe it. > 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. Why? I didn't drink the Kool Aid.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 14:10 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:19:59 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Sorry, I didn't intend to go over your head with such a "technical sounding phrase". I'll explain: Here's the context, to refresh your memory. <begin repost> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:36:59 -0800 > And why do you think that the 5u band is turned off when the CO2 gets > cold? It will be less intense than it is at higher temperatures - > looking at it from the emission point of view, the proportion of > intemolecular collisions that have enough energy to excite the the > asymmetric stretch is reduced when the gas gets cold - but there's no > on/off switch. Of course. The issue is whether it's significant. For that, you'd need to get quantitative. Judging by the graph I posted above, it looks out on the tail of the distribution. <end repost> Now look at this. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png If you look at the 5u band on the CO2 absorption spectrum, (4th graph down), and then look directly up to the top (color) graph, you will see a purple curve representing a 310K black body emission spectrum. Now if you can imagine moving the gray CO2 5u band straight up (feel free to use a ruler), you should be able to see that it would intersect the purple line pretty low, way out on the left side, in a location some of us really technical type people sometimes call a "tail" of the distribution. That means there's not much surface IR emitted at that wavelength, so CO2 wouldn't have much effect there. I hope that clears up your confusion. I'll try not to use such difficult concepts in the future. > 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. Now maybe you can explain equally simply how cold CO2 gas can emit at frequencies it can't absorb.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 14:43 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:07:46 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > > > Bill Ward wrote: > >> The CO2 lags the temperature. > > Easily provable using a bottle of carbonated drink and warming it. > > Graham Afterward, you can easily prove a saturated solution of CO2 is non-toxic. And refreshing.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 15:03 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:32:26 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. I don't think so. Give us a quote where you think you said that. At one point you even complained about my referring to the tails of a distribution being too "technical". Are you projecting your poseurhood? > 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. You should have noticed by now that intimidation doesn't work. If you can't coherently explain what you mean, you don't really understand what you think you know. The context is cooling of the stratosphere by CO2. Explain the significance of your comment.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 15:37
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:43:41 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > 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? It doesn't matter. When it condenses, the latent heat becomes sensible heat added to the surroundings, whatever the temperature. > > 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. Right, and wherever it is, when that humid air condenses, the heat absorbed from your house will be released. >>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. I don't see a negative feedback there. > > 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. I saw a similar event driving into an oncoming rainstorm in the Mojave desert. The center just "fell out" of a layer of cloud at 3-4000', leaving a donut cloud about a mile in diameter, with a half mile center hole. The resulting rain fell in a ~500' layer, hitting the flat desert about a mile ahead and to the left, uphill of the road. The ground was initially dry, and we could actually see dust clouds where it hit. The first part of the flood was about 4 inches deep and rising when we got there. We drove through it, quickly, as it was only about quarter mile wide. I wouldn't have believed it, if I hadn't seen it. I still have no clue what caused it. |