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 15:44 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:19:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. How is it measured? Do you have some reference other than Trenberth? >> 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. And you seem to think that intimidation is a good way to convince people. You're wrong. You'd be better off trying to explain rather than insult.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 15:56 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:10:11 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. You need to understand what negative feedback means. The troposphere is in series with the stratosphere, so a change in the tropospheric thermal resistance will affect the overall system resistance. If there is a surface temperature stabilizing feedback, it will correct for changes in the stratospheric resistance, and stabilize the surface temperature. And the credibility I give to what I've been told is strongly dependent on who's telling me. You're not high on that list. I prefer being shown, not intimidated. > > 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. Evidence?
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 16:03 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:41:45 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. You certainly don't sound like much of a scientist. > 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. Don't like to be forced to think, eh? Another strike. Are you a political scientist?
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 16:21 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:24:14 -0800, Martin Brown 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. Then how can it be significant as a GHG? >>> 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. I don't think the IPCC reports are relevant. They start with the conclusion and work backwards. > > 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. Did anyone question that? The principle is also used on solar collectors. > Regards, > Martin Brown
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 16:59
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 4 dec, 13:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> 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. The real "greenhouse effect" is in the energy transferred to the N2 and O2 by convection with the surface, and on the planet with GHGs, by molecular collisions with them. The retention of energy is the important part, otherwise the GHGs could just radiate any absorbed energy to space in a few minutes, they would cool almost spontaneously if not for the mass of the N2 and O2 being 50 times that of the water vapor, and more than times greater than the CO2. >> 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> I have said the averaging of daily temperatures in an attempt to develop a rational budget with computer models is meaningless, totally meaningless, almost as meaningless as the efforts they are paying you for to attack AGW skeptics. |