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: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 4 Dec 2008 18:23 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:10:53 -0800, Bill Ward wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:37 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: > >> 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. > > Nope. Chaotic means prediction errors accumulate exponentially. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory> > > <begin excerpt> [excerpt snipped] > <end excerpt> > Education: The process of inserting abstract thoughts into concrete heads. Cheers! Rich
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 18:26 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >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. Please say it isn't so, CO2 cooling the atmosphere is a horror, because there is and will be more CO2 all the time. With temperatures running 15 degrees below normal every day, and more snow cover than seen in 10 years, any additional cooling of the atmosphere is the horror, not Hawaii weather in Paris.
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 18:31 On Dec 4, 6:40 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:38:38 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 4 dec, 04:04, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> > On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> >> > On 3 dec, 19:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> >> > On 2 dec, 02:54, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:40:46 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > >> >> >> >> > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: <snip> > >> > 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. > > >> > You can't see 1/f noise when it is swamped by good old white noise, > >> > 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. > > > What you don't seem to understand that is that identifying a system as > > chaotic doesn't of itself prove that it is unpredictable and not > > susceptible to computer modelling. > > Actually, it does. It just depends on the time scale. Weather is short > (hrs), climate is long (decades), the solar system really long (Gyr). Your times scales are a bit off. Weather isn't quite that bad - forecasts are good four or five days in advance. The Vostok ice- coreclimate data doesn't look chaotic over half a million years, which is rather more than decades, and the solar system looks as if chaos becomes obvious over about 100 million years, so you are only out by one order of magnitude there. > > The solar system is a particularly obvious counter-example, and the > > climate - despite your fautous claims - is another. > > >> > 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. > > > This may be true over a sufficiently long time scale, but is utterly > > false for the time periods we happen to be interested in, as you should > > have the wit to realise. > > Weather (climate) was one of the first examples of chaos studied. See > Lorenz. > >> Trends mean nothing in chaotic systems. All you can know is that the > >> signal will change slope, not when or how much. > > > The solar system is chaotic, so we don't know where all the planets are > > going to be for the next few million years? > > No, not exactly. The prediction error accumulates. More dramatically > so for asteroids and comets, but for planets also. It's the differing > time scale that's apparently throwing you off. Chaos is chaos regardless > of time scale. > > > Do try and engage your brain before you start typing. > > Read some chaos theory. Very possibly, but weather and climate do seem to be rather less tightly coupled than suits your argument. But you are the last person to let inconvenient facts stand in your way. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 18:32 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >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? Maybe a layed off IPCC lackey?
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 18:52
On Dec 4, 9:56 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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. So you are lumping together all the mechanisms that transfer heat from the earth's surface to the 3k heat sink in outer space as a series of thermal resistances, ignoring the fact that whole atmosphere is transparent to some infra-red wavelengths, the stratosphere is transparent to most of the wavelengths absorbed (and re-radiated) by water vapour, while the equivalent radiating altitude for carbon dioxide is up in the stratosphere. As hand-waving arguments go this has to be a peculiarly pathetic failure. > If there is a > surface temperature stabilizing feedback, it will correct for changes in > the stratospheric resistance, and stabilize the surface temperature. How? Not that I expect you to be able to come up with a convincing mechanism. > 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. Presumably those higher on the list are less critical of your fatuous arguments. > I prefer being shown, not intimidated. An understandable preference. Unfortunately, while we can expose the errors in your thinking, we don't seem to be able to get you to see them. > > 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? You'd ignore it if I went to the trouble of putting it together. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |