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: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 19:57 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On Dec 4, 10:59 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >On 4 dec, 13:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > ><snipped the usual mindless rubbish> > >> almost as meaningless as the efforts they are paying you >> for to attack AGW skeptics. > >If only. Being unemployed is that bad? Maybe a change in attitude would help.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 20:02 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:31:41 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Whatever floats your boat. You can pretend those are serious errors, if you like. >> > 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. Exactly what is climate, if not low-passed weather? > But you are the last person to let inconvenient facts stand in your way. Projection.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 20:30 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:52:22 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. No, that's just your twisted version. I didn't go into detail, but I do tend to think in terms of system components in series or parallel combinations, and only adding detail as necessary. At present, I'm focusing on radiative transfer and convective transfer which apparently work in parallel, but with some interaction at layers where the air can be radiatively heated. It's a work in progress. >> 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. Well, one that should be obvious enough for you to understand is the fact the vapor pressure of water is an exponential function of temperature. If more water vapor actually increases the cooling effect on the surface, that would provide a clear negative feedback. Another, which you may not get right away, is the asymmetry between night and day heat exchange mechanisms. At night, the primary cooling has to be radiative, which is slowed by water vapor. During the day, much of the heat transfer is convective, and water speeds the process. At night, you need to slow cooling, because you are below the "set point" and during the day, you need more cooling, because you are above the "set point". That combination is an effective negative feedback, because it drives the temperature to reduce the "error" in the temperature either way. If you don't get it, don't worry about it. > >> 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. Translation: "What evidence?"
From: JW on 5 Dec 2008 07:26 On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:17:32 +0000 (UTC) don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in Message id: <slrngiv37s.6b9.don(a)manx.misty.com>: [...] > I do find that largely true. > > Also what I am suspecting (possibly truly finding) to be true is that >there is an alternative to corn for biofuel ethanol in USA. <snip> Weird. Is anyone else seeing these posts just show up today?
From: Martin Brown on 5 Dec 2008 08:12
On Dec 4, 1:05 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >Bill Ward wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > >>> In <pan.2008.11.26.21.52.54.243...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > >>> said: > > >>>> 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=GetT... > > >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. OK lets try a bit harder then. You should post your ideas in entirely BLOCK CAPITALS so that it is easier to spot you as a delusional Netkook in the same vein as GRAVITYMECHANIC and EdConman "MAN AS OLD AS COAL". > > 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. They no longer deny that we are altering the atmosphere at least if they want to retain any personal integrity. But there have been enough Exxon sponsored denialists doing precisely that in the past. Previously their chant was "it isnt happening, it isn't happening" now that won't wash the new chant is "It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter". > > And if the basic premise is wrong, then AGW likely does not > exist. The fact that the Earth has more moderate temperatures You are not strong on logical reasoning are you? Putting a heat mirror active at certain IR wavelengths into the atmosphere in the form of GHGs slows the rate of heat loss from the atmosphere according to the increased number of mean free paths needed for a photon to escape. You can see in the visible light of H-alpha the same mechanism at work in the atmosphere of the sun with the chromosphere appearing as absorption lines against the hot bright photosphere and in emission at the limb (with suitable narrowband filters to avoid burning your eyes out). > 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. The main reason that putting an atmosphere around a planet necessarily moderates the temperatures is that gasses are mobile and it sets up a heat engine with wind circulation driven by the huge temperature difference between the night side and the day side of the planet. The gases warm in the sun and rise generating classic circulation patterns that I would expect to look somewhat similar to those of the gas giant planets. > > >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. Gore isn't a scientist. But attacking one individual will get you nowhere. There is a wide international scientific consensus that the evidence for AGW is now icontrovertable. There are the usual suspects sponsorred by Exxon who will still be denying that AGW exists even when the sea is lapping at the White House steps. > > >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. > > 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? The UK may yet end up colder if the Atlantic conveyor (aka Gulf Stream) collapses even if the global average temperature goes up. UK is in a very priviledged mild climatic position. There are palm trees growing on the W coast of Scotland at latitude 55N. There is an outside chance that our weather could revert to type for that latitude. http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/whereilive/southwestandayrshire/walk/02.shtml > > 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.- Hide quoted text - You really are as nutty as a fruit cake. Is that insulting enough for you? Regards, Martin Brown |