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 5 Dec 2008 10:05 On 4 dec, 22:59, 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: > >> 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. You dim-witted clown. Greenhouse gases low in the atmosphere radiate at wavelengths that are absorbed higher in the atmosphere where it is cooler. The distribution of energy between wavelengths changes and the intensity of the radiation changes as you move up through progressively cooler air to the tropopause, which is why the earth radiates to space - over a lot of the infra red - as if it were closer to the -55C of the tropopause and the lower stratosphere rather than the 15C at the surface. Averaged over the whole infra-red spectrum the earth's effective radiating temperature is about -14C. > >> 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. You have said it, but you have also said quite enough to demonstrate that your own opinion is entirely worthless - you may like to believe that you are being attacked as an AWG sceptic, but the truth is that I'm just jeering at you because you are a deluded clown. Even Bill Ward has a slightly better understanding of what's involved in AGW, though there's no point in settling the precedence between a flea and a louse. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 5 Dec 2008 10:28 On 5 dec, 00:20, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >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. > > Actually, it should be easy to prove how much energy each GHG can > radiate (emit) per unit of time (and accept that all gases radiate the > same as each absorbs. It is easier than you think. There's a well developed branch of quantum theory that predicts where a molecule will emit (and absorb) and how strongly. > Just heat the gas and see how fast it cools. As a first test, > if quantity of energy transfer per unit of mass or volume at a given > temperature each gas is difficult to measure, then the various gases > could be compared by testing a given volume and mass at some given > temperature. It has been done, Back inthe 1930 Yost measure the heat capacity of boron trichloride accurately enough to be able to correct the assignment of the boron trichloride infra-red absorbtion lines where an overtone line had been mistakenly assigned as a fundamental. Infra- red spectroscopy was pretty crude back then. http://books.nap.edu/html/biomems/dyost.pdf The episode doesn't seem to have made it into the biography above. > Dry nitrogen is readily available commercially, and any failure > to test nitrogen and oxygen in addition to the known GHGs would have > to be considered an attempt to hide facts by omission. Only someone who was seriously ill-informed would be silly enough to make such a claim - you might as well propose an experimental test of the proposition that 2+2=4. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 5 Dec 2008 11:30 On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:12:23 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: > 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? Not when you consider the source.
From: John M. on 5 Dec 2008 11:28 On Dec 5, 10:28 am, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 5 dec, 00:20, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > > Dry nitrogen is readily available commercially, and any failure > > to test nitrogen and oxygen in addition to the known GHGs would have > > to be considered an attempt to hide facts by omission. > > Only someone who was seriously ill-informed would be silly enough to > make such a claim - you might as well propose an experimental test of > the proposition that 2+2=4. Rushing into experimental mode, I tried 2 + 2 on my calculator and: 2 + 2 = 11 Did I perhaps choose the wrong base when I selected 3? But binary is even further out. So it can't be 4, any more than CO2 can cause dangerous CC ;-)))
From: Bill Ward on 5 Dec 2008 11:39
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:59:35 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 5 dec, 01:08, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:00:19 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On Dec 4, 6:21 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:28:38 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> > On 4 dec, 03:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:14:08 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >> > On 3 dec, 19:12, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:08:12 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 1 dec, 10:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:43:58 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > In article <492FF152.3ED3E...(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>z wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> > <snip> >> >> >> > I think you will find that the stock market isn't chaotic in the >> >> > narrow mathematical sense. >> >> >> Can you post a link that shows why you think that? >> >> > In theory. In practice, why should I bother? It wouldn't persuade you >> > that you were wrong. >> >> So the answer in practice is "no", you can't. > > Possibly. But since I won't, we aren't going to find out. > >> >> > Public relations puffs aren't all that reliable on this kind of >> >> > point. >> >> >> So show a more authoritative one. You can start here: >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory >> >> > Since when is Wikipedia authoritative? >> >> > I can't see anything wrong with the data presented - Wikipedia is >> > usually pretty reliable - but it is still an article written for >> > popular consumption, and is anything but mathematically rigorous. >> >> >> There are many more references showing markets are chaotic in nature. >> >> > At the level of superficial analogy, which does seem to be your >> > preferred mode of argument. >> >> You're the one who can't find a supporting link, not me. Makes you >> look kind of foolish, don't you think? > > Not half as foolish as I'd look if I bothered to take you seriously. Do you really think that fools anyone? You bluffed, I called, showed my cards, and you folded. That means you're wrong and you know it. So does everyone else. Save it for poker. It doesn't work in science. |