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 6 Dec 2008 19:43 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 5 dec, 00:32, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:41:45 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> 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.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> > ><snip> > >> >You certainly don't sound like much of a scientist. > >I'm not. I do have a couple of cited scientific papers to my credit, >which does mean that I'm entitled to call myself a scientist, albeit >strictly at the spear-carrier level. > >Go to scholar.google.com and search on "A W Sloman". > >> >> 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? > >Wrong. A retired electronic engineer - with no obvious prospect of >getting unretired. Gosh Bill, there are lots of electronic devices needed, a lot to do with changing to electric propulsion in cars, if a good shaft speed synchronizer existed, the motor could be disengaged for coasting and an improvement in mileage and range. Frankly the digital controls on a lot of devices are really bad, but possibly that is because of the too simplistic icons instead of words. You are too young to be spending a lot of time writing horoscopes in newsgroups.
From: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 00:45 In article <pan.2008.11.29.05.49.04.133668(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:35:59 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> On 28 nov, 14:20, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> z wrote: >>> > and the fact that water vapor partial pressure rises with temperature, >>> > thereby making it an amplifier of other effects, such as CO2. >>> >>> An unproven hypothesis. i.e random noise. >> >> There's nothing unproven about the "hypothesis" that the partial pressure >> of water vapour in contact with liquid water rises with temperature. It's >> up there with Newton's law of gravity as one of the fundamental theories >> of science. >> >> And more water vapour does mean more pressure broadening in the carbon >> dioxide absorbtion spectrum. >> >> Carbonic acid (H2CO3) may not be stable in the vapour phase at room >> temperature, but it is stable enough that any collision between a water >> molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule lasts qute a bit longer than you'd >> calculate from a billiard-ball model. >> >> Eeyore's response isn't random noise either, though it's information >> content isn't any more useful - we already knew that Eeyore knows squat >> about physics, and he's long since made it clear than he doesn't realise >> how little he knows by posting loads of these over-confident and >> thoroughly absurd assertions. > >He may also be aware that increased water vapor lowers the condensation >altitude, Cloud bases lower if relative humidity rises. Relative humidity stays about the same if water vapor concentration is only commensurate with temperature rise. > raising the radiation temperature, and increasing the emitted IR >energy by the 4th power radiation law. IOW, it's a negative feedback, not >positive. Radiation from clud bases is toward Earth. Meanwhile, increasing GHGs cools the lower stratosphere and raises the tropopause - cloud tops around the tropopause will be cooler. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 00:51 In <pan.2008.12.01.09.34.59.305086(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:43:58 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In article <492FF152.3ED3EC25(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>z wrote: >>> >>>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>> >>>> > > > > Besides, models only model LINEAR systems ! >>>> > >>>> > > > Oh really? Then the Spice models of transistors (which exhibit an >>>> > > > expotential - not linear - relationship between base voltage and >>>> > > > collector current) don't exist. >>>> > >>>> > > That IS a linear system as we describe them now. >>>> > >>>> > This is a minority opinion. Any student sharing it with their >>>> > examiner would fail that aspect of their exam, but since you clearly >>>> > exercise your mind by believing six impossible things before >>>> > breakfast I suppose we can write this off as part of the price you >>>> > pay to maintain your genius-level IQ. >>>> >>>> well to be fair, he only said "linear"; could be he didn't mean the >>>> usual sense of "straight line" >>> >>>Quite so. A LINEAR equation can contain power, log, exp terms etc. >>> >>>But it CANNOT model CHAOS. And that's what weather and climate are. >> >> Chaos is in weather, not in climate. > >Climate is low-passed (averaged) weather. Filters cannot remove chaos. >Therefore climate is chaotic. Chaos is unpredictable. > >> And I would call El Ninos, La Ninas, oceanic Rossby >> waves and the surges and ebbs of the North Atlantic and Arctic >> "oscillations" to be weather phenomena, even though the longer term ones >> are oceanic in origin - chaotic deviations from the much nicer longer >> term trends that are climate. > >They are still chaotic, no matter how low the filter corner frequency is. But if the filter is below the corner frequency, most of the noise is removed. Trends that remain are climate change trends with their own causes, such as Milankovitch cycles. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 00:59 In <pan.2008.12.04.17.21.14.182801(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward wrote: >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:28:38 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: <I snip a lot to edit for space> >> 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? > >> 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 > ><begin excerpt> > >An early pioneer of the theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos >came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in >1961.[14] Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee >LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data >again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its >course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data >corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had >calculated last time. > >To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was >completely different from the weather calculated before. Lorenz tracked >this down to the computer printout. The computer worked with 6-digit >precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, so >a value like 0.506127 was printed as 0.506. This difference is tiny and >the consensus at the time would have been that it should have had >practically no effect. However Lorenz had discovered that small changes in >initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome.[15] >Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that >meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period >(at most). <SNIP deviation from weather> And the flight of a butterfly in Peking may blow the 400 day forecast for NYC, and change by one year when the first El Nino of the 2020's occurs. But it and find degree of precision with extra decimal places won't change thermodynamics and matters of radiation balance, globally or in the various convective zones and layers of the atmosphere. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 01:32
In <pan.2008.12.01.10.59.04.434786(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:12:31 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> In <pan.2008.11.27.01.31.49.247702(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> wrote: > ><snip old post> > >>>Now explain in your own words how traces of CO2 can affect Earth's >>>surface temperatures in the presence of a large excess of water. >> >> That has already been done - it has been mentioned that water vapor and >> CO2 have different absorption spectra. CO2 abosorbing and reradiating IR >> at wavelengths that water vapor does not allows it to account for 9-26% >> (there is variation in the determinations) of global greenhouse effect. > >That's a declaration. I asked for an explanation. For example, exactly >how is the 9-26% range derived? What assumptions are involved? Apparently, roughly what percentage of thermal IR occurs at wavelengths absorbed by CO@ and not absorbed much by water, and what percentage vice-versa. >>> Include the effects of latent heat convection, >> >> As it turns out, most heat both convected and advected in the world is >> not latent, as indicated by wet adiabatic lapse rate being a majority of >> the dry one, along with considerable amount of convection and warm >> advection being through clear air. > >Humidity carries considerable latent heat. Surface air is usually moist >(most surface is water). > >I don't understand the term "wet adiabatic lapse rate being a majority of >the dry one". Do you mean the most common lapse rate is wet? The "usual figure" for the wet one is 3.5 degrees per 1,000 feet, but that varies significantly inversely with temperature, and at a given temperature varies a little directly with pressure. The "usual figure" for the dry one is 5.4 degrees per 1,000 feet. > AIUI, a wet lapse rate generally indicates cloud formation, and a dry >one indicates no phase changes occurring. What's the relevance? Most of the heat extracted from air by lifting it is not latent. Most of the heat transported by movement of air is not latent. About half the world's surface has no cloud overhead. Most of the atmosphere is lacking vertical convection due to local lapse rate being less than the relevant adiabatic one (the wet one if cloud is present, the dry one if the air is clear). >Again you have simply stated dogma, not explained the physical basis and >assumptions supporting your claim. BTW, I'm not very convinced by >Trenberth's assumption that all the convected water returns to the surface >as precipitation. A bit of dew and frost condensation does come from water from afar and/or high-up, but most dew and frost occurs where there is no vertical convection and little air movement in the area - and occurs mostly from water that has been below the 850 mb level for a while. And I doubt that much of the water being evaporated is going to outer space, or else the oceans would have lowered a lot over the billions of years. >>> the near adiabatic lapse rate through the troposphere, >> >> The old "standard atmosphere" does have lampse rate close to the "wet >> adiabatic lapse rate" of about 3.5 degrees F per 1,000 feet. >> >> However, about half the world does not have clouds overheat >> [overhead?] at any altitude, and the dry adiabatic rate is about 5.4 >> degrees F per 1,000 feet. That leaves some upward mobility. > >I assume you left out an "at any given time" in the above, since 70% of >the surface is covered with water. There is a a lot of water with air overhead lacking clouds at any altitude. > Most of the surface cooling has to take place in the low latitudes, >because that's where most of the solar energy is absorbed. That area >doesn't seem short on clouds. I look at global satellite weather maps of cloud cover, and I don't see the tropics being cloudier than the middle latitudes. >> Furthermore, where the globe has warmed more and is expected by most >> more-credible models to warm more, the lapse rate from surface to >> tropopause is less. > >Which would cause more convection, since adiabatic expansion of a parcel >of air would cause it to become warmer than the surrounding air. Wrong - in an area where the atmospheric lapse rate is lower: a parcel of rising air quickly cools to cooler than the surrounding air, because a rising parcel cools at the adiabatic lapse rate. If the local atmosphere's lapse rate is less than the adiabatic one (wet one if cloud-filled, dry one if clear), a parcel of rising air becomes unbuoyant very quickly. >> Warming where there is usually either convection or lapse rate just >> short of convection requires decrease in albedo so that the world can >> receive more heat from sunlight. > >How do you "require a decrease in albedo"? Convection causes the clouds, >the clouds increase the albedo, cutting off the solar energy supply to the >surface, reducing the convection. It's a classic negative feedback loop. >I think you've got your causality backwards. A heck of a lot of clouds occur where air is lacking in local convection and moving within a degree of horizontally. Convective air generally has clouds, but localized to the updrafts - and generally clear air outside the updraft clouds. >> That is indeed occurring and is predicted by many models. > >I think reliance on poorly understood models (or at least poorly >explained) is a big part of the problem. > >>> and the observation that the effective radiating altitude >>>and cloud tops are near each other. >> >> What do you mean by that? Half the world has little or no clouds at >> any >> altitude, and the other half has cloud tops over a very wide range of >> altitudes. It is very common for tops of the uppermost clouds to be as >> low as about 7,000 feet (maybe less) and as high as over 35,000 feet. >> Tropical cyclones and tropical thunderstorms and cirrus blowing from >> them often have cloud tops around 60,000 feet. I often enough see a >> fair amount of clouds with tops around/under 6,000 feet (and bottoms >> higher than 1500 feet - excluding fog) and mainly or entirely clear air >> above them. > >OK, a few logical steps. Clouds form from water vapor convected to the >condensation level and above. In order to condense, they must lose their >latent heat. That latent heat is emitted from the surface of the cloud via >blackbody radiation. No matter what the altitude, there will be BB >radiation at the temperature of the cloud. Above the cloud tops, there >will be little WV, because it's already condensed, Very often not true, especially when cloud tops are low due to the clouds being capped by an inversion or a stable layer. Not only WV, but also other GHGs such as CO2. > so the radiation can continue unhindered to deep space. What about when from 6,000-7,000 foot cloud tops? Often plenty of WV and always most of the other GHGs are above that level. What about when "fair weather cumulus humulus", stratocumulus, or "lake effect snow" clouds have some cirrus or other higher cloud overhead blowing from distant approaching warm fronts, including the ones that never make it into the area in question at the surface level? What about when a strong wind causes/assists forced convection in the lowest several thousand feet leading to an overcast of stratocumulus or an overcast of a scuddy version of stratus or drizzly-thin nimbostratus, and a higher cloud deck from the approaching Nor'Easter is overhead? >Recently in this thread, a link was posted that confirmed the average >radiating altitude is near the average height of cloud tops. > >So I don't really see the relevance of your observation that cloud tops >vary in altitude. Wherever they are, they are radiating to space, cooling >the planet. The lower the cloud tops, the more radiated power density, >per the T^4 relation. And the lower the cloud tops, the more GHGs above them and the greater chance for other clouds (such as cirrus and other high clouds, sometimes even "middle clouds") to be above them. >Thanks for your comments. I'd appreciate your explaining in more >detail the assumptions and physical principles behind them. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |