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: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 02:01 In <pan.2008.12.01.17.23.08.108895(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > >>>In article <pan.2008.11.27.18.38.37.222361(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill >>>Ward wrote: > ><big snip> > >>>> I think the troposphere is there because of convection lifting the >>>> surface energy up to the cloud tops, maintaining a near adiabatic >>>> lapse rate. Radiative transfer is blocked by GHG's, and plays little >>>> part below the tropopause. Radiation models are thus largely >>>> irrelevant. >>> >>> The lapse rate is well short of adiabatic in much of the world, >>>especially much of the time where surface albedo is prone to change from >>>temperature change. Those parts of the world have upward mobility in >>>surface temperature. >>> >>> Should the arctic and antarctic warm, then global convection from the >>>tropics to the arctic and antarctic will slow down until the tropics >>>warm - though I still expect the arctic and antarctic (especially the >>>arctic) to warm more than the tropics. >>> I do expect much warming in the portions of the world where there is >>>usually convection or lapse rate just short of causing convection to >>>depend on global albedo change - which is actually occurring, and >>>expected to occur as global warming causes loss of snow and ice cover. >>> Furthermore, much of the actual problems to result from global warming >>>is from loss of snow and ice cover - and most of that is in parts of the >>>world where the lapse rate from surface to tropopause is mostly far >>>short of producing thunderstorms. >> >> Aren't you confusing lapse rate with moisture laden air and >> maybe also low pressure caused by precipitation volume reduction of 200 >> to one? >> I don't understand Bill W saying something about lapse rate >> depending so much on convection, all air has to do to cool is to expand, >> it doesn't have to rise to normalize the lapse rate. > >If it expands, where can it go but up to the new pressure level? Another >way of looking at it is that warm air is less dense than cold air, so it >must rise to be replaced by cold air. As it rises, it expands into the >lower pressure, cooling in the process. If the lapse rate is low enough >that the new temperature is still warmer than the new environment, it >repeats. When a parcel of rising air maintains warmth relative relative to its surroundings, that means the local lapse rate is high rather than low. If the local lapse rate is low, the the parcel of rising air would quickly cool to cooler than its surroundings by cooling not at the local lapse rate but at one of the two adiabatic ones (the dry one until/unless cloud forms or is present in the rising air parcel, and then cooling as a result of rising at the wet one). >>> Radiative transfer is actually significant within the troposphere. >>>Radiative transfer can easily involve repeated absorption and emission >>>of photons along the way, such as (for extreme example) within the >>>"radiative layer" of the Sun. That excluding the core is a layer over >>>100,000 km thick, and most of the heat produced by the sun is produced >>>in the core and has to pass through the core-exluding portion of the >>>"radiation zone", there is no convection, and most radiation gets >>>absorbed before going mere micrometers. >>> >>> Likewise, the Earth's surface receives significant radiation from >>> clear >>>air below the 500 millibar level. >>> >>> - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) >> And convection is what warms that air. >> The bottom line is that _IF_ N2 and O2 can't cool without >> GreenHouse Gases, then the atmosphere would be warmer than now, meaning >> the present GreenHouse Gas theory is faulty, as the basis was a >> comparison of Earth and moon temperatures. The "effective radiation level" without GHGs will be at a much lower altitude - with same temperature, to have radiation outgo matching radiation income. (Temperature of "effective radiation level" will change if such an atmospheric change changes the albedo to incoming radiation.) Even though most of the world usually has mobility in average local lapse rate in either direction, there is significant positive correlation between surface temperature and height of the "effective altitude of radiating to space" as GHG concentration varies. >> So when will somebody start thinking, rethink the basics, >> and concede that GreenHouse Gases cool the atmosphere? > >I think they do, but in the process, they keep the surface from cooling as >fast as it would otherwise. GHGs above the "effective average radiating level" do indeed cool such higher levels of the atmosphere. It is true that GHGs increase ability of the atmosphere to radiate heat to outer space (or/and-also to GHGs or clouds in other layers of the atmosphere and sometimes to surface). What - we agree on something? - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 02:10 In <pan.2008.12.03.20.14.30.336639(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward 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: >>> >> >>> The bottom line is that _IF_ N2 and O2 can't cool >>> >> >>> without GreenHouse Gases, then the atmosphere would be warmer >>> >> >>> than now, meaning the present GreenHouse Gas theory is faulty, as >>> >> >>> the basis was a comparison of Earth and moon temperatures. >>> >>> >> >>> So when will somebody start thinking, rethink the >>> >> >>> basics, and concede that GreenHouse Gases cool the atmosphere? >>> >>> >> >>I think they do, but in the process, they keep the surface from >>> >> >>cooling as fast as it would otherwise. >>> >>> >> > Does GISS use surface temperatures for anything? >>> >>> >> > The temperature of the air is the big factor, think of >>> >> > your windshield on a summer night and a winter night with the same >>> >> > humidity. >>> >>> >> > And it is the N2 and O2 that hold most of the thermal >>> >> > energy. >>> >>> >> > While radiation is clearly the mechanism for cooling the >>> >> > Earth, the amount of sideways radiation warming/cooling of the >>> >> > atmosphere has not been shown to be as active as the vertical >>> >> > radiation claimed. >>> >>> >> > With all the resources available, there just hasn't been >>> >> > the documentation of things like horizontal radiation. >>> >>> >> > The amount of effort in computer models and averaging >>> >> > numbers is lopsided compared to the testing of assumptions. >>> >>> >> That's for sure! >>> >>> >> They went for the details before they really understand the basics. >>> >>> > This from someone who thinks that a chaotic system always generates 1/ >>> > f noise in any frequency band, ignoring the obvious fact that the >>> > solar system is chaotic, which doesn't prevent the sun from coming up >>> > at a predictable time every day. >>> >>> And obviously Sloman has no idea what a corner frequency is. >>> >>> Maybe this will help: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-off_frequency >> >> Since it doesn't mention 1/f noise, it represents just one more case of >> Bill Ward trying to look clever by citing stuff he doesn't understand. > >The 1/f was yours. I don't remember mentioning it, but it is a good >example of the limitations involved in trying to filter noise out of >signals: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise > >"Interestingly, there is no known lower bound to pink noise in >electronics. Measurements made down to 10−6 Hz (taking several weeks) >have not shown a ceasing of pink-noise behaviour.[citation needed] >Therefore one could state that in electronics, noise can be pink down to >ƒ1 = 1/T where T is the time the device is switched on." > >In physics, it goes back to the big bang. > >And of course, it doesn't change the fact you can't filter out chaos. >Try reading the filter link for content, or look deeper into chaos >theory. It's quite interesting. Pink noise and 1/f noise are different from each other - 1/f noise has weighting by 3 dB/octave towards lower frequencies, while pink noise has equal content per octave. And weather (including the year and decade scale phenomena with great oceanic involvement) is white noise or bandpassed white noise or white noise (whether or not otherwise filtered) lowpassed by a filter mechanism that has gain at most leveling off as frequency approaches DC. The chaos is in when and where the spikes and humps go up and down and by how much, but not in longer term DC level that varies only with long term change in radiation balance (income and/or impedance to outgo). - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 02:27 In article <5uFZk.3254$Eg.2600(a)read1.cgocable.net>, V for Vendicar wrote: > >"Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote >> And of course, it doesn't change the fact you can't filter out chaos. > >The earth's orbit is chaotic, and there is no numerical proof that it will >not be flung from the solar system. Assuming only interaction with objects already in the solar system outside the Sun, we don't have to worry about that until whatever time Earth's orbit gets perturbed with major help from Jupiter and/or Saturn to past the "Asteroid Belt". That appears to be a long ways off - likely after the Sun burns out, likely never considering only already-within-solar-system-objects if the Sun's "Going Red Giant" blows away the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. Earth's orbit has remained fairly circular for the 4-4.5 gigayears that this planet existed, and the Sun is expected to "go Red Giant" and soon afterwards burn out something like 6 gigayears from now. If the outer planets past Mars all had only "terrestrial mass", I doubt their combined kinetic energy (even combined with that of Mars) would be sufficient to fling Earth out of the solar system anytime from now until "Kingdom Come"! >However we know precisely where the sun and earth will be tomorrow. > >Chaos Filtered. While weather, even so much as El Ninos and La Ninas and even variations of the "Multidecadal Oascillation", are some form or another of "filtered white noise". Earth has "radiation balance" and in long enough term changes at/near surface on worldwide or "largish-continental" scale ("my words") result from change in income of radiation, long term change in reception of income of radiation, or long term change in impedance to outgo of radiation from where the incoming radiation matters. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 7 Dec 2008 02:55 On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:45:26 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > 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. Interesting concept. I'm assuming the surface temperature determines the absolute humidity, and the condensation altitude would be determined by the lapse rate downward from the cloud tops (radiation layer). It seems to me the surface temperature varies a lot more than the higher altitudes. Is there any actual data on the altitude of the radiation layer that radiates the most power? From what I've seen, it's mid troposphere, not the tropopause. Are there any credible models of the individual mechanisms from cloud tops to the tropopause? >> 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 cloud bases is toward Earth. I think that concept confuses people, at least me, when I first heard it. It appears at first glance you are claiming the cloud bases are warming the surface, which is clearly impossible by the second law. The clouds are colder than the surface, and energy can never radiate from cold to hot. A little more thought reveals the actual mechanism must be that some of the radiation that comes from the surface can be considered to be radiated back to maintain the (Tsource^4 - Ttarget^4) term in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. That still requires that the net heat flow is outward, never inward (unless the surface is cooler). The upper layers may reduce the cooling rate of the surface, but they can never actually heat it. The _net_ radiation has to be from the surface to the clouds. > Meanwhile, increasing GHGs cools the lower stratosphere and raises the > tropopause - cloud tops around the tropopause will be cooler. I'm not clear why. Could you explain why a cooler stratosphere raises the tropopause? Is it because the tropopause is the top of convection, so a colder stratosphere allows convection to continue higher before the UV-O2, O3 inversion takes over? Thanks for your comments.
From: Bill Ward on 7 Dec 2008 03:16
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:51:28 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > 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. Chaos involves all frequencies. Like 1/f noise, it doesn't have a corner frequency. Lowpassing doesn't remove the chaotic nature of the lower frequencies, such as the ocean currents, biological factors, plate tectonics, and a whole host of other things we haven't even thought about yet. But it's still unpredictable chaos, even if we knew all the factors. |