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 7 Dec 2008 03:25 don(a)manx.misty.com (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. > >> 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) If atmosphere radiates (the GHGs of it), in any direction, doesn't that cool the part that radiates? When any part of the surface is above freezing, doesn't that surface radiate more, and at the same time, evaporate more water, causing more evaporative cooling. And can the total picture of all radiation and evaporation mean that the processes of cooling is dominant, only reducing when there is less GHGs in the atmosphere. Total water vapor in the atmosphere can change, and in ice ages may gradually reduce, allowing more surface radiation to space, even though there might be less atmosphere radiation to space. Has the total picture of the role of GHGs been thought out, with an obvious cause of gradual deepening of ice age, and the sudden warming, possibly caused by a minimum of GHGs (water vapor and CO2). Can we be certain that more GHGs (CO2) cause more warming, could not less radiation to space by the atmosphere cause more warming? Apparently atmospheric radiation is a big part of the total IR radiation flux, and could that mean the atmosphere radiation controls the temperature, not the surface radiation?
From: Bill Ward on 7 Dec 2008 03:30 On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:59:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > 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. No, but chaotic changes in the environment, such as erosion or deposition shifting currents in the Bering Strait, could change the effect of those physical laws. Sensitivity to initial conditions guarantees that the smallest effects are magnified exponentially as the system iterates. Electronic circuit principles are also pretty well understood, yet even a very simple chaotic circuit is completely unpredictable (within its range) in spite of that fact. The world is a more complex system.
From: Whata Fool on 7 Dec 2008 03:27 don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >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) My, how myths fly.
From: bill.sloman on 7 Dec 2008 08:29 On 7 dec, 09:25, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > > > > > >In article <pan.2008.11.29.05.49.04.133...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > >Ward wrote: > >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:35:59 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > >>> 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 (d...(a)misty.com) > > If atmosphere radiates (the GHGs of it), in any direction, doesn't > that cool the part that radiates? Sure. But not much - the greenhouse gases are also absorbing radiation from the greenhouse gases above and below them in the atmosphere - the radiation doesn't seriously cool the atmosphere until you run out of atmosphere (for the non-condensing gases like carbon dioxide and methane) or - for water - the temperature gets low enough that almost all the water vapour higher in the atmosphere has frozen out as ice. > When any part of the surface is above freezing, doesn't that surface > radiate more, and at the same time, evaporate more water, causing more > evaporative cooling. Sure, but evaporative cooling just transfers heat up into the lower trophosphere, below the equivalent radiating altitude, so it's no big deal. > And can the total picture of all radiation and evaporation mean > that the processes of cooling is dominant, only reducing when there is > less GHGs in the atmosphere. This is where you lose it. The earth is always cooling - eventually by radiation into the 3K of outer space - and the interesting question is where that radiation comes from. Greenhouses gases shift the equivalent radiating altitude higher, where the air is cool. You then have a thicker layer of atmosphere below the equivalent radiaiting level. The thermal gradiant that you need to shift the heat being radiated to outer space up from the surface isn't going to change, so the surface has to get hotter to drive the same amount of heat higher into the atmosphere to the altitude where it can radiate away. > Total water vapor in the atmosphere can change, and in ice ages > may gradually reduce, allowing more surface radiation to space, even > though there might be less atmosphere radiation to space. The incoming solar radiation doesn't change much - though more of it is reflected during an ice-age - so there definitely isn't more radaiton from the surface into space during an ice age. > Has the total picture of the role of GHGs been thought out, with > an obvious cause of gradual deepening of ice age, and the sudden warming, > possibly caused by a minimum of GHGs (water vapor and CO2). The total role of the greenhouse gases has been thought out, and your explanation of the sudden warming is known to be invalid. > Can we be certain that more GHGs (CO2) cause more warming, could > not less radiation to space by the atmosphere cause more warming? Yes, we can be certain that more greenhouse gases cause more warming. The mechanism doesn't involved reducing the radiation to space, but rather moving the the equivalent radiating altitude higher in the atmosphere. The tmperature at the equivalent radiating altitude doesn't change (to a first approximation) but the thickness of the insulating layer below it does increase, which leaves the ground and ocean surfaces warmer. > > Apparently atmospheric radiation is a big part of the total IR > radiation flux, and could that mean the atmosphere radiation controls > the temperature, not the surface radiation? Some of the infra-red radiation emitted by the ground and the ocean surfaces goes straight through the atmosphere (when the sky is clear) but the rest is repeatedly emitted and readsorbed by the greenhouse gases as it makes it way up through the amosphere; the height that it has to get to before it gets a clear shot at open space eventually determines the temperature at ground level. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Whata Fool on 7 Dec 2008 12:56
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 7 dec, 09:25, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <pan.2008.11.29.05.49.04.133...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill >> >Ward wrote: >> >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:35:59 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >>> 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 (d...(a)misty.com) >> >> If atmosphere radiates (the GHGs of it), in any direction, doesn't >> that cool the part that radiates? > >Sure. But not much - the greenhouse gases are also absorbing radiation >from the greenhouse gases above and below them in the atmosphere Of course, but GHG radiation makes up pretty much the total cooling of the atmosphere, doesn't it? Notice this does not disagree with much of anything in GHG theory, except one important thing, the atmosphere of Earth would be HOTTER without _any_ GHGs. That may seem trivial, or even nit-picking, but may suggest that more CO2 could cause cooling instead of warming. And the percussions of this if it holds true would be extreme. But it is a catch-22, the catch-22 of all times, burn fossil fuel to keep warm and we make the weather colder? > - the >radiation doesn't seriously cool the atmosphere until you run out of >atmosphere (for the non-condensing gases like carbon dioxide and >methane) or - for water - the temperature gets low enough that almost >all the water vapour higher in the atmosphere has frozen out as ice. And that seems to be where mass per unit of volume is low enough that the thermal energy in N2 and O2 is radiated away faster than the radiation from the surface or from solar visible and UV can replace it. >> When any part of the surface is above freezing, doesn't that surface >> radiate more, and at the same time, evaporate more water, causing more >> evaporative cooling. > >Sure, but evaporative cooling just transfers heat up into the lower >trophosphere, below the equivalent radiating altitude, so it's no big >deal. I guess where the clouds are mostly, sure, I don't know how much more latent heat is released where there are no clouds. >> And can the total picture of all radiation and evaporation mean >> that the processes of cooling is dominant, only reducing when there is >> less GHGs in the atmosphere. > >This is where you lose it. The earth is always cooling The present Earth, sure, but suppose the rapid warming after an ice age has as the primary driver, much less GHGs in the atmosphere, much of the surface frozen over reducing water vapor production to a very minimum over a fair percentage of the surface only as sublimation. > - eventually by >radiation into the 3K of outer space - and the interesting question is >where that radiation comes from. Greenhouses gases shift the >equivalent radiating altitude higher, where the air is cool. You then >have a thicker layer of atmosphere below the equivalent radiaiting >level. The thermal gradiant that you need to shift the heat being >radiated to outer space up from the surface isn't going to change, so >the surface has to get hotter to drive the same amount of heat higher >into the atmosphere to the altitude where it can radiate away. Sounds logical, only the surface doesn't get as hot as it would if there was no water. >> Total water vapor in the atmosphere can change, and in ice ages >> may gradually reduce, allowing more surface radiation to space, even >> though there might be less atmosphere radiation to space. > >The incoming solar radiation doesn't change much - though more of it >is reflected during an ice-age - so there definitely isn't more >radaiton from the surface into space during an ice age. I know enough about refraction and reflection to say for sure that some opinions about albedo fail to consider reflection, which at high angles can be 95 percent, on ice or water. >> Has the total picture of the role of GHGs been thought out, with >> an obvious cause of gradual deepening of ice age, and the sudden warming, >> possibly caused by a minimum of GHGs (water vapor and CO2). > >The total role of the greenhouse gases has been thought out, and your >explanation of the sudden warming is known to be invalid. Can you post a link that informed you of that? >> Can we be certain that more GHGs (CO2) cause more warming, could >> not less radiation to space by the atmosphere cause more warming? > >Yes, we can be certain that more greenhouse gases cause more warming. Then why is it 20 degrees below normal right now, here? :-( >The mechanism doesn't involved reducing the radiation to space, but >rather moving the the equivalent radiating altitude higher in the >atmosphere. Same thing, benefiting some, possibly causing others discomfort. >The tmperature at the equivalent radiating altitude doesn't change (to >a first approximation) but the thickness of the insulating layer below >it does increase, which leaves the ground and ocean surfaces warmer. Most people like the climate in Hawaii. >> Apparently atmospheric radiation is a big part of the total IR >> radiation flux, and could that mean the atmosphere radiation controls >> the temperature, not the surface radiation? > >Some of the infra-red radiation emitted by the ground and the ocean >surfaces goes straight through the atmosphere (when the sky is clear) >but the rest is repeatedly emitted and readsorbed by the greenhouse >gases as it makes it way up through the amosphere; the height that it >has to get to before it gets a clear shot at open space eventually >determines the temperature at ground level. Not always, that doesn't treat the situation where the air is dry with no wind in late summer. I am very happy with the re-distribution of thermal energy by GHGs, in fact, I could more accept using weather service temperature data to account for the total energy content/budget of Earth if only the same locations were used all the way through the study, and only the maximum for each day is used. It should not take thousands of locations to get a good picture of what is happening, a couple of hundred would be plenty, as it is, it seems the object is just to find locations where local weather has an effect, and that is what should be avoided, And there is no reason to use decimals in sums if there were no decimals in the original recorded temperatures. I would like to agree with GISS, but every error and other embarrassment causes a loss of confidence. |