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: Q on 7 Dec 2008 13:14 Whata Fool wrote: > 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. > There is no error in GISS, the only error is in the brains of those who deny anthropogenic global warming. AGW is real, get used to it. Q
From: Whata Fool on 7 Dec 2008 16:56 Q <q(a)universe.com> wrote: >Whata Fool wrote: >> I would like to agree with GISS, but every error and other >> embarrassment causes a loss of confidence. >> > >There is no error in GISS, the only error is in the brains of those who >deny anthropogenic global warming. AGW is real, get used to it. > >Q Oh, it sure is, 20 degrees below normal, that is real "warming".
From: Eeyore on 7 Dec 2008 17:36 Bill Ward wrote: > Don Klipstein wrote: > > > > 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. Absolutely. That's kinda basic physics ! I see the AGW crowd heading towards concepts more akin to the 'perpetual motion' nuts. If the science doesn't support your case, then just make it up. Graham
From: bill.sloman on 7 Dec 2008 18:10 On 7 dec, 09:16, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:51:28 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In <pan.2008.12.01.09.34.59.305...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > > 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: > > >>>>> > > > > 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. If "Bill Ward " is a computer program, it's a pretty good one - the nonsense is built up out of a convincing juxtaposition of phrases. But - as you'd expect from a computer program - the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Don Klipstein is talking about El Ninos and La Nina's, Rossby waves and the the North Atlantic and Arctic oscillations, which - while chaotic - are predictable. If "Bill Ward" were a person, he'd have to have realised by now that chaotic systems can be very predictable over extended periods and the mantra ""unpredictable chaos" would have been qualified in some way, whereas a computer program that doesn't actually understand the text it is putting together can only note that this mantra triggers reactions, so it keeps on splicing it into the text it generates. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 7 Dec 2008 18:35
On 7 dec, 23:36, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > Don Klipstein wrote: > > > > 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. > > Absolutely. That's kinda basic physics ! And singularly uninteresting. The point that Don Klipstein was making - and "Bill Ward" failed to process, as you'd expect with a computer program - was that while cloud bases do radiate upwards, it is only into the rest of the cloud, where the radiation is scattered and absorbed by droplets of water - which are black-body radiators. The top of the cloud, which is going to be colder due to the lapse rate, can radiate to outer-space at wavelengths that will get through the greenhouses gases above it. > I see the AGW crowd heading towards concepts more akin to the 'perpetual > motion' nuts. If the science doesn't support your case, then just make it up. That's because you don't know enough physics to actually follow what they are talking about, and have - once again - been suckered by plausible nonsense -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |