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 Ward on 7 Dec 2008 19:59 On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:35:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Another way of looking at is that the IR is converted to sensible heat in the cloud, which becomes warmer, and transfers the heat upwards by convection, as the lapse rate allows, to the top of the cloud. Inside the black body cloud, radiation will simply tend to equalize local temperatures. > 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 Yet you can't clearly explain why you think it's nonsense without lapsing into insults.
From: Whata Fool on 7 Dec 2008 19:55 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 7 dec, 01:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> bill.slo...(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. > >"Horoscopes"? Kepler did calculate a lot of horoscopes - to do it >right you do have to know where the plaents were when your customer >was born, and back then astronomers were the only people equipped to >do that. > >There have been comptuer programs that can print out horoscopes since >1971, and I could probably find one if I felt the need, whch I don't. > >I'm 66 and while I too consider this much too young to be reduced to >correcting nonsense on a user group, there does seem to be a >conspiracy of Dutch personnel officers to act as if they think >differently. I've just applied for yet another job, but it's extremely >unlikely that I'll get it. I am sure your qualifications for that new job are better than for correcting any nonsense here.
From: Eeyore on 7 Dec 2008 20:20 Martin Brown wrote: > Eeyore 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. > > You are clueless. That warmer air can carry more water vapour is a well > known experimental fact. You fail to address the idea it's an *amplifier*. Graham
From: Bill Ward on 7 Dec 2008 20:26 On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:29:26 -0800, bill.sloman 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 - 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. That assumes that the thermal resistance of the troposphere up to the radiating layer is constant. If more water vapor decreases that thermal resistance, then more heat would be transferred by the same thermal gradient. >> 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. More clouds will also increase the albedo. >> 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. Where can we find a coherent explanation of the total role of greenhouse gases? From everything I've seen, climate models beg the question by assuming that CO2 affects climate, rather than quantitatively showing why. Feel free to show a specific link that does so. >> 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; Where there is water vapor and clouds, the atmosphere should behave as a nearly black body of warm gas and convect accordingly. A steady state should be reached where the heat radiated from the top is equal to the heat coming into the bottom, else the bottom gas temperature would increase and force convection to transport more heat to maintain equilibrium. You can't "retain heat" in a gas without raising its temperature. > the height that it has to get to before it gets a clear shot at open > space eventually determines the temperature at ground level. That I agree with. How much CO2 and water respectively have to do with that is the question.
From: Bill Ward on 7 Dec 2008 20:48
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:01:08 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > 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). You are right, of course. I got the lapse rate exactly backwards even though you were clearly referring to the positive convention. My bad. My point is that warming the surface will eventually lead to convection as the temperature exceeds that of the adjacent atmosphere. >>>> 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.) Won't daytime clouds always increase albedo? > > 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. Would that be both water vapor and CO2? Or just stratospheric GHGs? >>> 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? Looks like it. Thanks for your patience and coherent explanations. |