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 20:48 Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 Because it is obvious that more water vapor is a temperature moderator, and a very beneficial and effective one. All CO2 can do is absorb and emit, which can only cool the huge mass of the atmosphere, CO2 doesn't have enough mass to store or hold any thermal energy. The N2 and O2 get warmed by the various processes, solar radiation, contact and convection, and radiation via water vapor and the trace GHGs, and the N2 and O2 hold that thermal energy until the GHGs radiate it to space. In order to see what this means, the temperature of an N2 and O2 atmosphere and NO GHGS has to be estimated, and compared to the present temperature, and that tells the net result of the GHG effect. It has to be that GHGs cool the N2 and O2, which is 98 percent of the mass of the atmosphere, so more GHGs should cool the atmosphere a little more. The actual solid and liquid surface temperatures vary so much as a result of many factors, the "surface" temperature doesn't matter much during an interglacial period.
From: Whata Fool on 7 Dec 2008 21:02 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:29:26 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> On 7 dec, 09:25, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: [snip] >>> 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. You should not agree with it, the temperature at ground level can be all time record world highs in a desert valley, and not because of more water vapor or CO2, or the temperature can be all time record lows at the South Pole and not because of less water vapor or CO2. In fact, the big changes in temperature occur with wind shift, and that has very little to do with water vapor or CO2. All that can really be said about water vapor and CO2 is that the atmosphere is cooler because of them, because GHGs cool the atmosphere.
From: Bill Ward on 7 Dec 2008 21:17 On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:10:53 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. And if Sloman weren't so far over his head, he'd realize how silly he seems, admitting he doesn't understand what's going on, then trying to blame it on someone else.
From: Bill Ward on 7 Dec 2008 21:38 On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:56:23 -0500, 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? Don't forget clouds act as blackbody radiators. > 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.
From: Don Klipstein on 7 Dec 2008 21:59
In article <492ebaed$0$89395$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net>, Al Bedo wrote: >columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote: >> On Nov 26, 9:32 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:" >> Which is above most of the atmosphere, and dry, so the postulated >> positive feedback from WV also looks highly unlikely" >> >> Well that would be incorrect, see the observations from the >> Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on the aqua satellite� >> >> NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change >> 11.17.08 >> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html > >The error in this thinking is one of omission. > >Water vapor is a dynamic component. > >It gets swept up by atmospheric motion >such that the wettest atmosphere is the >ITCZ (Inter tropical convergence zone). >This may roughly correspond with temperature, >but it is the dynamics, not the temperature >which causes the distribution. > >Indeed, the upper levels of the atmosphere appear to >have dried out over the longer term according to >re-analysis of the radiosonde data. The upper levels of the atmosphere are also cooler, as predicted from general increase of GHGs. >The temperature record is also an indicator that >no significant feedback is occurring. The surface warming >rate over the last thirty years is around 1.5 K / century. >That is less than the GCMs model project. That is still a rate requiring positive feedback. Anthropomogenic GHGs alone would not have accomplished that much. Just like the Milankovitch Cycles needed positive feedback to cause the glaciations of the Ice Age to come and go. >The atmospheric rate has been considerably less. Because most of the atmosphere is not warmed as much as the surface and the lower troposphere are warmed by GHGs. Upper levels are actually cooled by GHGs. >And of course, over the last eight years, all measures indicate cooling. >That includes the SSTs which have been on a cooling trend ever since >the AIRS started operating. If there were a significant >feedback, it would be a cooling feed back now. Another one looking at the past decade? Plenty dure like to look at that 10 year streatch beginning with the most extreme El Nino on record and ending with the most extreme La Nina in 20 years. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |