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: John M. on 8 Dec 2008 04:01 On Dec 8, 1:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Whata Fool wrote: > > > 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". > > The only thing that is warming, is the red necks of the AWG crowd, > from their excessive arrogance. > > --http://improve-usenet.org/index.html Nothing in the link about arrogance - except the implied arrogance of the person who posted it. > aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white > listed, or I will not see your messages. As if anyone here gives a flying f*ck whether you see their messages or not. > If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in > your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Oh, I get it, *your* newsreader can't block Google from Google newsgroups. Tough titty. > There are two kinds of people on this earth: > The crazy, and the insane. > The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy. You've no idea what a relief that is, seeing that I have never denied it.
From: John M. on 8 Dec 2008 04:10 On Dec 8, 1:59 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:35:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 7 dec, 23:36, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> > >> 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. Is Bill W proposing that Graham's statement is worthy of debate? Or that Bill S's explanation of it is an insult? Perhaps Bill W has nothing else left, seeing he started with so little in the first place.
From: Bill Ward on 8 Dec 2008 04:21 On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 04:30:44 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In article <pan.2008.11.29.05.43.32.198332(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > Ward wrote in part: >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:25:22 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >>> On 27 nov, 20:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:50:47 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> > On 27 nov, 06:32, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:09:40 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> >> > On 26 nov, 22:17, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:53:11 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>>> >> >> > On 26 nov, 12:28, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >>>> >>>> > <snip> >>>> >>>> >> As you put it up thread, "the stratosphere isn't functioning as an >>>> >> insulator." >>>> >>>> >> If the stratosphere is transparent, and there is an excess of >>>> >> convective capacity in the troposphere (driven by the lapse rate), >>>> >> how can trace amounts of CO2 affect surface temperatures? If >>>> >> convection is sufficient to get latent heat to the tropopause, >>>> >> where it can radiate from cloud tops, etc, it has a clear shot at >>>> >> 3K deep space. The tropopause is there because it represents the >>>> >> top of the convective mixing layer. Because of increasing UV >>>> >> heating, the stratosphere has an inverted lapse rate, which >>>> >> prevents convection. >>>> >>>> > You seem to have set up a straw man by claiming that you can slice >>>> > the atmosphere into three layers - >>>> >>>> > - the troposphere where heat transfer is only by convection >>>> >>>> > - a very thin tropopause which does all the radiation >>>> >>>> > - the stratosphere which does nothing >>>> >>>> > which - unsurprisingly - leads you to incorrectly conclude that CO2 >>>> > cann't do anything. >>>> >>>> Where did I say the radiation all comes from a thin layer? You must >>>> be misinterpreting the concept of effective radiating altitude. >>> >>> I very much doubt it. The proposition that the you think that all the >>> radiation comes from a thin layar at the tropopause folows direcly from >>> your claim that radiation doesn't play a significant role anywhere in >>> the troposphere, which strikes me as implausible. >> >>Below the effective radiating layer (cloud tops) radiation is swamped by >>convection, so CO2 can have little effect. Above the radiating layer, >>there's not much CO2 left, and the 15u band is off peak, so it can have >>little effect. In the radiating layer, CO2 is radiating to space like >>everything else. Why do you think the radiating layer must be thin? I >>said "layer", not "surface". >>> >>>> >> >> IR radiated from the surface would be quickly absorbed by WV, >>>> >> >> clouds, CO2, and other GHGs, and at 500W/m^2 would be >>>> >> >> overwhelmed by the 10's of kW/m^2 available from convection of >>>> >> >> latent heat. >>>> >>>> >> > Clouds scatter infra-red radiation rather than absorbing it. as >>>> >> > do the greenhouse gases, but that's enough to sustain a thermal >>>> >> > gradient. >>>> >>>> >> Surely you're not proposing the lapse rate is sustained by outgoing >>>> >> IR. All the sources I've seen say the troposphere is due to >>>> >> convection, not radiation. Can you find one to the contrary. >>>> >>>> > Don't have to. Convection and transport as latent heat both decrease >>>> > rapidly as you move up through the troposphere, and radiation >>>> > progressively takes over, becoming responsible for 100% of the heat >>>> > transfer by the time you get to the tropopause. This is clearly >>>> > implied by what I wrote earlier (which is why I've not snipped it). >>>> >>>> So you don't really understand convection or radiation. If you did, >>>> you might see that radiation could not generate a "thermal gradient". >>>> Radiation tends to equalize temperatures, you know. >>> >>> Only when it is reabsorbed. Radiation from the flanks of pressure- >>> broadened rotational lines isn't going to be reabsorbed higher up where >>> the pressure broadening is less, and radiation from water vapour isn't >>> going to be absorbed once you get up to height where almost all the >>> waer vapour has frozen out - which seems to be about half way through >>> the troposphere, if I've correctly interpreted the significance of the >>> effective radiating altitude (which is an average over all >>> wavelengths). >> >>So you really think the lapse rate is set by radiation? And it just >>happens to be near adiabatic? Fascinating. > > No, does not happen to be near adiabatic, but near the lower one of 2 > adiabatic rates - the wet one. Perhaps that's because the surface is not always warm enough to support convection. Especially in dry air. > Radiation is not the main force affecting that, but has a major > influence - especially where the local lapse rate is short of causing > convection (a majority of the world). In reality, isn't the local lapse rate the result of cooling? If you started with an equal temperature at all altitudes, you'd have an inversion until the higher altitudes cooled enough or the surface warmed enough to cause convection. If you heat the surface and cool at high altitude, convection appears inevitable, especially if the atmosphere is opaque to thermal IR. >>Somehow I'm reminded of the adage,"When all you have is a hammer, >>everything looks like a nail." >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere >> >>"The word troposphere derives from the Greek "tropos" for "turning" or >>"mixing," reflecting the fact that turbulent mixing plays an important >>role in the troposphere's structure and behavior." >> >>You think IR is doing the mixing? Only when it's converted to sensible >>heat. > > A lot of the churning is advection rather than vertical convection. A > significant part of the world even does not have much of either at any > given moment. What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences and resulting vertical convection? > > GHGs will increase the lapse rate where there is room for the lapse > rate to increase. I don't quite understand what "room for the lapse rate to increase" means. What limits it? >>>> It's described by all that second law stuff you must have somehow >>>> skipped over. >>> >>> If only I could have skipped over it. I had to slog my way through a >>> lot of work to get my head around that concept back in 1961, but my >>> subsequent encounters with the subject do suggest that my teachers >>> managed to get me onto the right track. >> >>Just keep in mind you can't actually heat a hot source from a cold >>target. All you can do is slow the rate of cooling of the hot source. >>The sky is cold, the surface is hot. > > GHGs will slow the cooling by making outgoing radiation from the > surface absorbed at a lower, warmer level, which radiates half its > radiation downward. I prefer to think of the net radiation being reduced because the target target temperature is not 0K. There is never any net radiation from cold to hot. >>>> The lapse rate is set by gas laws. Convection occurs because warm >>>> air is less dense than cold air, so it rises, expands, and >>>> adiabatically cools, still maintaining a higher temperature than its >>>> surroundings. It continues up until it reaches an altitude where the >>>> air around it is slightly warmer (the lapse rate changes) than its >>>> adiabatic temperature, where it releases its excess energy and stops, >>>> moving the lapse rate toward adiabatic. >>>> >>>> If the air rises to its dewpoint temperature, WV condenses, releasing >>>> latent heat and giving the rising parcel a boost. Go out and watch a >>>> cumulus cloud and you can see the flat bottom at the condensation >>>> altitude, and the energetic billowing of the cloud upward from the >>>> latent heat release. The principle is scalable, that's why >>>> thunderstorms can billow up well into the stratosphere, yielding the >>>> "anvil" shape. >>> >>> Thunderheads are rare. Normally all the water vapour (and the latent >>> heat) has condensed out at around 6km, and that - large - proportion >>> of the greenhouse effect that depends on absorption by lines in the >>> water vapour spectrum goes away, and - for those wavelengths - this >>> opens the window to outer space. >> >>Check out a satellite view of the tropics. Deep convection is pretty >>common. > > It is common there, though in quite a minority of the tropics. It doesn't have to be everywhere. >>>> >> > Convection becomes progressively less potent as air pressure and >>>> >> > thus density declines with height, and as the partial pressure >>>> >> > of water vapour declines with decreasing temperature as it >>>> >> > climbs up through the tropopause, so the amount of energy >>>> >> > transferred as latent heat falls away with height in the same >>>> >> > sort of way. >>>> >>>> See above, then consider what happens when an airplane encounters a >>>> TS at 20000 feet. IR doesn't disassemble aircraft in flight. There's >>>> plenty of energy in convection, even at altitude. >>> >>> Thunderstorms don't occupy a particulary significant proportion of the >>> sky. If you want to calculate the additional global warming you get >>> from a few more parts per million of CO2, you don't need to allocate >>> all that many cells to air columns that look like thunderheads. >> >>The point is that convection remains active, including destructive >>turbulence, well into the stratosphere. The amount of energy cannot >>decrease with increasing altitude. > > As long as local lapse rate does not fall below the relevant adiabatic > one (the wet one at altitudes occupied by a thunderhead). > >> There's no way down. You can't transfer net energy from cold high >>altitudes to the hot surface. > > You can slow down the upward transfer by radiation by adding more > stops in the radiative path, by adding GHGs. EM travels at c. IR can be converted to sensible heat, but it can't be slowed. > > <SNIP> > >>>> Second, apparently you think a model is only useful if it, "(gives) >>>> the right sort of answer". Yet you continue to prattle on about >>>> radiative transfer models even though you admit they would only be >>>> useful in a limited region at the top of the troposphere. >>> >>> Since the effective radiating altitude is 6km above ground, right in >>> the middle of the troposphere, this seems to be exactly the right >>> place for a radiative transfer model to be effective. > > I think it's higher - though I am catching an error in my calculation > that it is at the 300 mb level. I now calculate that it's the 350 mb > level, around 8 km. Is it at 255K? That seems to be the usual figure. >>There's an excess of water vapor available to convect latent heat up to >>the effective radiating altitude. > > Except most of the world lacks convection, and my non-contact > thermometer usually gets a much colder reading for the sky than it gets > from the ground. It's only important where cooling is happening. There's no reason to believe it has to be the same all over the globe. >> It's in the 10s of kW/m^2 compared to >>the 500W/m^2 max from surface radiation. The lower troposphere is >>translucent in the 15u band. How could CO2 play any significant part, >>compared to radiation? > > More CO2 means the lower troposphere gets more opaque in the 15 um > band. Which makes convection more effective by converting IR to hot air. >> Above the clouds, it has a clear shot to space. > > What about where the tops of the highest clouds are below the 700 mb > level? What about in the clear half of the world? It doesn't have to be everywhere to be an effective mechanism. >>> In fact it looks to me as if we need to regard the effective radiating >>> altitude as wavelength dependent. This altitude (when averaged over >>> all wavelengths) seems to coincide with the 6km where you'd expect >>> water vapour to stop being an an effective greenhouse gas (because it >>> is frozen out at higher altitudes). For the limited number of >>> wavelengths where carbon dioxide absorbs the effective radiating >>> altitude seems likely to be up in the stratosphere, where the air is a >>> lot colder (below the very low density outer bit which gets heated by >>> charged particles from the sun). >> >>And where the CO2 has a cooling effect. The stratosphere has an >>inverted lapse rate. > > The upper stratosphere has lower ability to radiate IR than lower > levels of the atmosphere and bears the brunt of absorption of UV around > 150-210 nm or somthing like that. That's why the upper half (or 2/3 or > whatever) of the stratosphere has an inverted lapse rate. Which means it should be hotter and radiate more. > CO2's 15 um band plays a significant role from the lower stratosphere > through the lower troposphere. I'm still not convinced of that. > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: John M. on 8 Dec 2008 04:23 On Dec 8, 8:20 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > <I snip to edit for space arbitrarily on level of quotation/citation, > without snipping perfectly accurately on basis of degree of quotation> <SNIP> > <SNIP from here on basis of low level of content to show as quoted less > than twice> You make life too easy for Bilbo W when you snip irrelevant text. He will hack through it all to find some pointless point he made, repost it, and then berate you for deliberate, inverted cherry-picking. Bilbo is the master of obfuscation and he needs all those yards of useless text to cover his mistakes.
From: John M. on 8 Dec 2008 04:32
On Dec 8, 10:21 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences and > resulting vertical convection? Coriolis. |