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.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 09:07 On 8 dec, 01:29, "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. Michael A. Terrell suffers from the arrogant misapprehension that he understands enough about anthropogenic global warming to pick winners and losers in the "debate". People who do know what they are talking about do tend to sound arrogant when they are correcting the foolish errors of people who don't, but simple fact is that Bill Ward, Whata Fool and Eeeyore don't know what they are talking about, and are ignoring the evidence that should make it clear to them that they should have learnt a bit more about the subject before making up their minds. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 09:12 On 8 dec, 01:44, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >On 7 dec, 22:56, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> 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". > > >As "Bill Ward" keeps reminding us, weather is chaotic, and your twenty > >degrees below normal is just a random excursion from the rising trend > >- 0.8C over a hundred years hasn't been all that noticeable. > > And that should make me feel warm all over? Obviously not, but it ought to discourage you from coupling you understandable unhappiness with the weather to your misguided scepticism about anthropogenic global warming. > With the record high here for this date being 70 F, and the record > low here for this date being -6 F, that -.8 degrees C really makes a big > difference. > > The only result is my heating bill for the day being about double > the usual amount for this date. > > I can't afford Global Warming. None of us can - though it is the next generation who will see the real costs - but denying that it is happening won't make it go away, and helps delay the work that is necessary to slow it down to a sustainable level. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John M. on 8 Dec 2008 09:22 On Dec 8, 11:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:32:30 -0800, John M. wrote: > > 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. > > I believe that just changes the apparent direction of an already existing > horizontal movement. Only if the observer is not part of the rotating system. For the Earth's surface, the atmosphere can be regarded as an observer who is in the system. It "sees " i.e experiences a real force, just as child on a merry-go-round feels a real, outward, centrifugal force opposite in direction to that noted bysomeone watching the rotation happen. > Nice try, though. Now you need to rethink this comment, don't you? Or is it still too much for you to admit to making mistakes?
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 09:36 On 8 dec, 03:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:29:26 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > >> 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. And one that you don't seem to be equipped to understand. > 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, No. The high temperatures in the desert valley during the day are caused by solar radiation that goes straight through the air to hit the ground, be absorbed and raise its temperature. Water vapour and CO2 don't get into the act. At night the surface radiates like a hot black body, and cools off rapidly; some of that infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the air above and re-radiated back at the ground, and some of it has a free ride to outer space. >or the temperature can be all time record lows > at the South Pole and not because of less water vapor or CO2. No - the low winter temperatures at the South Pole are caused by the total absence of incoming solar radiation during the winter, not that the snow covered surface absorbs all that much solar radiation when the sun is above the horizon. The surface would get even colder if it wasn't for the greenhouse gases in the air above the pole so the do have some effect - but there is not a lot of water vapour in the air whne the temperature is down at -65C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole > In fact, the big changes in temperature occur with wind shift, > and that has very little to do with water vapor or CO2. We are talking about global warming - which is to say the temperature of the surface of the whole of the earth - not temperature differences between different places on the surfce. > 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. Which isn't actually true for the atmosphere as a whole. Greenhouse gases determine the effective emitting altitude for the earth, where the temperature has to be -14C to radiate enough power to balance the power being absorbed from solar radiation. More greenhouse gases force this altitude higher, and make the atmosphere a bit warmer - specifically the laer closest to the ground. But Whata Fool isn't equipped to understand this, and keeps on incanting his half-understood mantra. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 09:55
On 8 dec, 09:44, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:02:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > > >> Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:29:26 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > [snip] > >>>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. > > >The point I'm agreeing with is that the earth must radiate the same > >energy it receives from the Sun, as a blackbody at about 255K. If you > >take a lapse rate downward from the level at which that occurs, you should > >arrive at the surface temperature. Of course, there are questions > >regarding the altitude at which that occurs, the lapse rate to use, and > >the net feedbacks involved. > > The surface and each layer of the atmosphere radiate at whatever > temperature they are, however much, averaging it doesn't reduce radiation.. Perhaps, but the atmosphere only radiatiates at wavelengths the molecules involved emit and absorb, and at those wavelengths the radiation doesn't travel far before it is absorbed, converted to vibration and rotational energy (and translation energy after the next collison with another gase molecule) before being re-emitted at a temperature corresponding the temperature of the region doing the emitting. > >In the presence of an excess of H2O,It still isn't clear to me how anyone > >can claim 390ppmv of CO2 will significantly affect the surface temperature > >until those questions are answered. Ice core data shows CO2 following > >temperature for several hundred thousand years. To me, it seems unlikely > >that has suddenly reversed. The ice core data records a situation where CO2 was moving into the oceans when the temperatures cooled, and came out again when they warmed up. We are doing something new - which is burning fossil fuels and releasing new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We know that the extra carbon dioxide is coming from the fossil fuels - the carbon isotope ratio in fossil fuels is different from the one you used to see in atmopsheric carbon dioxide, and the isotope ratio in atmospheric carbon dioxode now looks more like that of fossil fuel carbon. > >I don't believe climate models as currently implemented have any > >credibility at all in answering those questions. If anyone has any > >specific, meaningful explanations, I'd be happy to see them. There's a catch-22 here. While the specific, meaningful explanation do exist, you don't know enough of the science involved to make them meaningful to you. <snipped usual vain repetition> > A good exercise for the continuing education of the climatologist > would be to try to find all the sentences in the literature which say > or infer that GHGs "warm" any part of the atmosphere when that part of > the atmosphere would be retaining heat if it wasn't for GHGs. It wouldn't be much of an exercise. Even you could manage it if you learned enough to understand what the stuff you were reading actually meant. > It really scares me that all the various sciences in geology > allow misstatements to stand when extremists are calling for such > things as lowering the thermostat, and I heard a rumor that laws > someplace require a tenant to keep the thermostat at 68 in daytime > in the heating season and 66 at night (or lower) if the landlord asks. You'd be more frightened by your own misstatements if you knew enough to understand how wrong they were. > It is important to get science right when asking billions of > people to spend or give money for a cause. Absolutely. So go away and learn some more science. At the moment you are drawing entirely incorrect conclusions from the little you do know. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |