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 10:01 On 8 dec, 01:55, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > bill.slo...(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. This is not a subject where you opinion is worth much. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 10:15 On 8 dec, 05:42, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > In article <tqb3j4pmpsqj32hes94kb9pni1vaup6...(a)4ax.com>, Whata Fool wrote: > >bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >>On 28 nov, 21:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >>> >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: > > <I snip to edit for space> > > > > > > >>> >> >You've misunderstood. The surface of the earth is ultimately cooled by > >>> >> >radiation to outer space, but the "surface" that is cooled depends on > >>> >> >the frequency that is being radiated. > > >>> >> The frequency is determined by temperature, isn't it? > > >>> >A black-body radiator emits a wide range of frequencies. The centre of > >>> >the range does move to higher frequencies as the temperature of the > >>> >emitter gets higher, but it doesn't move all that fast. > > >>> Broadband radiation may resemble black body, but CO2 does not > >>> radiate broadband. > > >>True, But it continues to emit at all the frequencies it can over a > >>range of temperatures; > > > The CO2 spectra is mostly narrow spikes, and supposedly > >those spikes are pretty much fixed to a certain range of temperatures, > >show any reference that suggests otherwise. > > The 15 um band of CO2 looks fairly broad here, comparable to the 2 > broader water vapor bands at 6 and 2.5 um: > > http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif This spectrum covers a wide range of wavelengths, and doesn't ressolve the rotational fine structure. I've not had much luck finding spectra that do show the fine structure. The best I've been able to do is here http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/35_3_WASHINGTON%20DC_08-90_0738.pdf and since the pdf was generated by scanning a printed document, the figures at the end of the document are none too clear. > > > Actually, water vapor is almost BB at certain temperatures, > >that can't be said for CO2. > > Water vapor has significant gaps. > > Same source: http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > > >>as it gets colder the number of phtotons > >>emitted at shorter wavelegths goes down faster than the number emitted > >>at longer wavelengths, which implies something rather from your "the > >>frequency is determined by temperature". > > > Exactly, so the net energy transfer is a function of relative > >temperature differences, say it anyway you want, but 388 parts per > >million is a very small amount. But quite enough to repeatedly absorb and re-emit all the radiation at the CO2 wavelengths as it goes through the atmosphere. One gram of potassium cyanide is only a small fraction of your body weight - 14.3ppm - but it is more than enough to kill you rapidly. > And the atmosphere has a lot of it anyway - 388 ppmv means about 6 > kilograms per square meter of Earth. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 14:03 On 8 dec, 02:48, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(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. Nobody claims that it does. Despite that, CO2 does manage to prevent the bulk of the atmosphere losing heat by infra-red radiation at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs and re-emits. The details of this process are little to complicated to be fitted into Whata Fool's picture of the world, but that doesn't stop it from happening. <snipped the udual irrelevant guff> > 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. It might in Whata Fools version of reality, but not in real life. > 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. If that's case, why are you complaining about the low surface temepratures around your house at the moment? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Whata Fool on 8 Dec 2008 14:56 Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Dec 8, 1:20 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(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*. > >I would not use the word "amplifier" myself to describe what is >actually a positive feedback mechanism. But his meaning is clear and >the physics are baiscally correct more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it >warmer and the extra warmth allows more water vapour into the air >before it saturates. Total nonsense resulting from the 19th century comparison of the Moon and Earth temperatures. Lets try to sort this out and resolve it, many texts comment on the Earth being warmer than the moon because the Earth has an atmosphere, and that is correct, but it doesn't matter what gases are in the atmosphere if that is the premise, any atmosphere at all should cause higher average and more moderate temperatures than the moon. Then other texts say that the Earth is warmer because of GHGs, which jumps over the scenario where the Earth could have an N2 and O2 atmosphere. The N2 and O2 atmosphere, without GHGs would be warmer, maybe "hotter" is a better word, than present, and that is what must be considered before coming up with a comment about GHGs warming the Earth. GHGs may help the solid or liquid surface stay warmer, but the annual average global temperature is not of the surface, it is of the lowest level of the troposphere at about 2 meters above ground. N2 and O2 have to be cooled some way at night to get the temperatures measured, and GHGs are what cools the N2 and O2. Scientists consider every thought and premise, but have missed the fact that the early studies skipped around from the moon to an Earth with no atmosphere at all, to an Earth with GHGs in the atmosphere, so with that information posted here, scientists need to consider an Earth with an N2 and O2 atmosphere and NO GHGs, then decide if they want to perpetuate the myth that GHGs warm the atmosphere, or the weather service recorded temperatures, which are atmospheric temperatures. >Warmer seas and warmer air over them will contain more water vapour as >a result. > >Regards, >Martin Brown Probably, but general statements are tricky, saying a higher annual global temperature would mean high humidity may not hold true, and saying moist air causes higher temperatures is definitely misleading.
From: Whata Fool on 8 Dec 2008 15:03
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Dec 8, 8:52 am, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> >> >In <pan.2008.12.03.05.51.11.802...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,B. Ward wrote: >> >>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.26.21.52.54.243...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> >>> said: >> >>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:52:48 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> ><I snip to edit for space arbitrarily on level of quotation/citation, >> >without snipping perfectly accurately on basis of degree of quotation> >> >> >>>>> Don't be silly. I was being rude about the phrase "water and water >> >>>>> vapor IR radiation plus phase change _moderate_ the temperature" which >> >>>>> is total nonsense, as the Venus example demonstrates. >> >> >>>>> You also need to apologse for not knowing what you are talking about. >> >> >>>>>> Just say how N2 and O2 could cool after daytime heating and >> >>>>>> I will go away. >> >> >>>>> They emit and absorb in the infra-red just like water and carbon >> >>>>> dioxide; because they are symmetrical molecules the transitions are >> >>>>> forbidden, but pressure broadening/intermolecular collisions means that >> >>>>> the transitions happen anyway, albeit much less often than with >> >>>>> asymmetrical molecules. >> >> >>>>I think we need a link for that. It would mean N2 and O2 are GHGs. >> >> >>> I suspect to some extremely slight extent they actually are. >> >> >>Can you tell us why you suspect that? Perhaps a link to some data? >> >> > On that point, I am feeling challenged to find links supporting a >> >contention that N2 and O2 have IR absorption spectrum features having any >> >significance at "earthly temperatures". >> >> > Considering only global average surface temperature of 288-289 K, a >> >blackbody has spectral power distribution over 1% of peak over >> >wavelengths from about 3.4 um to about 66 um. >> >> > Going so far as .1% of peak spectral power distribution of a 288 K >> >blackbody, the wavelength range is about 2.95 um to close to 100 um. >> >> > Source: The "blackbody formula". >> >> > I have strong doubt that the massive amounts of O2 and N2 in the >> >atmosphere completely lack any infrared spectral features in or shortly >> >outside such a range. >> >> ><SNIP from here on basis of low level of content to show as quoted less >> >than twice> >> >> > - Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) >> >> The N2 and O2 in the atmosphere are not dry. N2 would have very >> little infr-red if dry, and O2 would probably have a little more, but not >> worth mention, and definitely not enough to mean that the N2 and O2 in >> the Earth's atmosphere could cool themselves without GHGs. >> >> (without getting a lot warmer than present).- Hide quoted text - > >Utter and unmitigated bullshit!! > >A pure N2 and O2 atmosphere would develop strong winds of the type >seen on the gas giants driven by the temperature and pressure >differentials on the night and daytime sides of the planet. The >atmosphere would lose heat by winds blowing from the cold regions at >the anti-solar point to the warm sunny side. Where the air would take >heat from the hot surface and rise genrating a circulation pattern. >The surface gets to radiate IR away easily at night since we have >already established that to a very good approximation they are >transparent to IR. > >Regards, >Martin Brown Try to break away from the myth, if you really believe the above show some math with wind velocity, distance traveled in the half day periods, and explain how to get the hot N2 to contact the ground or colder N2 that would hug the ground. Regardless of how much cooling there would be, the N2 temperature would be higher than at present. A link to any study of the scenario would help erase the myth. |