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 8 Dec 2008 18:58 Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:22:33 -0800, John M. wrote: > >> 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 by someone 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? > >Not my problem. You're projecting again: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force > >"The surface of the Earth is a rotating reference frame. To solve >classical mechanics problems exactly in an Earth-bound reference frame, >two fictitious forces must be introduced, the Coriolis force and the >centrifugal force (described below)." > >Fictitious force == "Not real". Are you now going to claim wiki is wrong >on something so simple and clear cut? Either way, the initial horizontal >movement can't occur without some sort of convection driven force, so >you're still lost in the woods. Both "forces" are real, it is just inertia, which is the tendency of extreme precision of objects having mass to move in a straight line. Take wiki with a grain of salt, and ignore the trolls with initials of "M".
From: Bill Ward on 8 Dec 2008 19:03 On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:07:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. And Sloman can't coherently explain his position when questioned.
From: Bill Ward on 8 Dec 2008 19:13 On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:12:29 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Skepticism can never be "misguided". That's reserved for those who believe things they can't explain. >> 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. Believing in things you don't understand is the province of religion, not science. When you consider skeptics heretics instead of potential converts, you've moved on past modern religion to culthood.
From: Bill Ward on 8 Dec 2008 19:32 On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:36:08 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Can you see that the different mechanisms between the night inversion and the daytime convection comprise a negative feedback from water vapor? At night, the surface is prevented from cooling as much because it is radiating to a layer of GHG rather than 3K space. That drives the surface temperature towards a "set point", warmer than without the WV. During the day, the GHG, (water vapor) is lifted, by convection, cooling by transporting latent heat upwards. That also drives the surface T toward a "set point" from the increased cooling. When the surface needs to be warmer, water vapor keeps it from cooling as fast. When the surface needs to be cooler, water vapor convects heat away from the surface. The change in sign of the effect of water vapor is therefore a negative feedback, tending to stabilize surface temperature. If you can't see that, ask a lucid question about what you don't understand, and I'll try to answer it. >>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 And clouds. > 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. And you seem to keep dodging the cloud issue.
From: Eeyore on 8 Dec 2008 19:36
Bill Ward wrote: > 08 Dec 2008 06:36:08 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > > But Whata Fool isn't equipped to understand this, and keeps on incanting > > his half-understood mantra. > > And you seem to keep dodging the cloud issue. And the fact that the earth is cooling and sea level is falling ! Just an 'anomaly' right ? Like every other 'anomaly' that doesn't fit their blasted RELIGION. Graham |