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 Ward on 8 Dec 2008 19:41 On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:55:49 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Don't forget convection and broadband clouds. >> >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. Try me. Show me a relevant paper you can explain. I think you're trying to intimidate, because you're over your head. > <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. Your bluff has been called. Show your cards.
From: Eeyore on 8 Dec 2008 19:45 Bill Ward wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:55:49 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > >> � � � 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. > > Your bluff has been called. Show your cards. He has none. It's like the Emporor's New Clothes. Global temperatures are falling, as is sea level (last few years). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/ Arctic Ice is on the increase again. Polar bears aren't extinct, in fact their population has been stable for decades, if not increasing. Another 'anomaly' ? Graham
From: Bill Ward on 8 Dec 2008 19:55 On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:15:34 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. Now what happens to the IR when it's absorbed? It goes to heat. Heat convects. That "re-radiation" bit is bogus. The gas is the same as any other, just warmer, and maintaining radiative equilibrium. I'm surprised you fell for that pinball explanation of radiative transport. IR travels at c. When it's converted to heat, it warms the gas, and allows convection to take place as soon as the lapse rate allows. > 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. Irrelevant, and a sure sign of desperation. >> And the atmosphere has a lot of it anyway - 388 ppmv means about 6 >> kilograms per square meter of Earth.
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 20:53 On 9 dec, 01:45, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:55:49 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > > >> Â Â Â 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. > > > Your bluff has been called. Show your cards. Bill Ward doesn't actually see winning hands. He will argue about evidence that he can weasel his way around, but if you get him dead to rights, he blithely fails to notice that he's holding a busted flush.. > He has none. It's like the Emporor's New Clothes. Eeyore is the one in the Emperor's birthday suite. He's parading around claiming to understand what wrong with the IPCC ideas about global warming, while he's too ignorant to realise that the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere don't have the right isotopic disribution to have come out of solution in the oceans and really do have to reflect our digging up fossil carbon and burning it. He seems to think that the phsyics he learned in his last year at secondary school is sufficient to let him be confident that the IPCC has got it wrong, and that the ideas he has about the climate (mostly derived from Exxon-Mobil funded web-sites) are the last word on the subject. > Global temperatures are falling, as is sea level (last few years). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-upd... > Arctic Ice is on the increase again. Polar bears aren't extinct, in fact their > population has been stable for decades, if not increasing. In the short term. If Eeyore knew anything about global warming, he'd be aware that the current cool snap looks exactly like other cool snaps we've had over the last twenty years, while the longer term trend has been relentlessly upwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png > Another 'anomaly' ? Eeyore presumably worries that he's wrong about global warming every morning, but recovers his confindence when the ar cools down after sunset. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 8 Dec 2008 21:01
On 8 dec, 21:12, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org 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. > > >>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. > > You should learn a little meteorology, the highest desert record > temperatures occur because of descending air on very hot dry days. Hot air descends? You've measured this yourself, while going up in a cold-air balloon? > And it is the temperature of the air that is measured, not that > of the ground, above a pond in the desert the air temperature will > be cooler, not warmer. Depends how salty the pond is. > How many times are AGW disciples required to read and recite > the myth in order to all speak the same tongue? Reciting a mantra repeatedly doesn't make it true, and it turns out to be a poor way of getting people to understand what they are memorising, which is why repetitive recitation doesn't form any part of modern scientific education. I'm not altogether surprised that you don't know this - if you ever were exposed to a modern scientific education it obviously failed to take. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |