|
Mostly
Correspondence
going back to 1997
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:42:18 -0500
From: Bob Armstrong
Organization: Coherent Systems
To: M V
Subject: Re: global warming
M V wrote:
> I think global warming concerns appear to be foolish, but that your
> analysis of the physics is incorrect. Black and white marbles are not
> the proper analogy because a white marble both absorbs and emits less
> heat than a black marble while in the case of the earth greater CO2
> reduces emission of heat while not appreciably reducing absorbtion of
> light, which becomes heat.
[
20061120 | surprised I didn't notice this glaring flaw before . Light IS
heat , just a higher wavelength . That's why it will burn your skin to
a bubbling ooze if you lie in it too long . It is the failure to
recognize this , and thus discard part of the spectrum , that is a
major cause of so much illogic on these issues . ]
> That the greenhouse effect is, in
> elementary detail, real, is testified to by both the relative
> temperatures of Mercury Venus and the Earth and Moon.
Thank you for you interest and
feed back . I would be interested
in knowing your technical background .
I'm still not convinced . The idea that essentially changing the
the insulation on an object can change its mean temperature implies
you can make a perpetual motion machine by continually piping the
excess heat from the more absorptive object to the less even in
the same radiant flux . Of course the total radiant flux at all
wavelengths must be counted in the measurement of temperature .
I have recently read "Meltdown"
by Patrick J. Michael [ see side bar ]
which begins with the equation of irradiation and albedo to emissivity
and
temperature . Your note prompted me to add the reference to my web
pages .
( ( 1 - a ) * S % 4 ) = ( e *
StephanBoltzmann * T ^ 4 )
The fact that the temperature
term is T ^ 4 [ raised to the 4th power ]
alone is enough to imply that temperature changes will be small .
However ,
I continue to think that the expression itself inappropriately asserts
an independence of albedo and emissivity . Unfortunately , I have
little
time to pursue the issue , being focused on FORTH.CoSy .
I would like to add this note
to [ this page ] to update the discussion there . If you have a
background in physics to
explain how the asserted independence of a and e does not lead to
unreasonable results , I'm all ears , with some struggling meat between
.
Thanks again for your feedback
.
--
--
Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864
NoteComputing Environment : http://CoSy.com/CoSy/
WTC vision : http://CoSy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/
Liberty : http://cosy.com/Liberty/
|
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:16:29 -0500
From: M V
To: Bob Armstrong
Subject: Re: global warming
My technical background; BS in biochem +
LOTS of general scientific
knowledge and the reasoning skills to use it.
Since T is in Kelvin, from where we stand changes needn't appear
small. After all, the differences between seasons are not much more
than a 5% variation in absolute temperature.
As I said, the planets are an
existance proof. Another datum to
consider is that greenhouses actually work, and in the case of solar
towers they are actually used to generate work via heat differentials
just as you have described. They would not work if instead of being
heated by the Sun, Earth was heated by a 300K cosmic background. In
that case, there would be no entropy gain from converting visible to
infra-red light, and the glass of the greenhouse would reflect light
away as well as trapping it inside.
The scenario implies no 2nd law violation, as the entropy is
increasing due to the transformation of high frequency photons into
more numerous lower frequency photons. The spectrum of the Sun is
different from that of the Earth when each is treated as a black body
(or otherwise). The key is not differential insulation, but
differential absorbtion at differing frequencies. High emissivity
implies rapid approach to thermal equilibrium, but in the case of the
Earth thermal equilibrium with the environment is impossible as the
environment is not at thermal equilibrium. For such a situation, a
highly absorbtive object will do more work, e.g. convert more energy
from one form to another, e.g. increase entropy more. The exemplar of
this is the perfect mirror which would not increase entropy at all.
(except due to acting as a solar sail. )
Does this clarify the issue?
|
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:46:24 -0500
From: Bob Armstrong
Organization: Coherent Systems
To: M V
Subject: Re: global warming
M V wrote:
..
> Since T is in Kelvin, from where we stand changes needn't appear
> small. After all, the differences between seasons are not much more
> than a 5% variation in absolute temperature.
however , ^ 4 is quite a curve .
rnd2 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 ^ % 4 />/ 1 1.01 1.02 1.04
r * 290 />/ 290 292.9 295.8 301.6
to get even a 3 degree change , the albedo / emissivity ratio would
have to change 5% ; a 6 degree change requires a 10% ratio change .
Really big numbers when you consider the fractional influence of humans .
..
> Does this clarify the issue?
Yes . Thanks . Much to mull .
--
Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864
|
From: Bob Armstrong < bob@cosy.com >
Subject: Global Warming , the ultimate Political Hubris
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 20:46:14 -0400
To: < paulos@math.temple.edu >
--
Happened to click to your Placebo effect article .
ABC news scitech / Who's Counting
Glad to see that you include the fact that there are some of
us who understand 100 year old physics , particularly what's
now being called the 0th law of thermodynamics , to understand
it's simply impossible for creatures on the surface of a sphere
to change its mean temperature other than by actually creating
heat .
Thought experiment : Put a black marble and a white marble in
your refrigerator with thermcouples buried at their centers .
Asymptotically which is hotter ?
Float them in orbit next to the space station .
Which is hotter ?
The idea that we can change the temperature of the planet by
changing the insulative properties of the atmosphere is a
21st century equivalent of believing in a flat earth in the
1490s .
That the global statists who would run our lives display
such lack of understanding of freshman physics is why I
have come to consider them the most dangerous entities on
our planet .
-- Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 2001/08/01 7:50:25 PM
|
This is a topik I would
partikularly apreciate rigorous feedbak on .
I have now done enough research and thought to be quite
The following is not an argument against conservation and efficiency
for their own value -- which free markets intrinsically reflect .
The problem is that bad science is used by the PowerFreeks (
politicians ) to scare the populace into seding control of market
decisions to themselves . The same groups who decry the use of fossil
fuels because of all the problems with their use , are the ones who
have done their best to kill the use of intrinsically clean nuclear
energy .
Locally , LongIsland bitches that it has the highest electric rates in
the country . Of course it does . It spent several billion dollars to
build a state of the art nuclear reactor , andt energy then was bullied
into not turning it on . The rational majority out there ought to wake
up and scream to start using it in a responsible manner . I would like
to see an estimate of how much each LI household has paid , and is
continuing to pay for this irrationality . |SUN.OCT,971012,13:58-4
Included in e-mail to Rush Limbaugh 960214 :
Huseyin Yilmaz in a monograph summarizing his life work makes the simple
observation that averaged over time , the earth radiates each day exactly
the amount of energy it receives from the sun ( + minor amount from internal
radioactivity ).
When I have a bit of time I want to complete a bit of mathematics to show
that , while we may effect the distribution of temperatures on earth , the
overall temperature is totally determined by the the energy output of the
sun and our distance from it . It would make no difference if the earth were
a ball bearing or a lump of coal - asymtotically it will settle at the same
temperature .
Work I did for my 1984 MidWinter Party invitation happened to illustrate
that the total heat held by the atmosphere and ground amounts to about 2
weeks of sunlight . The idea of effects taking decades to show up is nuts .
-- BobA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think also that these
people need to take another look at an image of earth from space . The
atmosphere is really an awefully skinny skin to hold the heat they
claim it can .
See also : views/Junto9706 .
DrSallieBaliunas Assoc Dir Mt Wilson , agrees . Bottom line
her data supports my theoretical conjecture that the Sun and our
distance from it are all that can determine temperature . At the mike ,
I explained I was looking for arguments based on integrals on spheres -
Stokes Theorem sort of stuff .
|THU.FEB,960215,12:43 :
Bak in `68 , before I nue what a partial derivative was , I won
' Best Essay ' in Geology A10-1 at NorthWestern University for
' Galactic Dynamics and their Geological Consequences ' which examined
ideas of an Australian geologist named , as I remember , Steiner [0] , who
related ideas of Mach and Dirac that the gravitational constant G may depend
on the local density of matter .
He showed correlations of many geofisikal faktors , including climate , to
the position of the solar system in its ~ 280E6 year galaktic orbit .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|FRI.MAY,970516,10:37-5| [0] Cleaning out my past in the old home in Highland
Park , IL , I found the actual reference :
The Sequence of Geological Events and the Dynamics of the Milky Way Galaxy .
Johann Steiner , J.geol.Soc.Australia , 1967 #1 .
/ tue.jun.20040622 /
In response to an email from Johann Steiner's sister , I have scanned
and uploaded my original paper on
Galactic Dynamics , and another I did later on The
Galactic Magnetic Field . This latter may be of interest
because of the apparent possibilty that we may be near an episode of
reversal of the earth's magnetic field .
=HP=========================: THU.JUN,970619 :============================
This global warming fantasy continues to be dangerous to liberty :
CompuServe Top News: Clinton Warned of Global Warming
WASHINGTON (AP) -- With President Clinton addressing a United Nations
conference on global warming next week, more than 2,400 scientists are urging
him to call for stepped-up efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. A
statement by the scientists urges the administration to endorse "early
domestic action to reduce U.S. emissions via the most cost-effective means"
as it works with other nations to craft binding controls on manmade pollution
linked to global warming. Senior administration officials were expected to
face sharp questioning today before a Senate subcommittee that wants to know
what binding commitments the president is ready to accept at an international
climate conference in Japan later this year. So far, the White House has said
it would commit to some mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide, but it has
not given any specific numbers on how much of a cut or a timetable. The
Europeans, meanwhile, have called for a 15 percent cut in carbon emissions by
industrial nations by 2010, compared with 1990 levels. Releases of manmade
pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and gas, are believed
by many scientists to be trapping the Earth's heat like a greenhouse, and
could lead to a warming of the Earth by as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit over
the next century. Such warming would cause sea levels to rise and cause
widespread coastal flooding and other economic, social and ecological
changes, these scientists say. To access the CSi NewsRoom for additional news
reports from The Associated Press and other sources, GO NEWS. Discuss this
and other environmental issues in the Earth Forum, GO EARTH.
The information contained in the AP news report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or otherwise distributed without the prior written
authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright 1997. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. ( I appologize to
AP if they don`t agree that miscellaneous samples of their product does more
to advertize there offering than to dilute their revenue | BobA )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some data which needs explanation :
Planetary surface temperatures . From 1980 Time / Hammond Almanac |
%93E6 mi incid rad albedo Obsvd srfc temp(F)
'Mercury' .387 6.7 .06 660
'Venus' .723 1.9 .76 890
'Earth' 1 1 .36 70
'Mars' 1.524 .43 .16 -45
| Albedo == Reflectivity |
I have long wondered why those concerned about human efects on global
temperature never seem to consider the effects of human activity , e.g ,
agriculture , on global albedo .
|( 9712281810| DiscoveryCh : Re GlobalWarming :
Arthur Clark describes cooling during solar eclipse in SriLanka like
returning to England )|
============================: WED.SEP,990915 :============================
Below are comments on a push for $135M for DoE Solar Energy support my
( SSA employed ) cousin sent me .
It includes an example of the sort of off the cuff computations at which the
CoSy/NoteComputer continues to have no
peer that I know of .
p.baer fulmer wrote:
: "ASES" Wrote
> Mr. Udall's amendment would restore approximately $138M to the Department
> of Energy authorization.
> web site: www.ases.org
If , as http://www.ases.org/solarguide/fbhdt.html asserts :
Americans have consistently shown that they support the development
of renewable energy sources.
, Why does Taken Money have to go to as corrupt an organization as the
DoE to - do what ? supplement the free market ?
Have you personally taken all opportunities to use solar power where you can
. You have more of it in FL than we in NYC .
I`m adding the bit below to http://cosy.com/views/warm.htm .
A little bit of CoSy calculation :
1.52 x 10 to the 18th power kWh/year to earth.
From American Solar Energy Society Factbase
D 1.52E18 % 365.25 x 12 |>| 3.46794433E14 | kW over daytime disk of earth .
Earth Radius | 6.378E8 % 100 |>| 6378000 | meters .
From Physical Constants and Astronomical Data by Chris Dolan
Area of disk | circle r * 2 |>| 1.277964831E14
P % r |>| 2.71 | watt % square meter . |#|
This would be the maximum energy density where the Sun is at the Zenith .
I kind of remember hearing an number of around 4 W%M*2 . Emendations
welcome .
How many square meters is your roof . How many kilowatts is your AC ?
Do you get by on ASES stated " average household uses 700 kWh each month or
about 8500 kWh each year. "
It is inconceivable to me that the State can add anything to the
motivation of entrepreneurs to solve these problems .
|
cursor hover comments
