|
|
 | | From: | Edward Green | | Subject: | Re: Global dimming masking greenhouse effect | | Date: | 19 Jan 2005 18:45:46 -0800 |
|
|
 | jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
> The more I thought about it, the more problems I came up with.
<...>
The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the claim
"solar irradiance increases evaporation rate under otherwise fixed
conditions" is true, but not because of photoejection of individual
molecules. It's true because solar irradiance of the liquid surface
will preferentially deposit energy near the surface, raising the
temperature of same relative to a fixed nominal system temperature.
In other words, I am accepting your claim that evaporation rate is only
significantly directly affected by local values of the standard
thermodynamic variables at the surface (temperature, composition,
pressure) and insignificantly affected by the illumination, but
claiming that illumination may significantly increase surface
temperature relative to a dark system, for a fixed temperature at a
given stand-off from the surface, and hence have significant indirect
effects on the evaporation rate.
So everybody is at least a little right, tra-lu-la-ray.
Your original design may have been improved by, instead of monitoring
direct evaporation from the saucers, monitoring the quantity of water
lapped from the saucers by both shaded and unshaded dogs in the noonday
sun, as watched by English observers.
|
|
| | From: | jimp at specsol-spam-sux.com | | Subject: | Re: Global dimming masking greenhouse effect | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:54:14 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
| In sci.physics Edward Green wrote:
> jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
> > The more I thought about it, the more problems I came up with.
> <...>
> The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the claim
> "solar irradiance increases evaporation rate under otherwise fixed
> conditions" is true, but not because of photoejection of individual
> molecules. It's true because solar irradiance of the liquid surface
> will preferentially deposit energy near the surface, raising the
> temperature of same relative to a fixed nominal system temperature.
You don't get grant funding for statements like "when the sun is bright,
it is hotter and water evaporates faster when it is warm".
Reminds of years ago when the Section Head called me into his office to
give me a huge research report written by another section to evaluate.
He almost lost it when I told him the only point of the whole thing was
the plot of y=mx+b is a straight line...
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
|
|
| | From: | Dan Bloomquist | | Subject: | Re: Global dimming masking greenhouse effect | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:08:14 GMT |
|
|
|
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Edward Green wrote:
>
>>jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
>
>
>>>The more I thought about it, the more problems I came up with.
>>
>
>><...>
>
>
>>The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the claim
>>"solar irradiance increases evaporation rate under otherwise fixed
>>conditions" is true, but not because of photoejection of individual
>>molecules. It's true because solar irradiance of the liquid surface
>>will preferentially deposit energy near the surface, raising the
>>temperature of same relative to a fixed nominal system temperature.
>
>
> You don't get grant funding for statements like "when the sun is bright,
> it is hotter and water evaporates faster when it is warm".
>
> Reminds of years ago when the Section Head called me into his office to
> give me a huge research report written by another section to evaluate.
>
> He almost lost it when I told him the only point of the whole thing was
> the plot of y=mx+b is a straight line...
>
At the least, you guys are willing to do the science, (should I say, 'at
the most'?) There is a thread on related groups, 'But There Ain't No
Global Warming'. It seems that a fiction called "State of Fear" is the
definitive truth...
Some seem to think that NOAA data is a farce. Is it? Science should be
immune to human nature if properly applied...
Best, Dan.
P.S. I've added the four other groups. In spite of the litter it will
attract, the issue is well worth addressing. Plonk them if it is too much...
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
|
|
| | From: | Retief | | Subject: | Re: Global dimming masking greenhouse effect | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 16:48:49 GMT |
|
|
| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Some seem to think that NOAA data is a farce. Is it? Science should be
> immune to human nature if properly applied...
The NOAA/NCDC data is what it is... The data doesn't lie (too much),
but the people using the data are a different matter...
BTW, if I were to take the NCDC data at face value, I would discover
that the station in Traverse City, MI, didn't see rain for about a
year (in the 1961-1990 collection, at about 1990)...
And let these researchers not forget to examine carefully the records
and logs of EVERY STATION, before drawing conclusions based on those
data. Changes in station personnel, reading times, changes in station
location, and the reported instrument bias (net positive) all come
into play:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/daily/README
Retief
--
Use no 'z's (at all) to reply -- I hate spammers
|
|
|
