It’s not just waste heat. All energy consumed by humans ends up as heat.
Comment on Week in review 2/03/12 by Edim
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Michael
‘Outsider’ sounds like a rhetorical device, not science.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Cees de Valk
Anastassia,
your last reply refers to a lengthy physical explanation of what the source term should be. That is all fine, but if you follow my derivation, you see that your explanation only gives an approximate expression, whereas the one I gave is very simple (just the geometry of the hyperbolic equation), and gives an exact result and not an approximation; the change in time of N_v/N_d along the characteristic CAN BE NOTHING ELSE then w times the vertical gradient in N_v/N_d: the latter is already fixed because of saturation, so it is there already and you just read it off along the characteristic. This argument supersedes all other considerations you have come up with. So it is really very simple.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Cees de Valk
Try to follow my comment Nick (Feb 4 2:28 above) and you see that something almost equal to Anastassia’s result follows exactly as a consequence of mass balance and the assumption of saturation (which fixes the vertical gradient of N_v/N_d). So her result is correct to a very good approximation and is easily made exact. You just can’t avoid this result.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
“As I said above, total air rather than dry air is used because we assume a priori that total air conforms to hydrostatic equilibrium.”
I can see no relevance in that. You don’t need to use either pressure or gravity to get the missing term, which is velocity gradient. But the point is that total air isn’t non-condensable. In fact, it gains or loses exactly as much mass as the vapor component, ie S.
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Cees de Valk
And as you see, I used your suggestion for looking at N_v/N_d :)
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Cees de Valk
Her S is just a term which can be used to match the mass balance to the constraint imposed by saturation, which fixes the vertical gradient of N_v/N_d. That is all there is to it.
↧
Comment on Week in review 2/03/12 by Jim Cripwell
Steven, you write “we have measured the radiative forcing many times. The accuracy of the measurements are WHY things like satillite sensors work.”
I love the way you make this sort of statement, and provide no details of how this was done, what the reference is, or what the results were. What was the value of the radiaitve forcing and the accuracy of the measurement?
↧
Comment on Week in review 2/03/12 by David Wojick
Doesn’t some of it end up as motion?
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
Cees,
Yes, your <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/#comment-291811" rel="nofollow">formula</a> is exactly the same as the ,a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/#comment-291818">one I derived</a>. It is a consequence of conservation of mass, and could have been derived directly from 32 and 33 by dropping horizontal components.
The issue is, having simplified 32/33 to 34, you can't use both. In fluids, if viscosity is unimportant, you can solve with the Euler equations rather than Navier-Stokes, dropping the viscous stress term. But you can't use both.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
<a href="//judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/#comment-291818″" rel="nofollow">one I derived.</a> - broken lik fixed
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
Cees,
The derivation, in better notation, direct from 32/33 was given in my <a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/C9174/2010/acpd-10-C9174-2010.pdf" rel="nofollow">first comment</a> in the ACPD discussion. It's Eq 5.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Cees de Valk
and I am not saying this to suggest that there is anything trivial about your results: on the contrary, I think it is profound and original and may have a big impact on a lot of issues in weather and climate; having looked at it in a little more depth only makes it better. So thank you for posting and discussing it here.
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by kim
That’s all there is to know, and all ye need to know.
=======
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Pekka Pirilä
On this point I disagree totally.
The paper makes an explicit error in the derivation of formulas (36) and (37) when it requires that the exact continuity equation and the approximate continuity equation are simultaneously valid. That requirement leads here to results that are fully spurious.
There’s nothing of interest left, when the erroneous derivation is removed.
↧
Comment on Week in review 2/03/12 by manacker
Steven Mosher
On a regional level waste heat can be important, but as global contributor to warming its not.
As an absolute contributor to the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” it is “not important”, as you write.
But I think it could make a perceptible difference to this indicator by distorting the local or regional temperature readings, as you indicate (e.g. part of the UHI distortion)..
And I think that may be what John Plodinec was getting at.
Max
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Edim
Where’s the beef?
↧
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by Wagathon
Sensible about sensitivity too. I am sypathetic to those who are driven to by a desire save the world but my empathy makes we want to first solve their problems.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by David Springer
“Well big dave – really – which part of slyvan fundamentalist did you take seriously?”
Coming from a delicate flower such as yourself… pretty much all of it.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by A fan of *MORE* discourse
LOL … Google Ngrams (which conveniently tracks phrase usage) plainly shows us the ‘Hockey-Stick’ acceleration of mathematical naturality since 1900.
Conclusion Prior to (say) 1960, texts on (thermo)dynamics and/or fluid mechanics in general didn’t discuss notions of mathematical naturality. So it’s time to upgrade!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=8800ff&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
