**Tags**

In reviewing the points of controversy raised here in Miskolczi’s controversial theory of (almost constant) greenhouse effect and the impossibility of runaway global warming, I thought about the role of convection.

Convection is a heat engine. A heat engine is defined as a device that converts heat energy into mechanical energy. In this model, the circulation of the air is analogous to a Stirling or other simple heat engine, producing work as the result of temperature differential between the earths surface and the edge of the atmosphere. The diurnal cycle plays a large (but not complete) role in the operation of the engine, creating a cycle of heating and cooling air packets.

Keep in mind convection is not the only thermal process in the atmosphere. While convection is necessary, the following does not represent the totality of the energy conservation relationships governing the atmospheric system. As Miskolczi says:

If you like to put that way, the su=3olr/2, su=2eu, su=ed/a and

su=olr/f relations are for convective-radiative-hydrostatic equilibrium

global average atmosphere which is in total energy balance.

Treating convection as a heat engine is not a new idea and a research field has developed in the area of thermodynamics of natural convections (e.g. Renno). I don’t think it has been discussed in relation to Miskolczi’s theory though, and below I go through some of the ways it could potentially apply. I refer to comments by Nick Stokes and Pat Cassen in previous simple descriptions of parts of the theory.

Below is a schematic of natural convection as a heat engine. The source of heat at the surface, cooling and work output is shown. Wikipedia has a good article on different types of heat engines, and natural convection is probably most similar to the Brayton cycle (adiabatic/isobaric/adiabatic/isobaric).

**Figure: The model of convection as a heat engine, much like a Stirling or Brayton engine, work is done by across a temperature potential. In the atmosphere, absorbed heat performs atmospheric work of raising packets of air to the colder upper atmosphere Eu.**

Points of comparison with Miskolczi’s theory are as follows:

## Conservation of Energy

M’s equation (6) is F = (Su-F) + (Ed-Eu) where F is the solar isolation on the surface, Ed and Eu are down and up atmospheric radiation, and Su is the radiation up from the surface. This equation asserts the existence of an Su-OLR flux term that heats the

atmosphere, and the existence of the Ed-Eu flux term that heats the

surface.

If Ed-Eu can be equated with work done, and Su-F with internal energy, and F with heat added to the system, then the equation describes the first law of thermodynamics.

ΔQ = ΔU + ΔW

Pat Cassen expresses a concern here

Equation 7 expresses the balance of energy ofâ€¦what? I donâ€™t know.

M’s equation could describe the first law of thermodynamics relating conversions of energy from one form to another via mechanical work.

## The Virial Theorem

The virial theorem mentioned by Miskolczi relates kinetic and potential energy in gravitationally bounded systems to the proportion 2KE=PE. The natural convection engine could be analyzed for kinetic and potential energies, where the moving parts are the KE, and the potential energy is the gravitational field.

Here Pat Cassen also was concerned as:

I cannot figure out how Miskolczi is applying the virial theorem, or why it is necessary for any planetary atmosphere.

The virial theorem is applicable to convection — the atmospheric heat engine would not work if there was no gravitation. Air parcels could not rise without gravity.

## Kirchhoff’s law

Nick Stokes was concerned that he should:

use Kirchhoff properly, which he doesnâ€™t do (no mention of gas emissivity).

From Wikipedia, Kirchhoff’s law states the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity as at thermal equilibrium. However, the origin of the law is in the description of what was originally a mysterious process where an object in side a cavity achieved thermal equilibrium. Study of this leads to theories of black body radiation, and eventually to Planck’s and Einsteins treatment of radiation as quantized energy.

Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) in the atmosphere requires the

equality of the absorbed and emitted radiation, that Su=Sa=Sg (on the average) and the simulation results in the related figures demonstrate this relationship to hold.

Kirchhoff’s law can be related to thermal equilibrium via radiative (black body) emission, and this is the context I think M intends here. In the atmospheric heat engine, the temperature of the gas inside the engine at the lowest point in the cycle is equal to the temperature of the surface (i.e. isobaric).

## Optimal optical path

Pat Cassen also expressed concern at M’s radiative equilibrium equations showing that the system acts to optimize the conversion of solar energy into heat at the edge of the atmosphere Bo. Because of the cloudiness – the Earth-atmosphere system may convert Fo to OLR in such a way that the effective absorption coefficient is 1.

A heat engine is a also converter of solar energy into heat, which through M’s equations may be self-regulating. A self-regulating engine will not run faster (in this case due to solar energy constraints), or run slower (in order to utilize available energy). The Earth’s convection engine is currently at maximum greenhouse effect, and cannot be increased (the engine can’t run faster) or decreased (the engine can’t run slower) except through changes to the overall energy input to the system.

## Conclusions

This just sketches out a model for natural convection in the atmosphere. Contrasting the heat engine model with the ‘steel shell‘ model of Willis Eschenbach, and another model of greenhouse warming applied to ice beads called the solid-state greenhouse effect, would demonstrate different types of greenhouse effect.

Pat and Nick seem to be concerned with lack of good motivation for these relationships in the paper. At this stage, I can’t see that they constitute errors that undermine the theory.

It might be argued that it is the greenhouse effect that drives the atmospheric heat engine and not the other way around. Perhaps IR greenhouse helps get the engine started. If there was no atmospheric heat engine driving warm air packets into the upper atmosphere, the atmosphere would like as a stable layer on the surface. Heat would transfer by thermal conduction, and temperature would be driven by the coefficient of conductivity of the air. This is describing an inversion condition, an occasional but not widespread phenomenon.

The predictions of GCMs due to increased greenhouse gases shows increased heating in the troposphere, kind of like a temperature profile of inversion conditions. The measurements of actual air temperature are as predicted by Miskolczi’s theory: Douglass et al 2007 show increased surface temperatures, but little increase in tropospheric temperatures. I wonder if anyone has made the connection between the profile of GCM’s and inversion conditions. This suggests a major source of lack of realism in GCM’s is inadequate representation of convection processes.

Raven

said:David,

It appears realclimate is preparing for an attack on Miskolczi.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/climate-change-and-tropical-cyclones-yet-again/#comment-87299

Do you have any idea what mistakes Pierre could be referring to and whether they really invalidate the paper?

Raven

said:David,

It appears realclimate is preparing for an attack on Miskolczi.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/climate-change-and-tropical-cyclones-yet-again/#comment-87299

Do you have any idea what mistakes Pierre could be referring to and whether they really invalidate the paper?

admin

said:Hi Raven,

Yes, Ferenc sent me an email he got in that regard, and the two issues mentioned were the supposed misuse of Kirchhoff and the virial theorem we have talked about here. As you can see from the posts so-far I don’t think such issues invalidate it, and it is supported by much better fits to observations than competing models.

Based on my attempts to reproduce his derivations is that Miskolczi introduces a number of new concepts (e.g. Kirchhoff’s, virial) that he considers trivial and so he jumps over some steps. However they are there if you look. Look at M’s past papers and he has a strong background in atmospheric spectral analysis. Also, his relationships are in large part motivated by results of his line-by-line program HARTCODE and radiosonde observations, so he doesn’t approach primarily from the mechanistic angle.

Some at RC like to mock things they don’t agree with, hence the reference to the undergraduate exercise. I am still waiting for some disproof as I would like to resolve whether the theory is right or not.

admin

said:Hi Raven,

Yes, Ferenc sent me an email he got in that regard, and the two issues mentioned were the supposed misuse of Kirchhoff and the virial theorem we have talked about here. As you can see from the posts so-far I don’t think such issues invalidate it, and it is supported by much better fits to observations than competing models.

Based on my attempts to reproduce his derivations is that Miskolczi introduces a number of new concepts (e.g. Kirchhoff’s, virial) that he considers trivial and so he jumps over some steps. However they are there if you look. Look at M’s past papers and he has a strong background in atmospheric spectral analysis. Also, his relationships are in large part motivated by results of his line-by-line program HARTCODE and radiosonde observations, so he doesn’t approach primarily from the mechanistic angle.

Some at RC like to mock things they don’t agree with, hence the reference to the undergraduate exercise. I am still waiting for some disproof as I would like to resolve whether the theory is right or not.

admin

said:RealClimate spoiler…

admin

said:RealClimate spoiler…

Jan Pompe

said:Hi David,

Regarding this: “You can spot the error in the virial theorem because the dimensions aren’t right — he applies the theorem to energy fluxes, rather than energy,”

It touches on a concern I had here : ” He takes the internal kinetic energy to be represented by E_U (Is this valid? It is certainly related)”

Now I am not entirely comfortable with the way long term balance or equilibrium is used in energy balance models but if that’s the way the game is played who am I to argue. Therefor I have this question if we are playing the game that way then E_U and S_U are the values that we obtain in such a long term and global balance? If so does this not render time and area arbitrary and equal? Since we are talking about ratios of these values then time and area cancel and we are left with energy only, so it looks to me while it’s not particularly neat the flaw (if one insists it is a flaw) is not a fatal one.

Jan Pompe

said:Hi David,

Regarding this: “You can spot the error in the virial theorem because the dimensions arenâ€™t right â€” he applies the theorem to energy fluxes, rather than energy,”

It touches on a concern I had here : ” He takes the internal kinetic energy to be represented by E_U (Is this valid? It is certainly related)”

Now I am not entirely comfortable with the way long term balance or equilibrium is used in energy balance models but if that’s the way the game is played who am I to argue. Therefor I have this question if we are playing the game that way then E_U and S_U are the values that we obtain in such a long term and global balance? If so does this not render time and area arbitrary and equal? Since we are talking about ratios of these values then time and area cancel and we are left with energy only, so it looks to me while it’s not particularly neat the flaw (if one insists it is a flaw) is not a fatal one.

admin

said:Jan, He says (my emphasis added pp6-7)

Regarding the origin, Ue is more

closely relatedto the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, which – according to the virial theorem – in hydrostatic equilibrium balances the total gravitational potential energy. ToidentifyUe as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the equation must hold. Ue can alsobe relatedto Gn through the equation.admin

said:Jan, He says (my emphasis added pp6-7)

Regarding the origin, Ue is more

closely relatedto the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, which â€“ according to the virial theorem â€“ in hydrostatic equilibrium balances the total gravitational potential energy. ToidentifyUe as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the equation must hold. Ue can alsobe relatedto Gn through the equation.jae

said:“Perhaps IR greenhouse helps get the engine started. ”

IMHO, yes. It helps with thermalization of the other 98% of the atmosphere. Just the daily increase in internal energy of the surface and the gases in the atmosphere (i.e., kinetic energy) require most of the solar energy received each day. If you add the energy required for potential energy, all the energy from the Sun is “used up” each day. The radiative properties of GHGs just allow this to happen.

jae

said:“Perhaps IR greenhouse helps get the engine started. ”

IMHO, yes. It helps with thermalization of the other 98% of the atmosphere. Just the daily increase in internal energy of the surface and the gases in the atmosphere (i.e., kinetic energy) require most of the solar energy received each day. If you add the energy required for potential energy, all the energy from the Sun is “used up” each day. The radiative properties of GHGs just allow this to happen.

Jan Pompe

said:Hi Dave,

I don’t have any particular disagreement with the material expressed in the passage I’m jusst trying to bridge possible gaps in perception.

Jan Pompe

said:Hi Dave,

I don’t have any particular disagreement with the material expressed in the passage I’m jusst trying to bridge possible gaps in perception.

admin

said:Hi Jan, Thanks. My quote was to show agreement with your comment, saying even though a statement is not dimensionally strict, its not a flaw. Same goes with calling t4 temperature. Any reasonable person knows what he means. I think a physicist would grasp his intent right away.

admin

said:Hi Jan, Thanks. My quote was to show agreement with your comment, saying even though a statement is not dimensionally strict, its not a flaw. Same goes with calling t4 temperature. Any reasonable person knows what he means. I think a physicist would grasp his intent right away.

Jan Pompe

said:Hi David thanks for your response.

Problem is while I agree with: “Same goes with calling t^4 temperature. Any reasonable person knows what he means. I think a physicist would grasp his intent right away.”

I am equally sure that there will be some that will play on it given the chance. I have a question about the site; does it use tex, html or something else to render math symbols?

Jan Pompe

said:Hi David thanks for your response.

Problem is while I agree with: “Same goes with calling t^4 temperature. Any reasonable person knows what he means. I think a physicist would grasp his intent right away.”

I am equally sure that there will be some that will play on it given the chance. I have a question about the site; does it use tex, html or something else to render math symbols?

admin

said:Jan, I am just using html. I haven’t installed any math symbol packages.

admin

said:Jan, I am just using html. I haven’t installed any math symbol packages.

Nick Stokes

said:David,

Just a few points on your summary. You’ve listed the main points, but I don’t think you’ve captured the objections:

1. Conservation of Energy. To get equations of energy balance, you need to designate regions in space, and balance the flux of energy in and out (with internal energy, if any). M has just two regions, earth and atmosphere, and he balances correctly in eq (1) and (2). Then in Eq (7) (not 6) he comes up with a new equation. Of what region? No-one seems to know (Pat and I both asked). There doesn’t seem to be another one available. And the equation is quite strange. It is S_U−F0+E_D−E_U =F0=OLR

Normally, in such a balance, you’ll add fluxes crossing the same surface in the same direction, and subtract opposite flows. But S_U and E_D are opposite and added.

2. The virial theorem – well, this should just affirm the normal hydrostatic solution. But M has the bizarre statement “To identify E_U as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the E_u=S_u/2 equation must hold”. E_u is a flux, not an energy, so what does “identify” mean. Flux is a property of a cross-section, energy of a volume. You’ve suggested “Any reasonable person knows what he means”. Well, please do tell – why the riddles?

3. The Kirchhoff Law. Well, as I have said, it is mis-stated, speaking of extensive quantities (emittances etc) instead of intensive (emissivity). And it isn’t a slip – he actually does use it to make statements about emittances, which he claims are revolutionary.

Nick Stokes

said:David,

Just a few points on your summary. You’ve listed the main points, but I don’t think you’ve captured the objections:

1. Conservation of Energy. To get equations of energy balance, you need to designate regions in space, and balance the flux of energy in and out (with internal energy, if any). M has just two regions, earth and atmosphere, and he balances correctly in eq (1) and (2). Then in Eq (7) (not 6) he comes up with a new equation. Of what region? No-one seems to know (Pat and I both asked). There doesn’t seem to be another one available. And the equation is quite strange. It is S_Uâˆ’F0+E_Dâˆ’E_U =F0=OLR

Normally, in such a balance, you’ll add fluxes crossing the same surface in the same direction, and subtract opposite flows. But S_U and E_D are opposite and added.

2. The virial theorem – well, this should just affirm the normal hydrostatic solution. But M has the bizarre statement “To identify E_U as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the E_u=S_u/2 equation must hold”. E_u is a flux, not an energy, so what does “identify” mean. Flux is a property of a cross-section, energy of a volume. You’ve suggested “Any reasonable person knows what he means”. Well, please do tell – why the riddles?

3. The Kirchhoff Law. Well, as I have said, it is mis-stated, speaking of extensive quantities (emittances etc) instead of intensive (emissivity). And it isn’t a slip – he actually does use it to make statements about emittances, which he claims are revolutionary.

Jan Pompe

said:HI Nick,

I just want to address 3. for now

“Well, as I have said, it is mis-stated, speaking of extensive quantities (emittances etc) instead of intensive (emissivity). ”

Emissivity is an intensive quantity but so is temperature and it is not a constant neither is emissivity, you seem to think that it is. For many materials it’s dependant also on temperature. Maybe this article will help clarify this for you.

http://www.pyrometer.com/Tech/IRfindamentals.html

Jan Pompe

said:HI Nick,

I just want to address 3. for now

“Well, as I have said, it is mis-stated, speaking of extensive quantities (emittances etc) instead of intensive (emissivity). ”

Emissivity is an intensive quantity but so is temperature and it is not a constant neither is emissivity, you seem to think that it is. For many materials it’s dependant also on temperature. Maybe this article will help clarify this for you.

http://www.pyrometer.com/Tech/IRfindamentals.html

Nick Stokes

said:Jan, I didn’t say, and don’t believe, that emissivity has no variation with temperature.

Nick Stokes

said:Jan, I didn’t say, and don’t believe, that emissivity has no variation with temperature.

admin

said:Nick, thanks for the use of your comments in the post.

1. Eq 7 is an overall energy balance equation. I covers the entire atmospheric/surface region.

2. Reasonable people don’t normally have problems with shorthand expressions such as t4 as temperature (p12) which are common in science, especially with energy when area or time units cancel. The virial paragraph is another matter, and I agree the description is vague (but not necessarily wrong because of that).

3. I agree that the definition is not the same as the one in wikipedia, although I am not sure that the intent, being radiative equilibrium of bodies with different emissivities, is not the same. I think that the fact of radiative equilibrium and its importance as a central assumption is more important than whether it has been attributed correctly to Kirchhoff’s law or not (see recent post).

Appreciate your call for clarity though. Regards

admin

said:Nick, thanks for the use of your comments in the post.

1. Eq 7 is an overall energy balance equation. I covers the entire atmospheric/surface region.

2. Reasonable people don’t normally have problems with shorthand expressions such as t4 as temperature (p12) which are common in science, especially with energy when area or time units cancel. The virial paragraph is another matter, and I agree the description is vague (but not necessarily wrong because of that).

3. I agree that the definition is not the same as the one in wikipedia, although I am not sure that the intent, being radiative equilibrium of bodies with different emissivities, is not the same. I think that the fact of radiative equilibrium and its importance as a central assumption is more important than whether it has been attributed correctly to Kirchhoff’s law or not (see recent post).

Appreciate your call for clarity though. Regards

Neal J. King

said:I have recently been looking at Miskolczi’s paper, and the same points that bothered Pat Cassen bothered me. Specifically:

a) One of the essential new insights that Miskolczi wants to bring into the discussion is the application of the virial theorem. However, his actual discussion of it is very short and cryptic. In particular, he relates the upward flux from the atmosphere to the atmospheric kinetic energy, and the surface upward flux to the atmospheric potential energy. What does a flux have to do with an energy?

b) I am not even sure that it makes sense to apply the virial theorem: This is not a body of gas held together by gravitation, but a gas of molecules bound to a huge solid body by gravitation, essentially ignoring each other for gravitational purposes. If the temperature were to drop to near-zero Kelvin, the kinetic energy of the atmosphere would drop to near-zero, but the gravitational potential energy would not change much: the molecules would be sitting on the ground, a few kilometers lower than before, but still thousands of kilometers from the center of the Earth; so if the virial theorem were true earlier, it could not be true now (at near-zero). So what has changed to make it inapplicable? My answer is that it applied neither before nor afterwards.

c) Equation (7): You have provided an attempt to explain this, and Cassen and others have found it unconvincing. So do I, and for the following reason: Looking at M’s original figure 1, all of the fluxes are defined and located. On this basis, you can use conservation of energy to look at what is crossing a border, or what is happening (net) with respect to a box. Based on this, the equations (1), (2) and (3) can easily be derived and understood. Equation (7) cannot be. M’s explanation above (7) is simply an assertion, without any clear basis in either figure 1 or in equations (5) and (6). I don’t think this is legitimate: If it were really based on CoE, it should be evident from figure 1.

d) Equation (8): As a consequence of (7), M derives the relation S_u = (3/2)OLR. However, as a universal relationship, this seems highly suspicious. Let’s take the special case that the atmosphere is totally transparent to all radiation. Then, if we look at figure 1, we would set all the arrows that terminate in/from the atmosphere to zero. When we do that, we find that OLR = S_u = F_0: the radiation comes in, is absorbed only by the ground, and is emitted only to space. So S_u = (1)OLR, not (3/2)OLR. So how did the firm factor of (3/2) disappear? Why doesn’t this general result apply in the trivial case?

e) Energy minimum principle: Maybe there is a special meaning to this term with which I am unfamiliar, but I am unaware of any reason to believe that any such principle “requires the most efficient disposal of the thermal energy of the atmosphere”; nor do I have any clear of idea of what “the most efficient disposal” would mean.

For these reasons, I find Miskolczi’s paper cryptic at best; and I’m inclined not to give it the benefit of the doubt. Probably point d) is the most critical, because I believe it is from this point that M is deriving a constraint on the greenhouse effect. I find the derivation of this point unconvincing at best, and the result itself untrue.

Neal J. King

said:I have recently been looking at Miskolczi’s paper, and the same points that bothered Pat Cassen bothered me. Specifically:

a) One of the essential new insights that Miskolczi wants to bring into the discussion is the application of the virial theorem. However, his actual discussion of it is very short and cryptic. In particular, he relates the upward flux from the atmosphere to the atmospheric kinetic energy, and the surface upward flux to the atmospheric potential energy. What does a flux have to do with an energy?

b) I am not even sure that it makes sense to apply the virial theorem: This is not a body of gas held together by gravitation, but a gas of molecules bound to a huge solid body by gravitation, essentially ignoring each other for gravitational purposes. If the temperature were to drop to near-zero Kelvin, the kinetic energy of the atmosphere would drop to near-zero, but the gravitational potential energy would not change much: the molecules would be sitting on the ground, a few kilometers lower than before, but still thousands of kilometers from the center of the Earth; so if the virial theorem were true earlier, it could not be true now (at near-zero). So what has changed to make it inapplicable? My answer is that it applied neither before nor afterwards.

c) Equation (7): You have provided an attempt to explain this, and Cassen and others have found it unconvincing. So do I, and for the following reason: Looking at M’s original figure 1, all of the fluxes are defined and located. On this basis, you can use conservation of energy to look at what is crossing a border, or what is happening (net) with respect to a box. Based on this, the equations (1), (2) and (3) can easily be derived and understood. Equation (7) cannot be. M’s explanation above (7) is simply an assertion, without any clear basis in either figure 1 or in equations (5) and (6). I don’t think this is legitimate: If it were really based on CoE, it should be evident from figure 1.

d) Equation (8): As a consequence of (7), M derives the relation S_u = (3/2)OLR. However, as a universal relationship, this seems highly suspicious. Let’s take the special case that the atmosphere is totally transparent to all radiation. Then, if we look at figure 1, we would set all the arrows that terminate in/from the atmosphere to zero. When we do that, we find that OLR = S_u = F_0: the radiation comes in, is absorbed only by the ground, and is emitted only to space. So S_u = (1)OLR, not (3/2)OLR. So how did the firm factor of (3/2) disappear? Why doesn’t this general result apply in the trivial case?

e) Energy minimum principle: Maybe there is a special meaning to this term with which I am unfamiliar, but I am unaware of any reason to believe that any such principle “requires the most efficient disposal of the thermal energy of the atmosphere”; nor do I have any clear of idea of what “the most efficient disposal” would mean.

For these reasons, I find Miskolczi’s paper cryptic at best; and I’m inclined not to give it the benefit of the doubt. Probably point d) is the most critical, because I believe it is from this point that M is deriving a constraint on the greenhouse effect. I find the derivation of this point unconvincing at best, and the result itself untrue.

stas peterson

said:RE: #16 Neal King c)

If you are saying that, then you are also logically saying that the greenhouse effect DOESN’T EXIST. Are you sure you want to say that, as well?

Turning to a more general basis of the commentary.

I see lots of nitpicks, about whether or not this or that theoretical relationship necessarily holds; or is well established. If this were only a pure Theoretical discussion in the abstract, that might be a tenable position. But it is not.

Miskolczi is an experimentalist first, last, and always. Only then is he a shirt-sleeve, pragmatic Theoretician. He is searching for a theory to fit the experimental facts and observations that he already possesses.

So he proposes a theory that makes reasonable but not proven theory extensions, but that fits the experimental facts. I suspect that he makes some logical extensions on trained Physics instinct and inspiration; rather than a pure theoretical basis.

Quibbling over the “Rigor” of his presentation is certainly allowable; but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. As a hobby, I read important papers in their originals. Some are someaht hazy. The ‘Rigor’ polishers arer always available to polish the breakthroughs.

Improving the ‘as received’ models outlandish assumptions, to include an Air that actually touches the ground (and ocean) gives the air access to an infinite green house pool. Conventional theory says it should cause a runaway, and yet it doesn’t. M observes this, and shows why there must be a physics limitation.

Air in contact with lots of liquid water allows for conduction and convection as an energy mover. Its a way to mix energy throughout the troposphere. Conduction and convention exists.

Any model that can’t allow the mechanism of conduction, (no contact), and convection,(nothing to convect), must be erroneous. (Fudge factoring doesn’t count)

None of his assertions are outright wrong. But the obverse does not follow, unless the counter theory also fits experiment.

Appealing to direct experiment, he confirms the leaps of theory. For any Scientist, the most important thing is the following:

The ultimate reality is what experiment says it is.

M’s calculated surface temperature matches the actual measurements of Earth’s surface temperature much better than the current theory.

M’s theory matches the satellite measurements of the OLR.

M has predicted, a decrease in atmospheric Relative Humidity, as a counter force to rising non-H2O GHGs. Lindzen and Spencer both observed it, but couldn’t account for it. M confirms the validity of the experimental ‘IRIS’ effect data. He also and explains it.

Theory predicts a hot spot in the tropic troposphere, under increased GHG. Experiment doesn’t reveal it. M’s theory says it can’t exist, countering present theory and explains why. Experiment as ever, confirms M.

The change in the solar flux over the 20th century accounts for 80-90% of the GH effect. About 10-15% from more intense radiation, and 70-80% from modulated cloud formation by the solar wind vs CR flux.

The combination of increased CO2,and Ch4, and N20,and CFCs,less the decrease in O3 puts you, dimensionally in the range of what M suggests is the effect for an increase in GHG, given the near Saturation of GHGs, in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Mr. D. Stockwell, I salute you for this cogent analysis and sponsoring this fine abstract discussion.

stas peterson

said:RE: #16 Neal King c)

If you are saying that, then you are also logically saying that the greenhouse effect DOESN’T EXIST. Are you sure you want to say that, as well?

Turning to a more general basis of the commentary.

I see lots of nitpicks, about whether or not this or that theoretical relationship necessarily holds; or is well established. If this were only a pure Theoretical discussion in the abstract, that might be a tenable position. But it is not.

Miskolczi is an experimentalist first, last, and always. Only then is he a shirt-sleeve, pragmatic Theoretician. He is searching for a theory to fit the experimental facts and observations that he already possesses.

So he proposes a theory that makes reasonable but not proven theory extensions, but that fits the experimental facts. I suspect that he makes some logical extensions on trained Physics instinct and inspiration; rather than a pure theoretical basis.

Quibbling over the “Rigor” of his presentation is certainly allowable; but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. As a hobby, I read important papers in their originals. Some are someaht hazy. The ‘Rigor’ polishers arer always available to polish the breakthroughs.

Improving the ‘as received’ models outlandish assumptions, to include an Air that actually touches the ground (and ocean) gives the air access to an infinite green house pool. Conventional theory says it should cause a runaway, and yet it doesn’t. M observes this, and shows why there must be a physics limitation.

Air in contact with lots of liquid water allows for conduction and convection as an energy mover. Its a way to mix energy throughout the troposphere. Conduction and convention exists.

Any model that can’t allow the mechanism of conduction, (no contact), and convection,(nothing to convect), must be erroneous. (Fudge factoring doesn’t count)

None of his assertions are outright wrong. But the obverse does not follow, unless the counter theory also fits experiment.

Appealing to direct experiment, he confirms the leaps of theory. For any Scientist, the most important thing is the following:

The ultimate reality is what experiment says it is.

M’s calculated surface temperature matches the actual measurements of Earth’s surface temperature much better than the current theory.

M’s theory matches the satellite measurements of the OLR.

M has predicted, a decrease in atmospheric Relative Humidity, as a counter force to rising non-H2O GHGs. Lindzen and Spencer both observed it, but couldn’t account for it. M confirms the validity of the experimental ‘IRIS’ effect data. He also and explains it.

Theory predicts a hot spot in the tropic troposphere, under increased GHG. Experiment doesn’t reveal it. M’s theory says it can’t exist, countering present theory and explains why. Experiment as ever, confirms M.

The change in the solar flux over the 20th century accounts for 80-90% of the GH effect. About 10-15% from more intense radiation, and 70-80% from modulated cloud formation by the solar wind vs CR flux.

The combination of increased CO2,and Ch4, and N20,and CFCs,less the decrease in O3 puts you, dimensionally in the range of what M suggests is the effect for an increase in GHG, given the near Saturation of GHGs, in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Mr. D. Stockwell, I salute you for this cogent analysis and sponsoring this fine abstract discussion.

Anonymous

said:Stas, Thanks. You seem well read on these issues. Your input would be appreciated on future papers we examine. Cheers

David Stockwell

said:Stas, Thanks. You seem well read on these issues. Your input would be appreciated on future papers we examine. Cheers

Neal J. King

said:#17, stas peterson:

– I don’t see any connection between what I’m saying in my item c) and any assertion of the non-existence of the GHE. Feel free to expound your point more fully.

– The issue, as has been discussed in this and other threads, is not a matter of mathematical rigor. It is a matter of logical coherence: Does the argument sense? Intuitive insights are one thing, but logical non sequiturs are something else entirely. Several of us are having trouble following his steps – and that’s not a good sign for what is supposed to be a theoretical explanation. An explanation is supposed to make sense, not just fit the curve over the points.

Neal J. King

said:#17, stas peterson:

– I don’t see any connection between what I’m saying in my item c) and any assertion of the non-existence of the GHE. Feel free to expound your point more fully.

– The issue, as has been discussed in this and other threads, is not a matter of mathematical rigor. It is a matter of logical coherence: Does the argument sense? Intuitive insights are one thing, but logical non sequiturs are something else entirely. Several of us are having trouble following his steps – and that’s not a good sign for what is supposed to be a theoretical explanation. An explanation is supposed to make sense, not just fit the curve over the points.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#16 Neal King, c,d

Eq. (7) simply states, that the maximum greenhouse effect (surface temperature) in a PARTLY CLOUDY absorbing planetary atmosphere is Su=(3/2)OLR. In this case the total Fo may contribute to the increase of the surface temperature. The radiative effect of a partial cloud cover may compensate for the loss by the transmitted flux density from the surface. I am not saying, that this is a universal relationship, this is probably valid for the Earth and for similat planets. Vithout an atmosphere there is no cloud cover and Eq.(7), (8) and (9) are irrelevant. Also note, that this relationship -unlike the Kirchhoff’s law – supposed to hold only for the global average atmosphere….

In the Martian atmosphere, where there is no cloud cover the related energy balance equation is Eq. (10): Su+St/2=(3/2) OLR or in similar

form to Eq. (7): Su-(OLR-St)+Ed-Eu=OLR-St

that is St can not contribute to the greenhouse effect, it is lost to space…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#16 Neal King, c,d

Eq. (7) simply states, that the maximum greenhouse effect (surface temperature) in a PARTLY CLOUDY absorbing planetary atmosphere is Su=(3/2)OLR. In this case the total Fo may contribute to the increase of the surface temperature. The radiative effect of a partial cloud cover may compensate for the loss by the transmitted flux density from the surface. I am not saying, that this is a universal relationship, this is probably valid for the Earth and for similat planets. Vithout an atmosphere there is no cloud cover and Eq.(7), (8) and (9) are irrelevant. Also note, that this relationship -unlike the Kirchhoff’s law – supposed to hold only for the global average atmosphere….

In the Martian atmosphere, where there is no cloud cover the related energy balance equation is Eq. (10): Su+St/2=(3/2) OLR or in similar

form to Eq. (7): Su-(OLR-St)+Ed-Eu=OLR-St

that is St can not contribute to the greenhouse effect, it is lost to space…

Neal J. King

said:#20, Ferenc M. Miskolczi:

Glad you’ve returned to the blog. You should have received by now my revised set of questions; which are also posted here: http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/m_questions-4.pdf. Several parties, aside from myself, have expressed an interest is seeing your response to these questions.

The issue on your eqn.(7) is how to interpret it in terms of the sum of fluxes into/out-of a definite entity, which is how a conservation-of-energy statement should work. I don’t see what this has to do with the factor of (3/2): Are you thinking about your eqn.(8) instead?

Neal J. King

said:#20, Ferenc M. Miskolczi:

Glad you’ve returned to the blog. You should have received by now my revised set of questions; which are also posted here: http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/m_questions-4.pdf. Several parties, aside from myself, have expressed an interest is seeing your response to these questions.

The issue on your eqn.(7) is how to interpret it in terms of the sum of fluxes into/out-of a definite entity, which is how a conservation-of-energy statement should work. I don’t see what this has to do with the factor of (3/2): Are you thinking about your eqn.(8) instead?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:For a discussion of some of the many errors in Miskolczi’s paper, see:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/Miskolczi.html

There’s also equation four, which says essentially that the sum of the sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere and the nonradiative fluxes from the ground into the atmosphere must equal the downward radiation from the atmosphere — which strikes me as an interesting fantasy, but not something that could be explained with any known physics. How does the atmosphere know that the heating it’s experiencing comes from solar absorption and nonradiative fluxes and not from longwave absorption? Is the atmosphere both sentient and psychic? (Twilight Zone theme up…)

Barton Paul Levenson

said:For a discussion of some of the many errors in Miskolczi’s paper, see:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/Miskolczi.html

There’s also equation four, which says essentially that the sum of the sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere and the nonradiative fluxes from the ground into the atmosphere must equal the downward radiation from the atmosphere — which strikes me as an interesting fantasy, but not something that could be explained with any known physics. How does the atmosphere know that the heating it’s experiencing comes from solar absorption and nonradiative fluxes and not from longwave absorption? Is the atmosphere both sentient and psychic? (Twilight Zone theme up…)

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#21 Neal King

In case you accept the Su=Ed/A relationship, then you accept Eq. (6). According to the standard explanations the Su-OLR term ‘greenhouse factor’ is the trapped radiation in the atmosphere (see Ramanathan, WMO etc.). Eq. (6) also tells me that there is an Ed-Eu amount of flux density ‘trapped’ in the surface. Eq. (7) expresses the fact that this two flux density terms in a partly cloudy atmosphere may be supported by Fo. In case this is true, the

consequence of Eq. (7) is the Su=(3/2)OLR

relationship, that is Eq. (8). I take Eqs. (7) as

an energy conservation type equation for the

involved flux densities in atmospheres with

partial cloud cover. The basic assumption here is that the entropy production of the Fo -> OLR conversion can be maximized by a partial cloud cover. (Note, that a partial cloud cover may simultaneously control Fo and OLR by diffrent microphysical processes.)

Or, you are welcome to come up with any other

theoretical explanation. The Su=(3/2)OLR relationship for the global average flux densities is an empirical fact, and it is going to stay like

that until somebody challenges my LBL computations. (The situation is similat for the

other three new empirical relationships: Su=Ed/A, Su=2Eu and Su=OLR/f .)

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#21 Neal King

In case you accept the Su=Ed/A relationship, then you accept Eq. (6). According to the standard explanations the Su-OLR term ‘greenhouse factor’ is the trapped radiation in the atmosphere (see Ramanathan, WMO etc.). Eq. (6) also tells me that there is an Ed-Eu amount of flux density ‘trapped’ in the surface. Eq. (7) expresses the fact that this two flux density terms in a partly cloudy atmosphere may be supported by Fo. In case this is true, the

consequence of Eq. (7) is the Su=(3/2)OLR

relationship, that is Eq. (8). I take Eqs. (7) as

an energy conservation type equation for the

involved flux densities in atmospheres with

partial cloud cover. The basic assumption here is that the entropy production of the Fo -> OLR conversion can be maximized by a partial cloud cover. (Note, that a partial cloud cover may simultaneously control Fo and OLR by diffrent microphysical processes.)

Or, you are welcome to come up with any other

theoretical explanation. The Su=(3/2)OLR relationship for the global average flux densities is an empirical fact, and it is going to stay like

that until somebody challenges my LBL computations. (The situation is similat for the

other three new empirical relationships: Su=Ed/A, Su=2Eu and Su=OLR/f .)

Franko

said:To : Barton Paul Levenson

Somehow, your post, (time stamped , before Miskolczi), appeared after Miskolczi posted his.

“Is the atmosphere both sentient and psychic? (Twilight Zone theme up…)” Are you holographically projecting, born again nutbar, into this universe ?

If you want to be treated with civility, be born again, but not as a nutbar.

Franko

said:To : Barton Paul Levenson

Somehow, your post, (time stamped , before Miskolczi), appeared after Miskolczi posted his.

“Is the atmosphere both sentient and psychic? (Twilight Zone theme upâ€¦)” Are you holographically projecting, born again nutbar, into this universe ?

If you want to be treated with civility, be born again, but not as a nutbar.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko,

Is there something factually incorrect in anything I said?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko,

Is there something factually incorrect in anything I said?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#22 Barton Paul Levenson

Eq. (4) states that Su=Ed/A. Your interpretation somehow does not fit…

I never thought the personality of the amosphere, but I am sure it knows the physics better than you and all Physics Nobel Laurate together…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#22 Barton Paul Levenson

Eq. (4) states that Su=Ed/A. Your interpretation somehow does not fit…

I never thought the personality of the amosphere, but I am sure it knows the physics better than you and all Physics Nobel Laurate together…

Jan Pompe

said:BPL # 25

“Is there something factually incorrect in anything I said?”

Yes

“There’s also equation four, which says essentially that the sum of the sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere and the nonradiative fluxes from the ground into the atmosphere must equal the downward radiation from the atmosphere”

It is an interesting fanasy

Eqn 4

AA=SUA=SU(1-TA)=ED</

looks more like it’s saying the radiative flux absorbed is equal to the radiative flux from the surface multiplied by an absorption coefficient. This is the difference between surface radiated flux and the flux absorbed and because the the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium the temperature is not changing the down flux is equal to the absorbed flux as it must be due kirchoff’s law. The non-radiative fluxes at thermal equilibrium will sum to zero too.

It’s a simple application of the second law of thermodynamics.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL # 25

“Is there something factually incorrect in anything I said?”

Yes

“Thereâ€™s also equation four, which says essentially that the sum of the sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere and the nonradiative fluxes from the ground into the atmosphere must equal the downward radiation from the atmosphere”

It is an interesting fanasy

Eqn 4

AA=SUA=SU(1-TA)=ED</

looks more like it’s saying the radiative flux absorbed is equal to the radiative flux from the surface multiplied by an absorption coefficient. This is the difference between surface radiated flux and the flux absorbed and because the the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium the temperature is not changing the down flux is equal to the absorbed flux as it must be due kirchoff’s law. The non-radiative fluxes at thermal equilibrium will sum to zero too.

It’s a simple application of the second law of thermodynamics.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Okay, let’s try this again.

Miskolczi’s equation (4) is:

AA = SU A = SU(1-TA) = ED

where

AA = Amount of flux Absorbed by the Atmosphere

SU = Upward blackbody longwave flux = sigma Ts^4

A = “flux absorptance”

TA = atmospheric flux transmittance

ED = longwave flux downward

These are simple identity definitions. I do wonder why Miskolczi used the upward blackbody longwave for the amount emitted by the ground when he should have used the upward graybody longwave — he’s allegedly doing a gray model, after all. Apparently he forgot the emissivity term, which is about 0.95 for longwave for the Earth. One more hint that he doesn’t really understand the distinction between emission and emissivity.

Note that he seems to be saying the downward flux from the atmosphere (ED) must be the same as the total amount of longwave absorbed by the atmosphere (AA).

The total inputs to Miskolczi’s atmosphere are AA, K, P and F, which respectively stand for the longwave input from the ground, the nonradiative input (latent and sensible heat) from the ground, the geothermal input from the ground, and the solar input. P is negligible and I don’t know why he even puts it in here unless he’s just trying to be complete. He’s saying, therefore, if you stay with conservation of energy, that

AA + K + F = EU + ED

Now, from Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance, the values of AA, K, and F would be about 350, 102, and 67 watts per square meter, respectively, for a total of 519 watts per square meter. EU and ED would be 195 and 324, total 519, so the equation balances.

But for Miskolczi’s equation (4) to be true, since AA = ED, we have

K + F = EU

That is, the sum of the nonradiative fluxes and the absorbed sunlight should equal the atmospheric longwave emitted upward. For K&T97, we have 102 + 67 = 235, or 169 = 235, which is an equation that will get you a big red X from the teacher.

There is no reason K + F should equal EU, therefore Miskolczi’s equation (4) is wrong. Q.E.D.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Okay, let’s try this again.

Miskolczi’s equation (4) is:

AA = SU A = SU(1-TA) = ED

where

AA = Amount of flux Absorbed by the Atmosphere

SU = Upward blackbody longwave flux = sigma Ts^4

A = â€œflux absorptanceâ€

TA = atmospheric flux transmittance

ED = longwave flux downward

These are simple identity definitions. I do wonder why Miskolczi used the upward blackbody longwave for the amount emitted by the ground when he should have used the upward graybody longwave â€” heâ€™s allegedly doing a gray model, after all. Apparently he forgot the emissivity term, which is about 0.95 for longwave for the Earth. One more hint that he doesnâ€™t really understand the distinction between emission and emissivity.

Note that he seems to be saying the downward flux from the atmosphere (ED) must be the same as the total amount of longwave absorbed by the atmosphere (AA).

The total inputs to Miskolcziâ€™s atmosphere are AA, K, P and F, which respectively stand for the longwave input from the ground, the nonradiative input (latent and sensible heat) from the ground, the geothermal input from the ground, and the solar input. P is negligible and I donâ€™t know why he even puts it in here unless heâ€™s just trying to be complete. Heâ€™s saying, therefore, if you stay with conservation of energy, that

AA + K + F = EU + ED

Now, from Kiehl and Trenberthâ€™s 1997 atmospheric energy balance, the values of AA, K, and F would be about 350, 102, and 67 watts per square meter, respectively, for a total of 519 watts per square meter. EU and ED would be 195 and 324, total 519, so the equation balances.

But for Miskolcziâ€™s equation (4) to be true, since AA = ED, we have

K + F = EU

That is, the sum of the nonradiative fluxes and the absorbed sunlight should equal the atmospheric longwave emitted upward. For K&T97, we have 102 + 67 = 235, or 169 = 235, which is an equation that will get you a big red X from the teacher.

There is no reason K + F should equal EU, therefore Miskolcziâ€™s equation (4) is wrong. Q.E.D.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Whoops! I got the total TOA emission upwards (235 W/m^2) confused with the emission from the atmosphere (195)! EU should be only 195 Watts per square meter, so Miskolczi’s equation works out to 102 + 67 = 195, or 169 = 195! Miskolczi is only off by 26 W/m^2, not 66! Stupid, careless mistake on my part. Sorry, everybody!

Of course, he’s still wrong and his equation is still unphysical and still implies sentience and almost omniscient perception by the atmosphere.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Whoops! I got the total TOA emission upwards (235 W/m^2) confused with the emission from the atmosphere (195)! EU should be only 195 Watts per square meter, so Miskolczi’s equation works out to 102 + 67 = 195, or 169 = 195! Miskolczi is only off by 26 W/m^2, not 66! Stupid, careless mistake on my part. Sorry, everybody!

Of course, he’s still wrong and his equation is still unphysical and still implies sentience and almost omniscient perception by the atmosphere.

Jan Pompe

said:Paul,

I’ll only respond to this just to show how far off beam you are so perhaps you’ll go back and take another look.

” EU should be only 195 Watts per square meter, so Miskolczi’s equation works out to 102 + 67 = 195, or 169 = 195! Miskolczi is only off by 26 W/m^2, not 66! ”

Here he is referring to to K & T 1997 where the upward surface radiation is 390 W/m^2 and the radiation from the atmosphere is 165 W/m^2 + 30 W/m^2 from clouds = 195 W/m^2 total. His own analysis from the TIGR profiles (not shown in the paper) give similar results.

Just as a hint take a look at his figure 2 he uses both black body and grey body source and there is little difference, but the grey (open circles) gives the better (more accurate) result.

I hope this helps as there is more that you seem to have misunderstood.

Jan Pompe

said:Paul,

I’ll only respond to this just to show how far off beam you are so perhaps you’ll go back and take another look.

” EU should be only 195 Watts per square meter, so Miskolcziâ€™s equation works out to 102 + 67 = 195, or 169 = 195! Miskolczi is only off by 26 W/m^2, not 66! ”

Here he is referring to to K & T 1997 where the upward surface radiation is 390 W/m^2 and the radiation from the atmosphere is 165 W/m^2 + 30 W/m^2 from clouds = 195 W/m^2 total. His own analysis from the TIGR profiles (not shown in the paper) give similar results.

Just as a hint take a look at his figure 2 he uses both black body and grey body source and there is little difference, but the grey (open circles) gives the better (more accurate) result.

I hope this helps as there is more that you seem to have misunderstood.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#29 Barton Paul Levenson

I suggest you to read a bit more, think, ask questions, think again and only argue when you understand clealy what you say. People in a hurry tend to do mistakes…

On the other hand, when I was ordered by NASA

to withdraw the M&M 2004 paper where the new results on the atmospheric Kirchhoff law was first presented, they wrote this:

…..It may be too late, but I would like to withdraw the paper from this journal and submit it for publication in JGR or J climate. I have confirmed here that the expectation is that we publish NASA funded research in the major US journals. The work you have here is of high caliber and needs the exposure to the broadest possible audience. So please contact the journal and ask them to withdraw the paper….

This much about the Kirchhoff law. You are just wasting the time of many people.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#29 Barton Paul Levenson

I suggest you to read a bit more, think, ask questions, think again and only argue when you understand clealy what you say. People in a hurry tend to do mistakes…

On the other hand, when I was ordered by NASA

to withdraw the M&M 2004 paper where the new results on the atmospheric Kirchhoff law was first presented, they wrote this:

…..It may be too late, but I would like to withdraw the paper from this journal and submit it for publication in JGR or J climate. I have confirmed here that the expectation is that we publish NASA funded research in the major US journals. The work you have here is of high caliber and needs the exposure to the broadest possible audience. So please contact the journal and ask them to withdraw the paper….

This much about the Kirchhoff law. You are just wasting the time of many people.

Nick Stokes

said:Ferenc,

OK, to save us all time, would you like to state, carefully and quantitatively, just what you think Kirchhoff’s law does say?

Nick Stokes

said:Ferenc,

OK, to save us all time, would you like to state, carefully and quantitatively, just what you think Kirchhoff’s law does say?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#32 Nick Stokes

Somewhere I have read that the Kirchhoff law is common sense…

Although they blocked my comments on the RC

blog, for about five month I am expecting some explanations (regarding the Kirchhoff law) from the radiative transfer gurus like ‘raypierre’ and ‘gavin’ . Why do not you wait for their definition?

On my part, I spelled it out in my paper. On the other hand, If I remember correctly, you do not accept Fig. 1 and Eq. (4) therefore your question seems to be pointless.

I am more interested to the oppinion of those ‘distinguished’ scientists who are able to compute the correct IR optical thickness of the atmosphere and verify (or falsify) my results (here I think of the people behind the GENLEN, FASCODE, LBLTRM, MODTRAN etc.).

Unfortunately they are silent.

One more thing. You also have trouble with Eq.(7). If you will become satisfied with the Su=Ed/A relationship you may look at my comment to Neal King (#23). This might help a bit. Neal got it right, Eq. (7) is the condition that the global average atmosphere seems to obey and set or limit the total IR optical depth to 1.87 .

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#32 Nick Stokes

Somewhere I have read that the Kirchhoff law is common sense…

Although they blocked my comments on the RC

blog, for about five month I am expecting some explanations (regarding the Kirchhoff law) from the radiative transfer gurus like ‘raypierre’ and ‘gavin’ . Why do not you wait for their definition?

On my part, I spelled it out in my paper. On the other hand, If I remember correctly, you do not accept Fig. 1 and Eq. (4) therefore your question seems to be pointless.

I am more interested to the oppinion of those ‘distinguished’ scientists who are able to compute the correct IR optical thickness of the atmosphere and verify (or falsify) my results (here I think of the people behind the GENLEN, FASCODE, LBLTRM, MODTRAN etc.).

Unfortunately they are silent.

One more thing. You also have trouble with Eq.(7). If you will become satisfied with the Su=Ed/A relationship you may look at my comment to Neal King (#23). This might help a bit. Neal got it right, Eq. (7) is the condition that the global average atmosphere seems to obey and set or limit the total IR optical depth to 1.87 .

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Ferencz M. writes:

Well, when I compute it I get 2.07. When Hart (1978) computed it in his famous paper he got 2.49. Both figures differ significantly from your figure (and from each other!).

What makes you think a gray model takes precedence over actual radiative transfer anyway? You know, understanding that greenhouse gases absorb in certain wavelengths and not others, and how the absorption is affected by pressure and temperature and so on, were real advances in knowledge. You seem to be trying to compete with Svante Arrhenius.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Ferencz M. writes:

Well, when I compute it I get 2.07. When Hart (1978) computed it in his famous paper he got 2.49. Both figures differ significantly from your figure (and from each other!).

What makes you think a gray model takes precedence over actual radiative transfer anyway? You know, understanding that greenhouse gases absorb in certain wavelengths and not others, and how the absorption is affected by pressure and temperature and so on, were real advances in knowledge. You seem to be trying to compete with Svante Arrhenius.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Wait! When I look at Arrhenius’s paper, even he divided the electromagnetic spectrum up into bands based on the imperfect knowledge of greenhouse gas absorptivities at the time! My last sentence should have read “You seem to be trying to compete with John Tyndal.”

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Wait! When I look at Arrhenius’s paper, even he divided the electromagnetic spectrum up into bands based on the imperfect knowledge of greenhouse gas absorptivities at the time! My last sentence should have read “You seem to be trying to compete with John Tyndal.”

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM says I’m wasting people’s time by talking about Kirchhoff’s Law. Let’s see if this is a valid point or not. Here is the definition of Kirchhoff’s Law from FM’s paper:

Now, here’s the definition from Henderson-Sellers and Robinson (1986):

Now, here’s the definition from Petty (2006):

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM says I’m wasting people’s time by talking about Kirchhoff’s Law. Let’s see if this is a valid point or not. Here is the definition of Kirchhoff’s Law from FM’s paper:

Now, here’s the definition from Henderson-Sellers and Robinson (1986):

Now, here’s the definition from Petty (2006):

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Sorry for the failed HTML above. I forgot to include that darned ampersand in front of half my lambdas. Ditto the continuation of the blockquote for the last paragraph, which should have been in normal text.

Mr. Watt, is it possible that you could find a way to include a PREVIEW function for posts in this blog?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Sorry for the failed HTML above. I forgot to include that darned ampersand in front of half my lambdas. Ditto the continuation of the blockquote for the last paragraph, which should have been in normal text.

Mr. Watt, is it possible that you could find a way to include a PREVIEW function for posts in this blog?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:WATTS! Sorry about that.

See what I mean? A preview function would really, really help, especially with us impulsive guys.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:WATTS! Sorry about that.

See what I mean? A preview function would really, really help, especially with us impulsive guys.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

I hope this helps as there is more that you seem to have misunderstood.

I didn’t misunderstand basic algebra, pal. The equation K + F = EU (or K + F + P = EU if you want to be pedantic about it) is a straightforward conclusion from Miskolczi’s equation (4) and the definitions he gives the terms.

If it isn’t, please show me where I got the algebra or the definitions wrong.

And please give me an explanation for why the emission upward from the atmosphere should have to equal the nonradiative fluxes and sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere. Why not the longwave absorbed by the atmosphere? How does the atmosphere know where the heating is coming from?

Look, this really isn’t hard to understand. FM’s equation 4 leads to a result which is unphysical, as the peer-reviewers would put it. And if equation 4 is wrong, so are all the results in the paper that depend on equation 4.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

I hope this helps as there is more that you seem to have misunderstood.

I didn’t misunderstand basic algebra, pal. The equation K + F = EU (or K + F + P = EU if you want to be pedantic about it) is a straightforward conclusion from Miskolczi’s equation (4) and the definitions he gives the terms.

If it isn’t, please show me where I got the algebra or the definitions wrong.

And please give me an explanation for why the emission upward from the atmosphere should have to equal the nonradiative fluxes and sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere. Why not the longwave absorbed by the atmosphere? How does the atmosphere know where the heating is coming from?

Look, this really isn’t hard to understand. FM’s equation 4 leads to a result which is unphysical, as the peer-reviewers would put it. And if equation 4 is wrong, so are all the results in the paper that depend on equation 4.

Nick Stokes

said:$32 Ferenc Miskolczi

I expect that raypierre and co would offer the standard statement of Kirchhoff’s Law, which for gases is that for volumes under conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium, emissivity equals absorptivity. These are material property coefficients. Theoretical derivation of the law is not easy; K himself published several versions, and even Hilbert got involved.

So is Eq 4 really a statement of K’s law, or is it, as your text seems to suggest, a statement of heat flux balance? But you already have a heat flux balance for the surface (Eq 2).

Your statement of Kirchhoff’s Law has been widely criticised. The normal response in these circumstances is to cite some authority for it.

Nick Stokes

said:$32 Ferenc Miskolczi

I expect that raypierre and co would offer the standard statement of Kirchhoff’s Law, which for gases is that for volumes under conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium, emissivity equals absorptivity. These are material property coefficients. Theoretical derivation of the law is not easy; K himself published several versions, and even Hilbert got involved.

So is Eq 4 really a statement of K’s law, or is it, as your text seems to suggest, a statement of heat flux balance? But you already have a heat flux balance for the surface (Eq 2).

Your statement of Kirchhoff’s Law has been widely criticised. The normal response in these circumstances is to cite some authority for it.

Jan Pompe

said:Levenson

A_A = E_D

Kirchoff’s law. Simple: If the atmosphere or part of it is in

thermalequilibrium it’s temperature isn’t changing therefore it’s internal energy isn’t changing. Therefore it emits precisely the energy it absorbs. Therefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zero (as do all other fluxes into and out of the parcel). A_A is the rate of absorption E_D is the rate of emission. These can’t be the same unless the total emissivity and total absorptivity across the spectrum are equal. Which brings us to the standard classical Kirchoff’s law: At thermal equilibrium the emissivity of a body equals it’s absorptivity.So now the total energy going into the atmosphere

E_T = A_A + K + P + F

total energy leaving the atmosphere is

E_D + E_U = E_T

(remember the temperature isn’t changing and E_D = A_A so combining the two above we are left with

E_D = K + F + P

So now you know why, if E_D = A_A , K + P + F is all that’s left to provide E_U and the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium.

Atmosphere doesn’t need to be psychic it just has to obey the first law of thermodynamics.Jan Pompe

said:Levenson

A_A = E_D

Kirchoff’s law. Simple: If the atmosphere or part of it is in

thermalequilibrium it’s temperature isn’t changing therefore it’s internal energy isn’t changing. Therefore it emits precisely the energy it absorbs. Therefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zero (as do all other fluxes into and out of the parcel). A_A is the rate of absorption E_D is the rate of emission. These can’t be the same unless the total emissivity and total absorptivity across the spectrum are equal. Which brings us to the standard classical Kirchoff’s law: At thermal equilibrium the emissivity of a body equals it’s absorptivity.So now the total energy going into the atmosphere

E_T = A_A + K + P + F

total energy leaving the atmosphere is

E_D + E_U = E_T

(remember the temperature isn’t changing and E_D = A_A so combining the two above we are left with

E_D = K + F + P

So now you know why, if E_D = A_A , K + P + F is all that’s left to provide E_U and the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium.

Atmosphere doesn’t need to be psychic it just has to obey the first law of thermodynamics.Jan Pompe

said:BPL

One thing I will agree on I need that preview too.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL

One thing I will agree on I need that preview too.

Nick Stokes

said:#41 Jan

“Therefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zero (as do all other fluxes into and out of the parcel).”Not clear what that means. The sum of all fluxes is zero. Nothing can be deduced about the sum of subsets.” A_A is the rate of absorption E_D is the rate of emission. “No, E_D is the fraction emitted downwards. Emission goes both ways.“These can’t be the same unless the total emissivity and total absorptivity across the spectrum are equal.”I can’t see how that follows at all.Kirchhoff’s Law does not depend on thermal equilibrium. It depends only on local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), which in turn only requires that the gas is not too rarefied.

Nick Stokes

said:#41 Jan

“Therefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zero (as do all other fluxes into and out of the parcel).”Not clear what that means. The sum of all fluxes is zero. Nothing can be deduced about the sum of subsets.” A_A is the rate of absorption E_D is the rate of emission. “No, E_D is the fraction emitted downwards. Emission goes both ways.“These canâ€™t be the same unless the total emissivity and total absorptivity across the spectrum are equal.”I can’t see how that follows at all.Kirchhoff’s Law does not depend on thermal equilibrium. It depends only on local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), which in turn only requires that the gas is not too rarefied.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick

“Not clear what that means.”

Still confused about it Nick. After all this time?

Just means energy cannot be created or destroyed and absent some nuclear energy/mass exchanges if a body is at a constant temperature it’s internal energy is not changing all fluxes

into and out ofa body must sum to zero.Jan Pompe

said:Nick

“Not clear what that means.”

Still confused about it Nick. After all this time?

Just means energy cannot be created or destroyed and absent some nuclear energy/mass exchanges if a body is at a constant temperature it’s internal energy is not changing all fluxes

into and out ofa body must sum to zero.Anonymous

said:OK: See what I mean? A preview function would really, really help, especially with us impulsive guys.

davids

said:OK: See what I mean? A preview function would really, really help, especially with us impulsive guys.

Nick Stokes

said:#44 Jan

It’s not clear because it’s contradictory. If there are other fluxes, as said in brackets, then you lose the basis for saying

“Therefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zero”Nick Stokes

said:#44 Jan

It’s not clear because it’s contradictory. If there are other fluxes, as said in brackets, then you lose the basis for saying

“Therefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zero”Jan Pompe

said:Nick #46

“It’s not clear because it’s contradictory. If there are other fluxes, as said in brackets, then you lose the basis for saying “Therefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zero””

I don’t see why Nick. if you have a body in thermal equilibrium heat transport by contact conduction is zero too. Subject to an even older law: Newton’s law of cooling dT/dt = -κ(T-T_a). Kirchoff’s law is for purely radiative transport therefore I mention the other flux (F & P ar radiative too) in brackets to remind you that it is zero too. Of course if T_a > T(_s) then the sign changes and dT/dt has a +ve slope.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #46

“Itâ€™s not clear because itâ€™s contradictory. If there are other fluxes, as said in brackets, then you lose the basis for saying â€œTherefore the rate of emission + rate of absorption sums to zeroâ€”

I don’t see why Nick. if you have a body in thermal equilibrium heat transport by contact conduction is zero too. Subject to an even older law: Newton’s law of cooling dT/dt = -κ(T-T_a). Kirchoff’s law is for purely radiative transport therefore I mention the other flux (F & P ar radiative too) in brackets to remind you that it is zero too. Of course if T_a > T(_s) then the sign changes and dT/dt has a +ve slope.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Hey, Nick, thanks for getting my back. :)

Jan Pompe: If the nonradiative fluxes into an atmosphere (sensible + latent) heat and the absorption of solar energy by the atmosphere must equal the energy the atmosphere emits upward — what causes that? Why doesn’t the longwave heating from the planet below matter as well? How does the atmosphere know that heating is from nonradiative flux or solar absorption and not from longwave absorption? What distinguishes the two? (This should be good.)

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Hey, Nick, thanks for getting my back. :)

Jan Pompe: If the nonradiative fluxes into an atmosphere (sensible + latent) heat and the absorption of solar energy by the atmosphere must equal the energy the atmosphere emits upward — what causes that? Why doesn’t the longwave heating from the planet below matter as well? How does the atmosphere know that heating is from nonradiative flux or solar absorption and not from longwave absorption? What distinguishes the two? (This should be good.)

Barton Paul Levenson

said:P.S. Thanks for the preview function! It helps a lot.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:P.S. Thanks for the preview function! It helps a lot.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #48

What is good is imputing sentience to the atmosphere. It’s something my patients might do.

If there are ten horses and three cows in a field and the three cows wander off what does the field have left?

When you understand the answer and why the field doesn’t need to “know” where the animals or come from or even what they are to contain them to this you’ll begin to understand the equations.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #48

What is good is imputing sentience to the atmosphere. It’s something my patients might do.

If there are ten horses and three cows in a field and the three cows wander off what does the field have left?

When you understand the answer and why the field doesn’t need to “know” where the animals or come from or even what they are to contain them to this you’ll begin to understand the equations.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#34 Barton Paul Levenson

This is wrong. Without saying that what kind of RT model you (or Hart) is using and what type of atmosphere is involved nobody should compare computed (LBL) global average IR optical depths.

It also seems to be a problem, that you do not understand what ‘gray’ model means.

Sometimes Nick also confuses this term.

In case you have a fully validated LBL code at hand and we agree upon a global average atmosphere, let us compare the total IR optical depth openly and in detail. I can produce the results in five minutes with HARTCODE.

To demonstrate why these things are important, and why you shold not bring in the Kiehl-Trenberth 97 radiation budget as an argument let me show you an example. According to K&T97 the clear sky transmitted flux density of their modified USST-76 atmosphere is 99 Wm-2(page 206). For the same atmosphere HARTCODE gives about 10 Wm-2 less transmitted flux density. This difference results in large errors in the IR optical depth. Apparently they narrow-band Malkmus RT model is not appropriate for comparisons with LBL codes. Their Modified USST-76 atmosphere (with about 1.2 prcm h2o in it) also not compatible with my global average atmosphere (see Fig. 5) . Therefore, there is no merit in comparing the flux density terms with K&T97, or your model or Hart’s model.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#34 Barton Paul Levenson

This is wrong. Without saying that what kind of RT model you (or Hart) is using and what type of atmosphere is involved nobody should compare computed (LBL) global average IR optical depths.

It also seems to be a problem, that you do not understand what ‘gray’ model means.

Sometimes Nick also confuses this term.

In case you have a fully validated LBL code at hand and we agree upon a global average atmosphere, let us compare the total IR optical depth openly and in detail. I can produce the results in five minutes with HARTCODE.

To demonstrate why these things are important, and why you shold not bring in the Kiehl-Trenberth 97 radiation budget as an argument let me show you an example. According to K&T97 the clear sky transmitted flux density of their modified USST-76 atmosphere is 99 Wm-2(page 206). For the same atmosphere HARTCODE gives about 10 Wm-2 less transmitted flux density. This difference results in large errors in the IR optical depth. Apparently they narrow-band Malkmus RT model is not appropriate for comparisons with LBL codes. Their Modified USST-76 atmosphere (with about 1.2 prcm h2o in it) also not compatible with my global average atmosphere (see Fig. 5) . Therefore, there is no merit in comparing the flux density terms with K&T97, or your model or Hart’s model.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#39 Barton Paul Levenson

I hope you are not a peer-reviewer…I have my own distinct view of their generous work.

Now you say that the atmosphere is doing unphysical things? I have just got a direct experimental verification of Eq. (4) from Netherland…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#39 Barton Paul Levenson

I hope you are not a peer-reviewer…I have my own distinct view of their generous work.

Now you say that the atmosphere is doing unphysical things? I have just got a direct experimental verification of Eq. (4) from Netherland…

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #52

“I have just got a direct experimental verification of Eq. (4) from Netherland…”

Given the evidence in your paper that AA = EE I’m not surprised but is this going to be published?

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #52

“I have just got a direct experimental verification of Eq. (4) from Netherlandâ€¦”

Given the evidence in your paper that AA = EE I’m not surprised but is this going to be published?

Jan Pompe

said:David,

The preview shows that subscripting works but it doesn’t appear in the submitted item that way.

Just letting you know in case you don’t already

Jan Pompe

said:David,

The preview shows that subscripting works but it doesn’t appear in the submitted item that way.

Just letting you know in case you don’t already

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#53 Jan Pompe

In it present form it looks like an internal communication…I do not know the fate of

those measurements….

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#53 Jan Pompe

In it present form it looks like an internal communication…I do not know the fate of

those measurements….

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc M. Miskolczi #55

“In it present form it looks like an internal communication”

Thanks for forwarding the note to me. I would just like to confirm for other readers here that it is indeed independent experimental support for the results you obtained using HARTCODE (Fig 2) and Eqn 4.

I hope he intends publishing it – at the very least as a letter.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc M. Miskolczi #55

“In it present form it looks like an internal communication”

Thanks for forwarding the note to me. I would just like to confirm for other readers here that it is indeed independent experimental support for the results you obtained using HARTCODE (Fig 2) and Eqn 4.

I hope he intends publishing it – at the very least as a letter.

admin

said:“indeed independent experimental support for the results you obtained using HARTCODE (Fig 2) and Eqn 4.”

Exciting news indeed! We need more inspired experimentalists to test theories.

admin

said:“indeed independent experimental support for the results you obtained using HARTCODE (Fig 2) and Eqn 4.”

Exciting news indeed! We need more inspired experimentalists to test theories.

Alex Harvey

said:#52 Ferenc M. Miskolczi

I too am excited. Is there any chance we could get more information about this experiment?

Alex Harvey

said:#52 Ferenc M. Miskolczi

I too am excited. Is there any chance we could get more information about this experiment?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:Alex Harvey // Sep 7, 2008 at 9:52 am

Alex, I can send you more details on the measurements via e-mail…Just send me an e-mail to fmiskolczi@cox.net

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:Alex Harvey // Sep 7, 2008 at 9:52 am

Alex, I can send you more details on the measurements via e-mail…Just send me an e-mail to fmiskolczi@cox.net

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Ferencz Miskolczi writes:

It generally means you’re treating the atmosphere (or another body) as having the same absorptivity/emissivity across the EM spectrum, instead of varying with wavelength the way real gas absorptivity/emissivity does.

I’ve been working with gray models since 1978, which you can confirm by giving Michael Hart a call. Most “gray models” are actually semigray, with a different figure for solar (UV + visible + near IR) and terrestrial (thermal IR) wavelength/frequency/wavenumber ranges.

For confirmation of my claim, you could try looking at the semigray model I developed on my web site to illustrate how the greenhouse effect works. Of course, unlike you but like everybody else in the field, I get no results which indicate that Earth’s IR optical depth is somehow fixed at 1.87.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Ferencz Miskolczi writes:

It generally means you’re treating the atmosphere (or another body) as having the same absorptivity/emissivity across the EM spectrum, instead of varying with wavelength the way real gas absorptivity/emissivity does.

I’ve been working with gray models since 1978, which you can confirm by giving Michael Hart a call. Most “gray models” are actually semigray, with a different figure for solar (UV + visible + near IR) and terrestrial (thermal IR) wavelength/frequency/wavenumber ranges.

For confirmation of my claim, you could try looking at the semigray model I developed on my web site to illustrate how the greenhouse effect works. Of course, unlike you but like everybody else in the field, I get no results which indicate that Earth’s IR optical depth is somehow fixed at 1.87.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#60 Barton Paul Levenson

Seems you misunderstand me. You wrote, that I am using a ‘gray’ model. I am saying that I computed the real IR atmospheric flux optical depth by an LBL code.

Here you must explain why do you think that my optical depth of 1.87 is ‘gray’ (ie. was obtained by the assumption that the absorbing material has a uniform average absorption coefficient). As far as I see I did not do this kind of assumption.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#60 Barton Paul Levenson

Seems you misunderstand me. You wrote, that I am using a ‘gray’ model. I am saying that I computed the real IR atmospheric flux optical depth by an LBL code.

Here you must explain why do you think that my optical depth of 1.87 is ‘gray’ (ie. was obtained by the assumption that the absorbing material has a uniform average absorption coefficient). As far as I see I did not do this kind of assumption.

Sadun Kal

said:So what’s going on? Can everybody here please publish all they know about everything somewhere? Or at least sum up the latest news in a less technical language and make it available in a PDF file or something? Am I wrong to assume that this discussion is very important?

Sadun Kal

said:So what’s going on? Can everybody here please publish all they know about everything somewhere? Or at least sum up the latest news in a less technical language and make it available in a PDF file or something? Am I wrong to assume that this discussion is very important?

admin

said:Blogs are where its all happenin’ man 8)

admin

said:Blogs are where its all happenin’ man 8)

Ken Gregory

said:Jan Pompe // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm #41

You said:

“(remember the temperature isn’t changing and E_D = A_A so combining the two above we are left with

E_D = K + F + P”

It think this was a typo. When I combine the equations I get E_u = K + F + P

which is Miskolczi equation (5)

Ken Gregory

said:Jan Pompe // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm #41

You said:

“(remember the temperature isnâ€™t changing and E_D = A_A so combining the two above we are left with

E_D = K + F + P”

It think this was a typo. When I combine the equations I get E_u = K + F + P

which is Miskolczi equation (5)

Ken Gregory

said:Ferenc, equations 1 thru 6 applies to all planetary atmospheres. Equation 7 applies only to Earth type atmospheres, where there are oceans and a partial cloud cover. It leads to equation 8, S_u = 3OLR/2.

You then give equation 9 which is the general solution, which applies to both Earth and Mars. For Earth, T_A = 1/6, or E_D = 5S_T. Sure enough, substituting this into equation 9 does give equation 8, the Earth case.

In post #23 above, you say “The Su=(3/2)OLR relationship for the global average flux densities is an empirical fact.”

On the website “Developments in greenhouse theory” you/Zagoni show a graph of 3OLR/2 verses S_u with r=0.968 for the Earth’s atmosphere.

But after equation 8 you say “Eq (8) … does not account for the fact that the atmosphere is gravitationally bounded”.

So why do you say that? After all, equation 8 is experimentally verified for the Earth, and I think the atmosphere is gravitationally bounded.

Also, I didn’t see 3OLR/2 vs S_u graph in the paper. I should think this is the critical graph in support of equation 8. Equation 7 then seems to be the equation required to lead to the empirical result of equation 8. Is this a fair statement?

To get equation 9, you implement the virial term S_v = S_T/2 – E_D/10.

Please explain how you get this equation from the virial theoreum E_u = S_u/2.

Ken Gregory

said:Ferenc, equations 1 thru 6 applies to all planetary atmospheres. Equation 7 applies only to Earth type atmospheres, where there are oceans and a partial cloud cover. It leads to equation 8, S_u = 3OLR/2.

You then give equation 9 which is the general solution, which applies to both Earth and Mars. For Earth, T_A = 1/6, or E_D = 5S_T. Sure enough, substituting this into equation 9 does give equation 8, the Earth case.

In post #23 above, you say “The Su=(3/2)OLR relationship for the global average flux densities is an empirical fact.”

On the website “Developments in greenhouse theory” you/Zagoni show a graph of 3OLR/2 verses S_u with r=0.968 for the Earth’s atmosphere.

But after equation 8 you say “Eq (8) … does not account for the fact that the atmosphere is gravitationally bounded”.

So why do you say that? After all, equation 8 is experimentally verified for the Earth, and I think the atmosphere is gravitationally bounded.

Also, I didn’t see 3OLR/2 vs S_u graph in the paper. I should think this is the critical graph in support of equation 8. Equation 7 then seems to be the equation required to lead to the empirical result of equation 8. Is this a fair statement?

To get equation 9, you implement the virial term S_v = S_T/2 – E_D/10.

Please explain how you get this equation from the virial theoreum E_u = S_u/2.

Jan Pompe

said:Ken Gregory #64

“It think this was a typo. When I combine the equations I get E_u = K + F + P”

you are absolutely right thank you.

Jan Pompe

said:Ken Gregory #64

“It think this was a typo. When I combine the equations I get E_u = K + F + P”

you are absolutely right thank you.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM,

It doesn’t matter that you used an LBL code to find the IR optical depth of Earth’s atmosphere. However you got the figure, it’s still a semigray model if you’re using one figure for the IR optical depth of Earth’s atmosphere. What you did was like what atmosphere physicists do to develop band models, only you’ve only got one band. Which is the definition of a semigray model.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM,

It doesn’t matter that you used an LBL code to find the IR optical depth of Earth’s atmosphere. However you got the figure, it’s still a semigray model if you’re using one figure for the IR optical depth of Earth’s atmosphere. What you did was like what atmosphere physicists do to develop band models, only you’ve only got one band. Which is the definition of a semigray model.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton Paul Levenson # 67

There is a world of difference between calculating an optical depth by taking a line by line integral of the spectrum and simply assuming a grey model.

The different values obtained by the different method/model should have been clue enough.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton Paul Levenson # 67

There is a world of difference between calculating an optical depth by taking a line by line integral of the spectrum and simply assuming a grey model.

The different values obtained by the different method/model should have been clue enough.

Steve Short

said:To my mind, the biggest problem with the GCMs upon which the orthodox AGW is based is that, despite the overall rigor of their framework and the wealth of mechanistic detail they attempt to incorporate there are still large lags remaining in terms of ‘ground truthing’ the empirical realities of the major relationships which they incorporate.

There are plenty of warnings this is the case e.g. they difficulties with prediction of low level cloud densities and low altitude relative humidity profiles, problems with sub-tropical convective heat transfer etc.

To take a simple outstanding example: – the surface reflectance of the oceans. It is a fact that the surface blooming of cyanobacteria produces significant increases in reflectance in the near infrared. Satellite algorithms often use water leaving radiance around 750 nm for cloud detection and flags have to be established in those algorithms to distinguish the relatively high albedo due to cyanobacterial blooms from that due to clouds.

Another a related example – the relative humidity of the atmosphere over the oceans up to about 2 km. It is a fact that the surface blooming of cyanobacteria produces significant increases in coverage of the water surface by mono- and multilayers of organic compounds which in turn significantly retards evaporation rate for any given SST.

The blooming of cyanobacteria is a function of SST, atmospheric CO2 and to a lesser extent other subtle drivers such as available iron, silica and nitrogeneous nutrient species.

There is a wealth of satellite-based sensing date to show that the broadscale (over 1000s of km2) activity of oceanic cyanobacteria is very likely to have a profound effect on oceanic micro- and hence macro- weather development. Even just simple calculations of the associated sea-to-air sulfur flux that is likely to occur over such blooms produced startling inferences.

In my view, due to their relative complexity, the development of GCMs has moved too far ahead of the need for adequate empirical ground-truthing of their component mechanisms – their principal relationships if you will. Given the complexity of the Earth’s biogeosphere, the ubiquitity of liquid water and water vapor and the ubiquity of weather-modifying life forms in the surface layers of the ocean, more ‘ground-truthing’ is a priority.

These are the cracks in the edifice of global climate modeling into which Miskolczi (and Spencer, Lindzen etc) fit and is why I like Miskolczi’s approach of establishing the basic empirical truth of relationships such as the Su=(3/2)OLR relationship.

Steve Short

said:To my mind, the biggest problem with the GCMs upon which the orthodox AGW is based is that, despite the overall rigor of their framework and the wealth of mechanistic detail they attempt to incorporate there are still large lags remaining in terms of ‘ground truthing’ the empirical realities of the major relationships which they incorporate.

There are plenty of warnings this is the case e.g. they difficulties with prediction of low level cloud densities and low altitude relative humidity profiles, problems with sub-tropical convective heat transfer etc.

To take a simple outstanding example: – the surface reflectance of the oceans. It is a fact that the surface blooming of cyanobacteria produces significant increases in reflectance in the near infrared. Satellite algorithms often use water leaving radiance around 750 nm for cloud detection and flags have to be established in those algorithms to distinguish the relatively high albedo due to cyanobacterial blooms from that due to clouds.

Another a related example – the relative humidity of the atmosphere over the oceans up to about 2 km. It is a fact that the surface blooming of cyanobacteria produces significant increases in coverage of the water surface by mono- and multilayers of organic compounds which in turn significantly retards evaporation rate for any given SST.

The blooming of cyanobacteria is a function of SST, atmospheric CO2 and to a lesser extent other subtle drivers such as available iron, silica and nitrogeneous nutrient species.

There is a wealth of satellite-based sensing date to show that the broadscale (over 1000s of km2) activity of oceanic cyanobacteria is very likely to have a profound effect on oceanic micro- and hence macro- weather development. Even just simple calculations of the associated sea-to-air sulfur flux that is likely to occur over such blooms produced startling inferences.

In my view, due to their relative complexity, the development of GCMs has moved too far ahead of the need for adequate empirical ground-truthing of their component mechanisms – their principal relationships if you will. Given the complexity of the Earth’s biogeosphere, the ubiquitity of liquid water and water vapor and the ubiquity of weather-modifying life forms in the surface layers of the ocean, more ‘ground-truthing’ is a priority.

These are the cracks in the edifice of global climate modeling into which Miskolczi (and Spencer, Lindzen etc) fit and is why I like Miskolczi’s approach of establishing the basic empirical truth of relationships such as the Su=(3/2)OLR relationship.

Alex Harvey

said:Ferenc M. Miskolczi # 59

Thank you. The result from the Netherlands certainly looks like independent experimental confirmation of the AA = ED relation / Figure. 2 to me. I, too, hope this gets published in a scientific jounral.

Alex Harvey

said:Ferenc M. Miskolczi # 59

Thank you. The result from the Netherlands certainly looks like independent experimental confirmation of the AA = ED relation / Figure. 2 to me. I, too, hope this gets published in a scientific jounral.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

It doesn’t matter how you got the figure. If you use one figure for the IR optical thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere, it is by definition a gray or semigray model. How clearly do I have to spell this out?

If FM’s model is not gray or semigray, where do bands show up in his equations?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

It doesn’t matter how you got the figure. If you use one figure for the IR optical thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere, it is by definition a gray or semigray model. How clearly do I have to spell this out?

If FM’s model is not gray or semigray, where do bands show up in his equations?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Steve Short writes:

Except that it’s not based on GCMs. When Svante Arrhenius published the first estimate of global warming under doubled carbon dioxide, he did not use a computer model. Neither did Challenger in 1938.

The theory of AGW is based on known facts about radiation physics. Put more of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and, all else being equal, the ground must get warmer. The GCMs are only used to try and quantify the effect and make projections (note — not

predictions).Barton Paul Levenson

said:Steve Short writes:

Except that it’s not based on GCMs. When Svante Arrhenius published the first estimate of global warming under doubled carbon dioxide, he did not use a computer model. Neither did Challenger in 1938.

The theory of AGW is based on known facts about radiation physics. Put more of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and, all else being equal, the ground must get warmer. The GCMs are only used to try and quantify the effect and make projections (note — not

predictions).Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#71 Barton Paul Levenson

Are you serious? We are talking about total (spectrally integrated) transmitted flux density by the atmosphere. This is a single number.

Does this mean that the atmosphere is gray?

Seems you did not follow my suggestion under my comment #31….

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#71 Barton Paul Levenson

Are you serious? We are talking about total (spectrally integrated) transmitted flux density by the atmosphere. This is a single number.

Does this mean that the atmosphere is gray?

Seems you did not follow my suggestion under my comment #31….

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#72 Barton Paul Levenson

The Su=Ed/A, Su=(3/2)OLR, Su=2Eu, Su=OLR/f relations, and the equilibrium IR optical depth of 1.87 do not seem to be very well known facts for the GCM people…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#72 Barton Paul Levenson

The Su=Ed/A, Su=(3/2)OLR, Su=2Eu, Su=OLR/f relations, and the equilibrium IR optical depth of 1.87 do not seem to be very well known facts for the GCM people…

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #71

“How clearly do I have to spell this out?”

It’s very clear you are plain wrong on this issue.

“where do bands show up in his equations?”

LBL integrals, just like integrals generally do, come up with a single number.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #71

“How clearly do I have to spell this out?”

It’s very clear you are plain wrong on this issue.

“where do bands show up in his equations?”

LBL integrals, just like integrals generally do, come up with a single number.

Steve Short

said:#72 Barton Paul Levenson

‘The theory of AGW is based on known facts about radiation physics. Put more of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and, all else being equal, the ground must get warmer.’

But my point is that if the greenhouse gas is CO2 then, by definition, ALL ELSE IS NO LONGER EQUAL, and hence the ground (in this case especially the ocean surface and near surface layers) does not necessarily get warmer.

Lots of good literature shows that CO2 fertilizes all photosynthetic organisms and these in turn create effects which cool the surface, viz:

(1) Over continents by increase of plant transpiration rates and hence ET and volatilization rate of cloud-nucleating compounds (isoprenes etc) leading to increased cloud, leading to release of latent heat of evaporation remote from the surface , thereby cooling the surface by transferring heat away from it and increasing low level albedo.

(2) Over oceans by increasing cyanobacterial productivity, leading to increased sea surface albedo via calcite-secreting cyanobacteria (coccolithophores) and organic mono- and multilayers (due to predation by zooplankton and cell lysis by cyanobacteriophages), increased shading of the water column, and increased volatilization of cloud-nucleating dimethylsulfide, leading to increased cloud, leading to release of latent heat of evaporation remote from the surface , thereby cooling the surface by transferring heat away from it and by increasing low altitude albedo.

It is quite likely that the rates of decline of the Pleistocene interglacials (which were all initially characterized by elevated atmospheric CO2 due to increase in aerobic fermentation rates following the temperature rise of the preceding glacial termination) were themselves controlled by the increased activity of continental plants and oceanic cyanobacterial primary productivity arising BECAUSE of that elevated CO2.

It is interesting to note that the last 300 My was characterized by a range in atmospheric CO2 up to about 2500 ppmv AND global temperatures which matches very closely the range in which both calcite and aragonite-secreting marine organisms, from the humble cyanobacterium or pteropod to the chambered nautilus to the coralline algae were all co-existing and co-evolving because the solubility of both those forms of calcium carbonate never went unsaturated. Furthermore, the previous 200 My, characterized by higher CO2 levels and temperature ranges contained multitudes of equivalent organisms (including corals) which secreted the more resistant calcite and the solubility of calcite never went unsaturated.

My problem with your AGW ‘theory’ is that it asks us to naively accept that the biosphere is an entirely passive bystander to all this ‘radiation physics’.

Steve Short

said:#72 Barton Paul Levenson

‘The theory of AGW is based on known facts about radiation physics. Put more of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and, all else being equal, the ground must get warmer.’

But my point is that if the greenhouse gas is CO2 then, by definition, ALL ELSE IS NO LONGER EQUAL, and hence the ground (in this case especially the ocean surface and near surface layers) does not necessarily get warmer.

Lots of good literature shows that CO2 fertilizes all photosynthetic organisms and these in turn create effects which cool the surface, viz:

(1) Over continents by increase of plant transpiration rates and hence ET and volatilization rate of cloud-nucleating compounds (isoprenes etc) leading to increased cloud, leading to release of latent heat of evaporation remote from the surface , thereby cooling the surface by transferring heat away from it and increasing low level albedo.

(2) Over oceans by increasing cyanobacterial productivity, leading to increased sea surface albedo via calcite-secreting cyanobacteria (coccolithophores) and organic mono- and multilayers (due to predation by zooplankton and cell lysis by cyanobacteriophages), increased shading of the water column, and increased volatilization of cloud-nucleating dimethylsulfide, leading to increased cloud, leading to release of latent heat of evaporation remote from the surface , thereby cooling the surface by transferring heat away from it and by increasing low altitude albedo.

It is quite likely that the rates of decline of the Pleistocene interglacials (which were all initially characterized by elevated atmospheric CO2 due to increase in aerobic fermentation rates following the temperature rise of the preceding glacial termination) were themselves controlled by the increased activity of continental plants and oceanic cyanobacterial primary productivity arising BECAUSE of that elevated CO2.

It is interesting to note that the last 300 My was characterized by a range in atmospheric CO2 up to about 2500 ppmv AND global temperatures which matches very closely the range in which both calcite and aragonite-secreting marine organisms, from the humble cyanobacterium or pteropod to the chambered nautilus to the coralline algae were all co-existing and co-evolving because the solubility of both those forms of calcium carbonate never went unsaturated. Furthermore, the previous 200 My, characterized by higher CO2 levels and temperature ranges contained multitudes of equivalent organisms (including corals) which secreted the more resistant calcite and the solubility of calcite never went unsaturated.

My problem with your AGW ‘theory’ is that it asks us to naively accept that the biosphere is an entirely passive bystander to all this ‘radiation physics’.

Nick Stokes

said:BPL has a point. The “flux optical depth” is of course calculated for the real atmosphere, which is not gray. But that single number is for use in gray-body theory, and I can’t see any other model of the atmosphere where it could be used. Try explaining what it is the optical depth of, without using gray-body ideas!

The terminology in FM’s paper reflects that. On p 11 the tau^bar version (2/3 of tau^tilde) is introduced as the “mean vertical gray-body optical depth”. The surface boundary value of “flux optical depth” is called (p 12) the “characteristic gray-body optical depth”.

Nick Stokes

said:BPL has a point. The “flux optical depth” is of course calculated for the real atmosphere, which is not gray. But that single number is for use in gray-body theory, and I can’t see any other model of the atmosphere where it could be used. Try explaining what it is the optical depth of, without using gray-body ideas!

The terminology in FM’s paper reflects that. On p 11 the tau^bar version (2/3 of tau^tilde) is introduced as the “mean vertical gray-body optical depth”. The surface boundary value of “flux optical depth” is called (p 12) the “characteristic gray-body optical depth”.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #77

How many numbers do you expect from a line by line integral?

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #77

How many numbers do you expect from a line by line integral?

Jan Pompe

said:Steve Short #76

“Lots of good literature shows that CO2 fertilizes all photosynthetic organisms and these in turn create effects which cool the surface, viz:”

Thanks Steve,

This is interesting stuff I remember as kid already learning that removing trees reduces rainfall in an area it’s nice at last (for me at least) to learn there is a mechanism. We have however known that for a long time now.

Jan Pompe

said:Steve Short #76

“Lots of good literature shows that CO2 fertilizes all photosynthetic organisms and these in turn create effects which cool the surface, viz:”

Thanks Steve,

This is interesting stuff I remember as kid already learning that removing trees reduces rainfall in an area it’s nice at last (for me at least) to learn there is a mechanism. We have however known that for a long time now.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe,

Okay, I’ll ask again. If FM’s model is not gray or semigray, where are the bands in his atmosphere model? I don’t recall any of the quantities being subscripted with a nu for frequency, lambda for wavelength, or nu-tilde for wavenumber. In what way is his model NOT gray?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe,

Okay, I’ll ask again. If FM’s model is not gray or semigray, where are the bands in his atmosphere model? I don’t recall any of the quantities being subscripted with a nu for frequency, lambda for wavelength, or nu-tilde for wavenumber. In what way is his model NOT gray?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#77 Nick, #80 BPL

In case somebody do not understand the Panck Mean Opacity (PMO) I referred to Collins (2003) . Why do not you read page 306 ? Once

you are able to compute the REAL PMO from the monocromatic optical depths using an LBL code, you will get the correct fluxes….

When you compute the transmitted flux density St by an LBL code is it a gray approximation?

By the way BPL, how was your global average optical depth of 2.07 computed?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#77 Nick, #80 BPL

In case somebody do not understand the Panck Mean Opacity (PMO) I referred to Collins (2003) . Why do not you read page 306 ? Once

you are able to compute the REAL PMO from the monocromatic optical depths using an LBL code, you will get the correct fluxes….

When you compute the transmitted flux density St by an LBL code is it a gray approximation?

By the way BPL, how was your global average optical depth of 2.07 computed?

Jan Pompe

said:levensons #80

“Okay, I’ll ask again. If FM’s model is not gray or semigray, where are the bands in his atmosphere model?”

I will tell you again LBL integration gives you a single number output. You’ll find your lambdas and nus in HARTCODE that he used to obtain his results.

http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Miskolczi/hartcode_v01.pdf

Jan Pompe

said:levensons #80

“Okay, Iâ€™ll ask again. If FMâ€™s model is not gray or semigray, where are the bands in his atmosphere model?”

I will tell you again LBL integration gives you a single number output. You’ll find your lambdas and nus in HARTCODE that he used to obtain his results.

http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Miskolczi/hartcode_v01.pdf

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe, still not getting it, posts:

I KNOW it gives you a single number output. It’s the OUTPUT that determines what you’re working with. If you’re using A SINGLE NUMBER for the whole thermal IR range, YOU HAVE A SEMIGRAY MODEL. That’s what a semigray model MEANS. Which word did you not understand?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe, still not getting it, posts:

I KNOW it gives you a single number output. It’s the OUTPUT that determines what you’re working with. If you’re using A SINGLE NUMBER for the whole thermal IR range, YOU HAVE A SEMIGRAY MODEL. That’s what a semigray model MEANS. Which word did you not understand?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM asks:

The Earth’s average surface temperature in the US Standard Atmosphere of 1976 is 288.15 K. With a surface emissivity of 0.95, this corresponds to thermal IR emission of 371 Watts per square meter.

K&T97 list the following factors which cool the Earth’s surface: Direct absorption of sunlight by the atmosphere, 67 W/m^2. Sensible heat 24 W/m^2, latent heat 78 W/m^2, window radiation 40 W/m^2. Total cooling: 209 W/m^2.

Therefore, in the absence of cooling mechanisms, Earth’s greenhouse effect would heat the Earth to where it would be giving off 371 + 209 = 580 Watts per square meter. For an emissivity of 0.95, this corresponds to a temperature of 322 K.

With a bolometric Bond albedo of 0.306 (NASA 1998) and a solar constant of 1366.1 W/m^2 (Lean 2000, mean for 1951-2000), the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is 254 K.

The expression for raw greenhouse heating via the Eddington approximation is

Ts = Te (1 + 0.75 tau) ^ 0.25

where tau is the gray IR optical depth. With Ts = 322 K and Te = 254 K, the optical depth tau must be 2.11.

Hmm. Slipped a figure there somewhere. I must have used 255 K for Te originally. You can also alter a few decimal places by using Hadley Centre’s/NASA’s 287 K for Earth’s mean global annual surface temperature, or a different albedo or Solar constant for the Earth. But I can’t think of any way to get it down to 1.84.

Using a similar method, Hart (Icarus 33, 1978) got tau = 2.49.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM asks:

The Earth’s average surface temperature in the US Standard Atmosphere of 1976 is 288.15 K. With a surface emissivity of 0.95, this corresponds to thermal IR emission of 371 Watts per square meter.

K&T97 list the following factors which cool the Earth’s surface: Direct absorption of sunlight by the atmosphere, 67 W/m^2. Sensible heat 24 W/m^2, latent heat 78 W/m^2, window radiation 40 W/m^2. Total cooling: 209 W/m^2.

Therefore, in the absence of cooling mechanisms, Earth’s greenhouse effect would heat the Earth to where it would be giving off 371 + 209 = 580 Watts per square meter. For an emissivity of 0.95, this corresponds to a temperature of 322 K.

With a bolometric Bond albedo of 0.306 (NASA 1998) and a solar constant of 1366.1 W/m^2 (Lean 2000, mean for 1951-2000), the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is 254 K.

The expression for raw greenhouse heating via the Eddington approximation is

Ts = Te (1 + 0.75 tau) ^ 0.25

where tau is the gray IR optical depth. With Ts = 322 K and Te = 254 K, the optical depth tau must be 2.11.

Hmm. Slipped a figure there somewhere. I must have used 255 K for Te originally. You can also alter a few decimal places by using Hadley Centre’s/NASA’s 287 K for Earth’s mean global annual surface temperature, or a different albedo or Solar constant for the Earth. But I can’t think of any way to get it down to 1.84.

Using a similar method, Hart (Icarus 33, 1978) got tau = 2.49.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Similarly, using tau = 1.84 and holding all else equal, I predict a mean global annual surface temperature for the Earth of 279 K, rather than 288 K. I think some GCMs have come up with a Ts figure as low as 285 K, but I’ve never heard of 279 K before. The old canonical figure of Sellers (1965) was 286 K, of course. I think Hulbert (1931) came up with 287 K.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Similarly, using tau = 1.84 and holding all else equal, I predict a mean global annual surface temperature for the Earth of 279 K, rather than 288 K. I think some GCMs have come up with a Ts figure as low as 285 K, but I’ve never heard of 279 K before. The old canonical figure of Sellers (1965) was 286 K, of course. I think Hulbert (1931) came up with 287 K.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#83 BPL

Never heard this kind of nonsense. I do not know why Jan is wasting his time with you. Once

somebody do not want to learn, that is OK., still

the definition of the gray approximation is a gray absorption coefficient, and this definition is not from you…

Now let me ask again. How did you compute your global average total IR flux optical depth of 2.07 ?? Since in Appendix A. of my 2007 paper I gave a fairly detailed description of my

method of computation, I guess I deserve to know how did you compute the same thing. After all, you were bringing in the point why my 1.87 differ from your 2.07…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#83 BPL

Never heard this kind of nonsense. I do not know why Jan is wasting his time with you. Once

somebody do not want to learn, that is OK., still

the definition of the gray approximation is a gray absorption coefficient, and this definition is not from you…

Now let me ask again. How did you compute your global average total IR flux optical depth of 2.07 ?? Since in Appendix A. of my 2007 paper I gave a fairly detailed description of my

method of computation, I guess I deserve to know how did you compute the same thing. After all, you were bringing in the point why my 1.87 differ from your 2.07…

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM,

see above

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM,

see above

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Hmm. I’ve tried to write out the references I mention above twice now and it doesn’t get into the blog. There must be something in the way I’m citing them that looks wrong to the software.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Hmm. I’ve tried to write out the references I mention above twice now and it doesn’t get into the blog. There must be something in the way I’m citing them that looks wrong to the software.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#87 BPL

I see, but

1- once we already discussed (my comment #51), that the K&T97 IR budget is not a useful sorce for comparision. Further on I do not undrstand the meaning and origin of the 40 Wm-2 window radiation in K&T97, it was obtained by some ‘ad hoc’ method ….

2-you use the semi-infinit approximation to obtain tau, without commenting the related error for this approximation. The

Ts=Te*(1+(3/4)tau) equation is

MATHEMATICALLY INCORRECT.

3-your tau=2.11 from the

Su=OLR(2+(3/2)tau)/2 equation should be scaled to my tau giving a tau=3.16…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#87 BPL

I see, but

1- once we already discussed (my comment #51), that the K&T97 IR budget is not a useful sorce for comparision. Further on I do not undrstand the meaning and origin of the 40 Wm-2 window radiation in K&T97, it was obtained by some ‘ad hoc’ method ….

2-you use the semi-infinit approximation to obtain tau, without commenting the related error for this approximation. The

Ts=Te*(1+(3/4)tau) equation is

MATHEMATICALLY INCORRECT.

3-your tau=2.11 from the

Su=OLR(2+(3/2)tau)/2 equation should be scaled to my tau giving a tau=3.16…

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #83

“I KNOW it gives you a single number output. ”

Good then you know this is wrong

“It’s the OUTPUT that determines what you’re working with.”

because it’s the

resultnot what he was working with. What he was working with was the TIGR atmospheric profiles, spectral data and HARTCODE.Jan Pompe

said:BPL #83

“I KNOW it gives you a single number output. ”

Good then you know this is wrong

“Itâ€™s the OUTPUT that determines what youâ€™re working with.”

because it’s the

resultnot what he was working with. What he was working with was the TIGR atmospheric profiles, spectral data and HARTCODE.Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM writes:

They used a radiative-convective model. It’s pretty easy to trace which flux densities go where. The stuff radiated by the ground that doesn’t get absorbed in the atmosphere gets through to space.

No it isn’t.

Jan Pompe writes:

I know what he was working with, since he said it in his paper and you’ve said it here several times. It’s completely irrelevant how he got the final figure. He could have asked God or found it by throwing darts at a board. The point is, if you’re using one figure for the whole thermal IR range, you’ve got a gray model.

1 figure = gray model

1 band = gray model

Are you beginning to get it yet?

I can’t believe we’re debating whether FM’s paper has a gray model in it or not. The mere fact that you continue to argue about this is clear proof that you’ve never taken a course or read a textbook in atmospheric radiation. I can’t even begin to say how much of a pseudoscience true believer this makes you look like.

I’ll try a diagram. Maybe I’ll get through this time.

Here’s the relevant part of the electromagnetic spectrum, with short wavelengths on the left and long wavelengths on the right.

[shortwave radiation | thermal IR]

TYPE 1. This is a gray model:

[1 band all the way across ]

TYPE 2. This is a semigray model:

[1 band for shortwave | 1 band for thermal IR]

TYPE 3. This is a band model:

[several bands for SW | several bands for IR]

TYPE 4. This is a line-by-line (LBL) model:

[every line modeled all across the spectrum]

The fact that FM used an LBL model to get his single figure is irrelevant. If he winds up with a single figure for the whole thermal IR, he is using a gray or semigray model. FM’s model is gray or semigray. It is not a band model, and it is not an LBL model. How many different ways do I have to explain it before you catch on?

I feel like I’m trying to explain the definition of a circle to someone who insists that two radii don’t add up to one diameter.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM writes:

They used a radiative-convective model. It’s pretty easy to trace which flux densities go where. The stuff radiated by the ground that doesn’t get absorbed in the atmosphere gets through to space.

No it isn’t.

Jan Pompe writes:

I know what he was working with, since he said it in his paper and you’ve said it here several times. It’s completely irrelevant how he got the final figure. He could have asked God or found it by throwing darts at a board. The point is, if you’re using one figure for the whole thermal IR range, you’ve got a gray model.

1 figure = gray model

1 band = gray model

Are you beginning to get it yet?

I can’t believe we’re debating whether FM’s paper has a gray model in it or not. The mere fact that you continue to argue about this is clear proof that you’ve never taken a course or read a textbook in atmospheric radiation. I can’t even begin to say how much of a pseudoscience true believer this makes you look like.

I’ll try a diagram. Maybe I’ll get through this time.

Here’s the relevant part of the electromagnetic spectrum, with short wavelengths on the left and long wavelengths on the right.

[shortwave radiation | thermal IR]

TYPE 1. This is a gray model:

[1 band all the way across ]

TYPE 2. This is a semigray model:

[1 band for shortwave | 1 band for thermal IR]

TYPE 3. This is a band model:

[several bands for SW | several bands for IR]

TYPE 4. This is a line-by-line (LBL) model:

[every line modeled all across the spectrum]

The fact that FM used an LBL model to get his single figure is irrelevant. If he winds up with a single figure for the whole thermal IR, he is using a gray or semigray model. FM’s model is gray or semigray. It is not a band model, and it is not an LBL model. How many different ways do I have to explain it before you catch on?

I feel like I’m trying to explain the definition of a circle to someone who insists that two radii don’t add up to one diameter.

Alex Harvey

said:BPL # 91:

“No it isn’t.”

(BPL’s proof that the Ts=Te*(1+(3/4)tau) equation is not mathematically incorrect.)

Your arrogance is breathtaking.

At any rate, since you appear to have agreed that planetary atmospheres are not infinitely thick, it might be nice to insert some sort of justification here for why you think we should continue to use a formula that DOES assume infinite thickness. At least one other critic of the theory (Nick Stokes) has agreed that, on this point, the mathematics of Miskolczi’s semi-transparent model is correct (N.B. Stokes thought that Miskolczi’s formula “may increase accuracy” although he never said anything more about this). Thus, since no one has actually proved the matter to the contrary, here’s your opportunity to be the first.

I don’t think anyone is interested in the Word According to BPL. An argument is needed.

I also note that, to a non-specialist, your sentence, “It’s pretty easy to trace which flux densities go where” sounds suspiciously like waffle. You’ve failed to convince me, at any rate, that you know what you’re talking about here.

Alex Harvey

said:BPL # 91:

“No it isn’t.”

(BPL’s proof that the Ts=Te*(1+(3/4)tau) equation is not mathematically incorrect.)

Your arrogance is breathtaking.

At any rate, since you appear to have agreed that planetary atmospheres are not infinitely thick, it might be nice to insert some sort of justification here for why you think we should continue to use a formula that DOES assume infinite thickness. At least one other critic of the theory (Nick Stokes) has agreed that, on this point, the mathematics of Miskolczi’s semi-transparent model is correct (N.B. Stokes thought that Miskolczi’s formula “may increase accuracy” although he never said anything more about this). Thus, since no one has actually proved the matter to the contrary, here’s your opportunity to be the first.

I don’t think anyone is interested in the Word According to BPL. An argument is needed.

I also note that, to a non-specialist, your sentence, “Itâ€™s pretty easy to trace which flux densities go where” sounds suspiciously like waffle. You’ve failed to convince me, at any rate, that you know what you’re talking about here.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #91

Try explaining colour to the colour blind.

that’s what I’m doing.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #91

Try explaining colour to the colour blind.

that’s what I’m doing.

Nick Stokes

said:#92 Alex

You have a huge capacity for missing the point. One thing I maintained at length is that there is no assumption of an infinitely thick atmosphere to be made here. FM started with a second order de (eq 11), and reduced it to first order (Eq 15) by assuming radiative eqiuilibrium. Like all approximations, that is only true while the simplifying assumption works. He then gets a first order de, which amounts to a specification of the slope of a line relating B and tau. A gray-body assumption was also made.

Now, while a 2nd order equation could meet conditions at two points, eg TOA and ground surface (BOA) a first order equation can only have one extra condition, which fixes the B vs tau line. That condition is usually applied at TOA, where the heat flux is known to be entirely radiative. Doing that does not imply, as you keep missing, that the atmosphere is semi-infinite, ie there is no BOA. It just implies that the solution will work down from TOA until the assumption of radiative equilibrium fails, and BOA, where there are substantial other heat fluxes changing the balance, is a likely candidate.

When I looked at FM’s argument, I thought that it might be possible to get an improvement by abandoning accuracy of the linear de at TOA and satisfying an integral condition, and maybe that was what he was doing. But when I looked into it more, I just couldn’t work out what he was doing that would get a better solution. What is clear is that, while Eq 15 satisfies flux balance at TOA and probably not BOA, Eq 21 does not satisfy it TOA (which is bad), and there is no indication that it is better at BOA.

So yes, the mathematics of shifting the offset in eq 15 is correct. I just don’t think it helps.

Nick Stokes

said:#92 Alex

You have a huge capacity for missing the point. One thing I maintained at length is that there is no assumption of an infinitely thick atmosphere to be made here. FM started with a second order de (eq 11), and reduced it to first order (Eq 15) by assuming radiative eqiuilibrium. Like all approximations, that is only true while the simplifying assumption works. He then gets a first order de, which amounts to a specification of the slope of a line relating B and tau. A gray-body assumption was also made.

Now, while a 2nd order equation could meet conditions at two points, eg TOA and ground surface (BOA) a first order equation can only have one extra condition, which fixes the B vs tau line. That condition is usually applied at TOA, where the heat flux is known to be entirely radiative. Doing that does not imply, as you keep missing, that the atmosphere is semi-infinite, ie there is no BOA. It just implies that the solution will work down from TOA until the assumption of radiative equilibrium fails, and BOA, where there are substantial other heat fluxes changing the balance, is a likely candidate.

When I looked at FM’s argument, I thought that it might be possible to get an improvement by abandoning accuracy of the linear de at TOA and satisfying an integral condition, and maybe that was what he was doing. But when I looked into it more, I just couldn’t work out what he was doing that would get a better solution. What is clear is that, while Eq 15 satisfies flux balance at TOA and probably not BOA, Eq 21 does not satisfy it TOA (which is bad), and there is no indication that it is better at BOA.

So yes, the mathematics of shifting the offset in eq 15 is correct. I just don’t think it helps.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #94

I think you are missing the point of the entire section 4.1 which is a recapitulation of the “classical” semi-infinite grey body atmosphere here is what he has to say about it:

Eq. (15) assumes that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite. Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted radiative flux is present in the OLR, Eqs. (16) and (17) are inherently incorrect.Another problem you seem to have is that you expect a LWR balance at TOA which, being a finite source radiating into an infinite sink, is impossible.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #94

I think you are missing the point of the entire section 4.1 which is a recapitulation of the “classical” semi-infinite grey body atmosphere here is what he has to say about it:

Eq. (15) assumes that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite. Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted radiative flux is present in the OLR, Eqs. (16) and (17) are inherently incorrect.Another problem you seem to have is that you expect a LWR balance at TOA which, being a finite source radiating into an infinite sink, is impossible.

Nick Stokes

said:#95 Jan

“Eq. (15) assumes that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.”Yes, but he’s wrong. It doesn’t need to do that. It just assumes radiative balance starting at TOA and going down.

On LWR balance at TOA, here is what FM says just before Eq 15:

The boundary condition is usually given at the top of the atmosphere, where, due to the absence of the downward flux term, the net IR flux is known.That’s exactly LWR balance. Through flux equals known exit flux.Nick Stokes

said:#95 Jan

“Eq. (15) assumes that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.”Yes, but he’s wrong. It doesn’t need to do that. It just assumes radiative balance starting at TOA and going down.

On LWR balance at TOA, here is what FM says just before Eq 15:

The boundary condition is usually given at the top of the atmosphere, where, due to the absence of the downward flux term, the net IR flux is known.That’s exactly LWR balance. Through flux equals known exit flux.Jan Pompe

said:Nick #96

“Yes, but he’s wrong.”

Everyone else disagrees with you including Lorenz & Mckay 2003.

“That’s exactly LWR balance.”

No that’s LWR imbalance. 235 W@/m^2 out 4.6E-6 W/m62 in. You can see why he says

absence of downward flux term.Jan Pompe

said:Nick #96

“Yes, but heâ€™s wrong.”

Everyone else disagrees with you including Lorenz & Mckay 2003.

“Thatâ€™s exactly LWR balance.”

No that’s LWR imbalance. 235 W@/m^2 out 4.6E-6 W/m62 in. You can see why he says

absence of downward flux term.Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#ALL Barton Paul Levenson

I am very sorry I engaged with all this discussions with you. The next time I will express my oppinion about your general understanding is when your ‘masterpiece’ at this web site will be published in some peer reviewed journal:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/Miskolczi.html

With some peer-reviewers you might even be lucky. Try TELLUS or JQSRT they have excellent reviewers…I am not angry with you, just have no more time for this nonsense.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#ALL Barton Paul Levenson

I am very sorry I engaged with all this discussions with you. The next time I will express my oppinion about your general understanding is when your ‘masterpiece’ at this web site will be published in some peer reviewed journal:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/Miskolczi.html

With some peer-reviewers you might even be lucky. Try TELLUS or JQSRT they have excellent reviewers…I am not angry with you, just have no more time for this nonsense.

Sadun Kal

said:The peer review system is far from being perfect, especially in this age. So even if Mr. Miskolczi’s argument is justified in this case, I beg all of you to not rely purely on peer-reviewed material, keep your eyes open for new ideas all the time even if not published in one of those journals. Because this also automatically gives peer-reviewed papers more credit than they really deserve sometimes. Probably you all know that by now, but I still wanted to make sure…

Apart from that, since Mr. Miskolczi you actually are the lone warrior in this case, the maverick opposing the mainstream view, I’m not sure how you will benefit from ceasing to discuss. Otherwise how will your views make it through this barrier of “consensus”?

If you think you’re right, please insist on it, because there aren’t thousands of others who will do that for your papers, at least not yet… It might be frustrating and exhausting, but I guess that’s what it takes for the truth to become visible sometimes. It’s your decision of course, you must know if it’s worth it. I’m just babbling without any real clue about your life, was a little worried and felt the need to jump in…

Sadun Kal

said:The peer review system is far from being perfect, especially in this age. So even if Mr. Miskolczi’s argument is justified in this case, I beg all of you to not rely purely on peer-reviewed material, keep your eyes open for new ideas all the time even if not published in one of those journals. Because this also automatically gives peer-reviewed papers more credit than they really deserve sometimes. Probably you all know that by now, but I still wanted to make sure…

Apart from that, since Mr. Miskolczi you actually are the lone warrior in this case, the maverick opposing the mainstream view, I’m not sure how you will benefit from ceasing to discuss. Otherwise how will your views make it through this barrier of “consensus”?

If you think you’re right, please insist on it, because there aren’t thousands of others who will do that for your papers, at least not yet… It might be frustrating and exhausting, but I guess that’s what it takes for the truth to become visible sometimes. It’s your decision of course, you must know if it’s worth it. I’m just babbling without any real clue about your life, was a little worried and felt the need to jump in…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#96 Nick

Please do not go down with the quality of the discussion to that of Barton Paul Levenson. You do not need to argue with everything. I understand, that you do not know much radiation physics, but you should know better the theory of the differential equations.

Why do not you explain me how can the general solution of a first order homogeneous linear differential equation satisfy two different boundary conditions? Or, is this the way to justify the temperature discontinuity at the surface? Some reviewer may eat this, why do not you try? (But not the mathematical journals.)

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#96 Nick

Please do not go down with the quality of the discussion to that of Barton Paul Levenson. You do not need to argue with everything. I understand, that you do not know much radiation physics, but you should know better the theory of the differential equations.

Why do not you explain me how can the general solution of a first order homogeneous linear differential equation satisfy two different boundary conditions? Or, is this the way to justify the temperature discontinuity at the surface? Some reviewer may eat this, why do not you try? (But not the mathematical journals.)

Nick Stokes

said:#97 Jan

You say

“Everyone else disagrees with you including Lorenz & Mckay 2003.”I see no assumption of semi-infiniteness in L&M. In fact, they study the effect of convection at the lower boundary (BOA). BTW, what I did see was an electric circuit analogy.Those numerous(?) disagreeing folks could simply point to exactly where a semi-infinite assumption is used.

“Flux balance” in this equation sense can be taken to mean zero total flux (SW and IR), or just that IR meets a certain balancing value – that’s just semantics. The issue is that you know what it ought to be and set it accordingly.

Nick Stokes

said:#97 Jan

You say

“Everyone else disagrees with you including Lorenz & Mckay 2003.”I see no assumption of semi-infiniteness in L&M. In fact, they study the effect of convection at the lower boundary (BOA). BTW, what I did see was an electric circuit analogy.Those numerous(?) disagreeing folks could simply point to exactly where a semi-infinite assumption is used.

“Flux balance” in this equation sense can be taken to mean zero total flux (SW and IR), or just that IR meets a certain balancing value – that’s just semantics. The issue is that you know what it ought to be and set it accordingly.

Nick Stokes

said:#FM

“Why do not you explain me how can the general solution of a first order homogeneous linear differential equation satisfy two different boundary conditions?”That is exactly my point, as I said in #94:

“Now, while a 2nd order equation could meet conditions at two points, eg TOA and ground surface (BOA), a first order equation can only have one extra condition, which fixes the B vs tau line. That condition is usually applied at TOA…”

Now, can you explain where the semi-infinite assumption is used?

Nick Stokes

said:#FM

“Why do not you explain me how can the general solution of a first order homogeneous linear differential equation satisfy two different boundary conditions?”That is exactly my point, as I said in #94:

“Now, while a 2nd order equation could meet conditions at two points, eg TOA and ground surface (BOA), a first order equation can only have one extra condition, which fixes the B vs tau line. That condition is usually applied at TOA…”

Now, can you explain where the semi-infinite assumption is used?

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #101

” exactly where a semi-infinite assumption is used.”

YOU have to ask?

What happens to the exponential in the solution of the radiative transport equation in the

Eddington approxmation?

What do L & M do in their 2003 papaer in section 2 ” according to the Eddington approximation”?

Hint: “develop a simple grey radiative–convective model”Jan Pompe

said:Nick #101

” exactly where a semi-infinite assumption is used.”

YOU have to ask?

What happens to the exponential in the solution of the radiative transport equation in the

Eddington approxmation?

What do L & M do in their 2003 papaer in section 2 ” according to the Eddington approximation”?

Hint: “develop a simple grey radiativeâ€“convective model”Nick Stokes

said:Jan #103

There is nothing semi-infinite on the link that you gave. The concept is not mentioned, and all the integrals are over finite intervals. There is nothng semi-infinite implied for L&M.

Anyway, I was really asking where it is used in FM’s paper.

Nick Stokes

said:Jan #103

There is nothing semi-infinite on the link that you gave. The concept is not mentioned, and all the integrals are over finite intervals. There is nothng semi-infinite implied for L&M.

Anyway, I was really asking where it is used in FM’s paper.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #104

“There is nothing semi-infinite on the link that you gave.”

Geez nick I would have thought that you could work it out.

Ok simplified (grossly) tau(s_1, s_2) is the integral over s_1 to s_2 by some constant you plug this into the solution of the radiative transport equation you get the integral 0f exp(-tau) over that distance so set s_1 = 0 and s_2 = infinity and you have your semi-infinite case.

Then if you look at the Eddington approximation they’ve done just that.

It’s an approximation that works for solar atmospheres and for the very tiny but very turgid materials in live tissue (Biophysics is another area where the semi-infinite aprroximation is used a lot) doesn’t work to well with semi-transparent bounded comparitively thin atmospheres.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #104

“There is nothing semi-infinite on the link that you gave.”

Geez nick I would have thought that you could work it out.

Ok simplified (grossly) tau(s_1, s_2) is the integral over s_1 to s_2 by some constant you plug this into the solution of the radiative transport equation you get the integral 0f exp(-tau) over that distance so set s_1 = 0 and s_2 = infinity and you have your semi-infinite case.

Then if you look at the Eddington approximation they’ve done just that.

It’s an approximation that works for solar atmospheres and for the very tiny but very turgid materials in live tissue (Biophysics is another area where the semi-infinite aprroximation is used a lot) doesn’t work to well with semi-transparent bounded comparitively thin atmospheres.

Nick Stokes

said:Jan #105

No, the Eddington approximation integrates over all angles, and makes an assumption about the second moment, but there’s no assumption of infinite depth. It’s a local approximation that leads to a differential equation. You’ll see they describe it as a “slab atmosphere”.

The L&M paper you cite is a case against, since their very point is ablut the bottom surface and convection, and as you say, they use the EA.

Nick Stokes

said:Jan #105

No, the Eddington approximation integrates over all angles, and makes an assumption about the second moment, but there’s no assumption of infinite depth. It’s a local approximation that leads to a differential equation. You’ll see they describe it as a “slab atmosphere”.

The L&M paper you cite is a case against, since their very point is ablut the bottom surface and convection, and as you say, they use the EA.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Alex Harvey writes:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Alex Harvey writes:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM writes:

But I’m angry with you. I’m angry with all the people who have successfully delayed dealing with global warming and are trying to continue to do so. I’m angry that hundreds of millions of people are going to die because of you and people like you. That makes me

extremelyangry.The trick is not to let the anger trip me up. To argue unemotionally, even when you and your friends are nasty, rude, hostile, and willingly ignorant. I don’t always succeed, but I try.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM writes:

But I’m angry with you. I’m angry with all the people who have successfully delayed dealing with global warming and are trying to continue to do so. I’m angry that hundreds of millions of people are going to die because of you and people like you. That makes me

extremelyangry.The trick is not to let the anger trip me up. To argue unemotionally, even when you and your friends are nasty, rude, hostile, and willingly ignorant. I don’t always succeed, but I try.

Sadun Kal

said:“Iâ€™m angry that hundreds of millions of people are going to die because of you and people like you.”

What’s the basis for that belief?

Sadun Kal

said:“I’m angry that hundreds of millions of people are going to die because of you and people like you.”

What’s the basis for that belief?

Jan Pompe

said:Nick

You need to do a bit of reading.

Here is how and why we get that discontinuity at the surface

The semi-infinite assumption is a part of the development of the equation of transfer cos(theta)dI/dtau = I-B. This in turn is what is integrated to obtain the approximations.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick

You need to do a bit of reading.

Here is how and why we get that discontinuity at the surface

The semi-infinite assumption is a part of the development of the equation of transfer cos(theta)dI/dtau = I-B. This in turn is what is integrated to obtain the approximations.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #108

I think you had better calm down. Most people are relieved when there is good news to be had they don’t usually get angry about it.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #108

I think you had better calm down. Most people are relieved when there is good news to be had they don’t usually get angry about it.

Nick Stokes

said:#110 Jan

If they are making such an assumption, you’d think you wouldn’t have such trouble pointing to something specific. There is nothing there. The link you gave to Milne has the equation you quote as eq 11. Just after eq 13 (soon after) he says this:

“By our assumptions the material is either a slab bounded by two parallel planes, or else it is bounded by one plane parallel to the planes of stratification and stretches to infinity in one direction, or else it stretches to infinity in both directions.”Now true, he says that it

couldbe semi-infinite, or infinite. But it could be a finite slab too. There is no assumption that it is semi-infinite.Nick Stokes

said:#110 Jan

If they are making such an assumption, you’d think you wouldn’t have such trouble pointing to something specific. There is nothing there. The link you gave to Milne has the equation you quote as eq 11. Just after eq 13 (soon after) he says this:

“By our assumptions the material is either a slab bounded by two parallel planes, or else it is bounded by one plane parallel to the planes of stratification and stretches to infinity in one direction, or else it stretches to infinity in both directions.”Now true, he says that it

couldbe semi-infinite, or infinite. But it could be a finite slab too. There is no assumption that it is semi-infinite.Jan Pompe

said:nick #112

I thought you were a mathematician and therefor would understand that an integral over distance from zero to infinity represented a semi-infinite case.

Jan Pompe

said:nick #112

I thought you were a mathematician and therefor would understand that an integral over distance from zero to infinity represented a semi-infinite case.

Nick Stokes

said:jan #113 – depends on what is being integrated. But if you’re referring to the stuff down around Eq 34, this is, as the say, the far limit of the solution deep inside a star. In fact, he explicitly adds that assumption for that equation.

Nick Stokes

said:jan #113 – depends on what is being integrated. But if you’re referring to the stuff down around Eq 34, this is, as the say, the far limit of the solution deep inside a star. In fact, he explicitly adds that assumption for that equation.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #114

“In fact, he explicitly adds that assumption for that equation.”

Precisely like I said OK for stars but not semi-transparent thin (relatively speaking) planetary atmospheres.

and in #96

““Eq. (15) assumes that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.”

Yes, but he’s wrong. It doesn’t need to do that. It just assumes radiative balance starting at TOA and going down.”

It’s a singularity at the lower boundary that causes the discontinuity in the calculations. It does need to do it. So you can come up with something better?

Please do but remember the empirical data does show that there is equilibrium between surface and low atmosphere.

Jan Pompe

said:Nick #114

“In fact, he explicitly adds that assumption for that equation.”

Precisely like I said OK for stars but not semi-transparent thin (relatively speaking) planetary atmospheres.

and in #96

“â€œEq. (15) assumes that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.â€

Yes, but heâ€™s wrong. It doesnâ€™t need to do that. It just assumes radiative balance starting at TOA and going down.”

It’s a singularity at the lower boundary that causes the discontinuity in the calculations. It does need to do it. So you can come up with something better?

Please do but remember the empirical data does show that there is equilibrium between surface and low atmosphere.

Jan Pompe

said:You can see the relevant page from Milne’s text and Dr Miskolczi’s interpretation here.

It’s from a presentation he made to top NASA scientists about six years ago.

Jan Pompe

said:You can see the relevant page from Milne’s text and Dr Miskolczi’s interpretation here.

It’s from a presentation he made to top NASA scientists about six years ago.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#99 Sadun Kal

You are absolutely right, but science is not religion nor politics or belief and I can not argue with somebody who apparenly has the motivation but does not have the necessary scientific background to understand the points of the discussion.

In case BPL will come up with some scientific arguments that worth to answer, than I shall answer it…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#99 Sadun Kal

You are absolutely right, but science is not religion nor politics or belief and I can not argue with somebody who apparenly has the motivation but does not have the necessary scientific background to understand the points of the discussion.

In case BPL will come up with some scientific arguments that worth to answer, than I shall answer it…

Sadun Kal

said:Fair enough…

Sadun Kal

said:Fair enough…

Neal J. King

said:Ference,

I am still interested in answers to the questions I sent you, posted in:

http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/m_questions-4.pdf .

To start with:

– I pointed out that the proper application of the Virial Theorem leads to different results than you have in your article.

– I also ask the question: “Even if we grant [KE]/[PE] = 1/2, what are the equations that specifically relate Eu and [KE], [PE] and temperature?”

Neal J. King

said:Ference,

I am still interested in answers to the questions I sent you, posted in:

http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/m_questions-4.pdf .

To start with:

– I pointed out that the proper application of the Virial Theorem leads to different results than you have in your article.

– I also ask the question: â€œEven if we grant [KE]/[PE] = 1/2, what are the equations that specifically relate Eu and [KE], [PE] and temperature?â€

Jan Pompe

said:Neal J King

“I pointed out that the proper application of the Virial Theorem leads to different results than you have in your article”

How many times and how many different ways do you need pointing out to you that atmospheric pressure can do no work on the rigid surface of the earth and conversely the rigid surface of the earth can do no work ont he atmosphere. The second term of the derviative

dp/dr . r i.e. (Fs) = 0 because s=0 always.

Thus your Integral P(r)dr =0 always.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal J King

“I pointed out that the proper application of the Virial Theorem leads to different results than you have in your article”

How many times and how many different ways do you need pointing out to you that atmospheric pressure can do no work on the rigid surface of the earth and conversely the rigid surface of the earth can do no work ont he atmosphere. The second term of the derviative

dp/dr . r i.e. (Fs) = 0 because s=0 always.

Thus your Integral P(r)dr =0 always.

Neal J. King

said:janp,

I’m interested in Ferenc’s response.

Not your’s.

Sorry.

Neal J. King

said:janp,

I’m interested in Ferenc’s response.

Not your’s.

Sorry.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal #121

“I’m interested in Ferenc’s response.”

It is essentially Ferenc’s response from private communication

“- I do not understand this ‘upward force’ and energy relation at the surface.

The rigid surface can not do work on the atmosphere or the

atmosphere can not do work on the rigid surface, no matter the

magnitude of the surface pressure…

Thanks, Ferenc”

In just how many freshman texts have you seen pictures of someone beads of sweat flying off him pushing an immovable object with a caption like “He’s expending a lot of energy but he is doing no work”? Point is it doesn’t matter who tell’s you but if you are really determined to get the basic physics wrong it’s not really going to help.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal #121

“Iâ€™m interested in Ferencâ€™s response.”

It is essentially Ferenc’s response from private communication

“- I do not understand this ‘upward force’ and energy relation at the surface.

The rigid surface can not do work on the atmosphere or the

atmosphere can not do work on the rigid surface, no matter the

magnitude of the surface pressure…

Thanks, Ferenc”

In just how many freshman texts have you seen pictures of someone beads of sweat flying off him pushing an immovable object with a caption like “He’s expending a lot of energy but he is doing no work”? Point is it doesn’t matter who tell’s you but if you are really determined to get the basic physics wrong it’s not really going to help.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#119 Neal King

In the M07 paper on page 4 under paragraph (g) I state that for the atmosphere PE/KE ~2.

To conquere this statement you simple need to compute the PE/KE ratio for a global average atmosphere…like Barton Paul Levenson did…

I can follow your derivation of your virial equation, but still do not accept your arguments about the surface forces…(as I expressed my oppinion to Jan Pompe).

By the way, some of your other problems with :

—Eq.(7-10) and the transition to a non absorbing atmosphere …

—The critical optical depth on Earth and Mars are different…

—You do not see the imlications (‘beef?’) in the atmospheric Kirchhoff law…

—Why top reviewers of top journals rejected the paper….

—Why empirical facts are not going to ‘fade away’…

have been resolved?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#119 Neal King

In the M07 paper on page 4 under paragraph (g) I state that for the atmosphere PE/KE ~2.

To conquere this statement you simple need to compute the PE/KE ratio for a global average atmosphere…like Barton Paul Levenson did…

I can follow your derivation of your virial equation, but still do not accept your arguments about the surface forces…(as I expressed my oppinion to Jan Pompe).

By the way, some of your other problems with :

—Eq.(7-10) and the transition to a non absorbing atmosphere …

—The critical optical depth on Earth and Mars are different…

—You do not see the imlications (‘beef?’) in the atmospheric Kirchhoff law…

—Why top reviewers of top journals rejected the paper….

—Why empirical facts are not going to ‘fade away’…

have been resolved?

Neal J. King

said:Hello Ferenc,

Good, now we can discuss directly.

First: Not all the questions you list above have been resolved from my point of view, but until the more specific issues that I mentioned in the note are clarified, it does not make sense to deal with these. Let’s discuss this list later.

Second: With regard to the application of the Virial Theorem (VT), I would like to clarify:

Are you defining the PE as calculated in the context of a shallow-atmosphere (“flat-Earth”) approximation, or in the context of a spherical Earth? Another way of asking the same question: Are you defining the potential-energy function for a molecule of mass m as:

U_f (z) = + m * g * z

or as

U_s (r) = – G * M_E * m / r

(where z = height of the molecule above ground level; and r = radial distance of the molecule from the center of the Earth)

These are two separate problems, and I would like to know which one you are thinking about to discuss the issue further.

Neal J. King

said:Hello Ferenc,

Good, now we can discuss directly.

First: Not all the questions you list above have been resolved from my point of view, but until the more specific issues that I mentioned in the note are clarified, it does not make sense to deal with these. Let’s discuss this list later.

Second: With regard to the application of the Virial Theorem (VT), I would like to clarify:

Are you defining the PE as calculated in the context of a shallow-atmosphere (“flat-Earth”) approximation, or in the context of a spherical Earth? Another way of asking the same question: Are you defining the potential-energy function for a molecule of mass m as:

U_f (z) = + m * g * z

or as

U_s (r) = – G * M_E * m / r

(where z = height of the molecule above ground level; and r = radial distance of the molecule from the center of the Earth)

These are two separate problems, and I would like to know which one you are thinking about to discuss the issue further.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# Neal King

You do not need to assume a ‘flat’ or a ‘spherical’ atmosphere for the virial theorem to hold. Somewhere John Baez wrote that the next conditions:

1. The time averages of the total kinetic energy and the total potential energy are well-defined.

2. The positions and velocities of the particles are bounded for all time.

are sufficient to apply the virial concept. I assumed that these conditions hold for the atmosphere and I did not even computed the PE/KE ratio. You may also noticed that I did not ‘apply’ the virial concept (numerically). My intention was simply to indicate the connection between the hydrostatic equilibrium (surface variables) and the internal energy (temperature profil).

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# Neal King

You do not need to assume a ‘flat’ or a ‘spherical’ atmosphere for the virial theorem to hold. Somewhere John Baez wrote that the next conditions:

1. The time averages of the total kinetic energy and the total potential energy are well-defined.

2. The positions and velocities of the particles are bounded for all time.

are sufficient to apply the virial concept. I assumed that these conditions hold for the atmosphere and I did not even computed the PE/KE ratio. You may also noticed that I did not ‘apply’ the virial concept (numerically). My intention was simply to indicate the connection between the hydrostatic equilibrium (surface variables) and the internal energy (temperature profil).

Jan Pompe

said:“Somewhere John Baez wrote that the next conditions:”

He wrote it here

I did check it using globally averaged TIGR profile, {KE} = 3RT/2 (for one mole), and {PE} = GmM(1/R-1/r) the last being the work done by buoyancy (provided by KE) to lift 1 mol from the surface to r and averaged to get a result of {PE}/{KE} = 2.06. I took 1 mol = 29g.

It did not make sense to me to calculate the total potential from the centre of the earth (as Barton did) as that does not relate physically to the kinetic energy induced buoyancy of the 29g parcels of air.

Jan Pompe

said:“Somewhere John Baez wrote that the next conditions:”

He wrote it here

I did check it using globally averaged TIGR profile, {KE} = 3RT/2 (for one mole), and {PE} = GmM(1/R-1/r) the last being the work done by buoyancy (provided by KE) to lift 1 mol from the surface to r and averaged to get a result of {PE}/{KE} = 2.06. I took 1 mol = 29g.

It did not make sense to me to calculate the total potential from the centre of the earth (as Barton did) as that does not relate physically to the kinetic energy induced buoyancy of the 29g parcels of air.

Jan Pompe

said:averaged to get a result of {PE}/{KE} = 2.06

Ooops that shohuld read {PE}/{KE} = -2.06

Jan Pompe

said:averaged to get a result of {PE}/{KE} = 2.06

Ooops that shohuld read {PE}/{KE} = -2.06

Neal J. King

said:#125, Ferenc:

I am trying to pin down the details of your calculation. The question is then, What is the functional form of the potential function you are assuming?

If it’s Newtonian gravity acting between the center of the Earth and the individual molecules, the functional form is:

U_s (.r) = – GMm/r

If it’s Newtonian gravity referred to the surface of the Earth, the functional form is:

U_f (z) = mgz

The calculation of the average total kinetic energy {KE} does not depend upon which you use, but it is certainly the case that {U_f} [b]does not equal[/b] {U_s}. In fact, these two have opposite sign, because {U_f} is a positive quantity, and {U_s} is a negative quantity.

It is true that the VT applies as long as the coordinates and momenta are bounded, and the averages {KE} and {PE} are well-defined. However, the exact value of the ratio {KE}/{PE} depends on the detailed force law (equivalently, potential function): In the case of a gas of particles held together by mutual gravitational attraction, the result is that

{KE}/{PE} = – (1/2)

(note the minus sign); but this is not exactly the case under consideration here. For the case of the atmosphere, we are considering a gas of particles held together, not by mutual gravitational attraction, but by individual attractions to the Earth; equally important, they are held away from the center of the Earth itself by the pressure from the ground.

In problems with boundaries, the VT certainly applies, but the boundaries have to be taken into account. This is demonstrated, for example, in Kubo’s book on statistical mechanics.

So, I ask again:

– What form are you assuming for the potential function for the force between the Earth and the molecules?

– Where is the zero-point of the potential function?

(Further, you go on to say, “You may also noticed that I did not ‘apply’ the virial concept (numerically). My intention was simply to indicate the connection between the hydrostatic equilibrium (surface variables) and the internal energy (temperature profile).” The VT gives a numerical result, so if you are not applying it numerically, I don’t know how you are applying it. I ask again for the equations that explicitly connect E_u and {KE}, temperature and {PE}.

Neal J. King

said:#125, Ferenc:

I am trying to pin down the details of your calculation. The question is then, What is the functional form of the potential function you are assuming?

If it’s Newtonian gravity acting between the center of the Earth and the individual molecules, the functional form is:

U_s (.r) = – GMm/r

If it’s Newtonian gravity referred to the surface of the Earth, the functional form is:

U_f (z) = mgz

The calculation of the average total kinetic energy {KE} does not depend upon which you use, but it is certainly the case that {U_f} [b]does not equal[/b] {U_s}. In fact, these two have opposite sign, because {U_f} is a positive quantity, and {U_s} is a negative quantity.

It is true that the VT applies as long as the coordinates and momenta are bounded, and the averages {KE} and {PE} are well-defined. However, the exact value of the ratio {KE}/{PE} depends on the detailed force law (equivalently, potential function): In the case of a gas of particles held together by mutual gravitational attraction, the result is that

{KE}/{PE} = – (1/2)

(note the minus sign); but this is not exactly the case under consideration here. For the case of the atmosphere, we are considering a gas of particles held together, not by mutual gravitational attraction, but by individual attractions to the Earth; equally important, they are held away from the center of the Earth itself by the pressure from the ground.

In problems with boundaries, the VT certainly applies, but the boundaries have to be taken into account. This is demonstrated, for example, in Kubo’s book on statistical mechanics.

So, I ask again:

– What form are you assuming for the potential function for the force between the Earth and the molecules?

– Where is the zero-point of the potential function?

(Further, you go on to say, “You may also noticed that I did not â€˜applyâ€™ the virial concept (numerically). My intention was simply to indicate the connection between the hydrostatic equilibrium (surface variables) and the internal energy (temperature profile).” The VT gives a numerical result, so if you are not applying it numerically, I don’t know how you are applying it. I ask again for the equations that explicitly connect E_u and {KE}, temperature and {PE}.

Neal J. King

said:By the way, a more detailed book on the VT by Pf. Collins can be found at:

http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1978vtsa.book/Chapt1.pdf. Pages 8-10 cover the derivation in a more general fashion than does Baez, so that one can see how the result depends on the exact nature of the force law.

It should then be clearer why just saying “the VT applies to gravity” is not a sufficient response to the questions I’m asking above about the form of the potential function.

Neal J. King

said:By the way, a more detailed book on the VT by Pf. Collins can be found at:

http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1978vtsa.book/Chapt1.pdf. Pages 8-10 cover the derivation in a more general fashion than does Baez, so that one can see how the result depends on the exact nature of the force law.

It should then be clearer why just saying “the VT applies to gravity” is not a sufficient response to the questions I’m asking above about the form of the potential function.

Neal J. King

said:By the way, I prefer a more detailed exposition of the VT, by Pf. Collins: http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1978vtsa.book/Chapt1.pdf. Pages 8-10 gives an explicit calculation of how the ratio {KE}/{PE} depends on the force law. It also provides enough information to see how to handle the case with boundaries (although it does not treat them explicitly).

Neal J. King

said:By the way, I prefer a more detailed exposition of the VT, by Pf. Collins: http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1978vtsa.book/Chapt1.pdf. Pages 8-10 gives an explicit calculation of how the ratio {KE}/{PE} depends on the force law. It also provides enough information to see how to handle the case with boundaries (although it does not treat them explicitly).

Neal J. King

said:Ferenc,

The upshot of any way of applying the VT is that the atmosphere will

neversatisfy:{KE}/{PE} = (1/2)

– In the zero-radius Earth case, there is a minus sign.

– In the non-zero-radius case, there is a pressure term that accounts for the support provided by the Earth to keep the atmosphere from penetrating to the point r=0.

– In the flat-Earth approximation, the ratio is 3/2.

So there is no case in which the ratio = 1/2.

Neal J. King

said:Ferenc,

The upshot of any way of applying the VT is that the atmosphere will

neversatisfy:{KE}/{PE} = (1/2)

– In the zero-radius Earth case, there is a minus sign.

– In the non-zero-radius case, there is a pressure term that accounts for the support provided by the Earth to keep the atmosphere from penetrating to the point r=0.

– In the flat-Earth approximation, the ratio is 3/2.

So there is no case in which the ratio = 1/2.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:128# Neal King

I do not realy understand the relevance of computing the numerical value of the PE/KE ratio?

What I need is to have a link between the surface pressure and KE and the Eu and KE. This is quite sufficient to assume that the Su(Eu) function has something to do with the hydrostatic equilibrium…

For analyzing the radiative fluxes in the Earth’s atmosphere I do not need KE/PE. If I recall correctly, in the K&T97 IR radiation budget they also did not compute PE/KE, (although they have the Su~2Eu misterious relationship for they modified USST76 atmosphere).

Regarding the ‘flat’ or ‘spherical ‘ question, the total IR flux optical depths in the HARTCODE were computed using a spherical refractive atmosphere with an exponentialy placed shell structure.

Now that the PE/KE ratio is so exciting, and I have BPL and Jan Pompe’s estimates I am very curious of your estimate from your equations(flat and spherical)…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:128# Neal King

I do not realy understand the relevance of computing the numerical value of the PE/KE ratio?

What I need is to have a link between the surface pressure and KE and the Eu and KE. This is quite sufficient to assume that the Su(Eu) function has something to do with the hydrostatic equilibrium…

For analyzing the radiative fluxes in the Earth’s atmosphere I do not need KE/PE. If I recall correctly, in the K&T97 IR radiation budget they also did not compute PE/KE, (although they have the Su~2Eu misterious relationship for they modified USST76 atmosphere).

Regarding the ‘flat’ or ‘spherical ‘ question, the total IR flux optical depths in the HARTCODE were computed using a spherical refractive atmosphere with an exponentialy placed shell structure.

Now that the PE/KE ratio is so exciting, and I have BPL and Jan Pompe’s estimates I am very curious of your estimate from your equations(flat and spherical)…

Neal J. King

said:#132, Ferenc:

The reason I ask about this ratio is only because you cite this result in your 2007 paper:

– p.4, Section 2, assumption (g): “The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem:

the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of the total gravitational potential energy. The surface air temperature t_A is linked to the total gravitational potential energy through the surface pressure and air density. The temperature, pressure, and air density obey the gas law, therefore, in terms of radiative fluxS_A = σ(t_A)^4

represents also the total gravitational potential energy.”

– p.6, Section 3.1:

“Regarding the origin, EU is more closely related to the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, which – according to the virial theorem – in hydrostatic equilibrium balances the total gravitational potential energy.

To identify EU as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the. E_U can also be related to G_N through theE_U = S_U/2

equation must hold

E_U = S_U*(A−G_N)

equation. In opaque atmospheres A = 1 and the

G_N = 0.5 is the theoretical upper limit of the normalized greenhouse factor.”

So it seems that you are are deriving, in some way, one of your equations from the assumption that this ratio is 1/2. This is why the number is of interest, as I am trying to understand your detailed reasoning.

As to the value itself: As I indicated before, there are different cases:

– “classical result”: When the gas is held together by mutual gravitation: KE =

-(1/2)PE. (This is actually not relevant to the case at hand, because the atmosphere is NOT held together by mutual gravitation among the gas molecules.)– “flat-Earth” case: KE =

(3/2)PE. (According to what you have said just above, this is also not relevant.)– spherical Earth of non-zero radius R: the relationship is:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

where P(r=R) is the atmospheric pressure at ground level. This case is applicable; but note that the KE/PE ratio is not a fixed constant, but depends on the configuration of the whole atmosphere.

In no case can you arrive at:

KE =

(1/2)PENeal J. King

said:#132, Ferenc:

The reason I ask about this ratio is only because you cite this result in your 2007 paper:

– p.4, Section 2, assumption (g): “The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem:

the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of the total gravitational potential energy. The surface air temperature t_A is linked to the total gravitational potential energy through the surface pressure and air density. The temperature, pressure, and air density obey the gas law, therefore, in terms of radiative fluxS_A = Ïƒ(t_A)^4

represents also the total gravitational potential energy.”

– p.6, Section 3.1:

“Regarding the origin, EU is more closely related to the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, which â€“ according to the virial theorem â€“ in hydrostatic equilibrium balances the total gravitational potential energy.

To identify EU as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the. E_U can also be related to G_N through theE_U = S_U/2

equation must hold

E_U = S_U*(Aâˆ’G_N)

equation. In opaque atmospheres A = 1 and the

G_N = 0.5 is the theoretical upper limit of the normalized greenhouse factor.”

So it seems that you are are deriving, in some way, one of your equations from the assumption that this ratio is 1/2. This is why the number is of interest, as I am trying to understand your detailed reasoning.

As to the value itself: As I indicated before, there are different cases:

– “classical result”: When the gas is held together by mutual gravitation: KE =

-(1/2)PE. (This is actually not relevant to the case at hand, because the atmosphere is NOT held together by mutual gravitation among the gas molecules.)– “flat-Earth” case: KE =

(3/2)PE. (According to what you have said just above, this is also not relevant.)– spherical Earth of non-zero radius R: the relationship is:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

where P(r=R) is the atmospheric pressure at ground level. This case is applicable; but note that the KE/PE ratio is not a fixed constant, but depends on the configuration of the whole atmosphere.

In no case can you arrive at:

KE =

(1/2)PEJan Pompe

said:Neal

“In no case can you arrive at: KE = (1/2)PE”

in that case what estimate do you get for ke/pe I’m curious too.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal

“In no case can you arrive at: KE = (1/2)PE”

in that case what estimate do you get for ke/pe I’m curious too.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc, #132

“I do not realy understand the relevance of computing the numerical value of the PE/KE ratio?”

I didn’t think it was particularly important for the conclusions you drew and you don’t really use it to develop Eq 8 which is, I think, crucial to development of the transfer function and that in turn to calculate a theoretical τ to compare the empirical .

I just did to see if it worked and of course whether BPL &/or Neal had it right. Mainly just curiosity was my motive.

Neal the {KE} for a mol of air at r=R is 5946.0 J and PE = 0 at the same position because the KE (or pressure) there has done

no worklifting the parcel of air from the surface.Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc, #132

“I do not realy understand the relevance of computing the numerical value of the PE/KE ratio?”

I didn’t think it was particularly important for the conclusions you drew and you don’t really use it to develop Eq 8 which is, I think, crucial to development of the transfer function and that in turn to calculate a theoretical τ to compare the empirical .

I just did to see if it worked and of course whether BPL &/or Neal had it right. Mainly just curiosity was my motive.

Neal the {KE} for a mol of air at r=R is 5946.0 J and PE = 0 at the same position because the KE (or pressure) there has done

no worklifting the parcel of air from the surface.Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Potential energy has nothing to do with work done previously. An object has the same potential energy whether it was lifted to that position or has occupied that position since the beginning of time.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Potential energy has nothing to do with work done previously. An object has the same potential energy whether it was lifted to that position or has occupied that position since the beginning of time.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #136

You don’t really understand the virial theorem. It has everything to do with how KE and PE

changeas particles or or parcelsmovethrough a power (in this case gravity) field.Jan Pompe

said:BPL #136

You don’t really understand the virial theorem. It has everything to do with how KE and PE

changeas particles or or parcelsmovethrough a power (in this case gravity) field.Franko

said:“KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R) where P(r=R)”

The equation by Neal. What is the general equation, for a small volume, variables; both r and T ?

Franko

said:“KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R) where P(r=R)”

The equation by Neal. What is the general equation, for a small volume, variables; both r and T ?

Neal J. King

said:#135, Jan Pompe:

Given Ferenc’s responses so far, the only applicable equation is:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

where KE = average total KE of the atmosphere, PE = average total PE of the atmosphere, R = radius of the Earth, P(r=R) = 1 atmosphere of pressure.

What this definitely shows is that Ferenc’s assumption that KE/PE = ½ is in error: the sign is wrong; and if you ignore the sign, the magnitude is wrong.

This matters because he seems to be deriving from this assumption the equation

E_U = S_U/2.Otherwise, what is the justification for the ½? (There is still the broader question of how the E_U and S_U are related to bulk KE and PE as well.)

As far as the exact values: It would be a fair amount of work to calculate exactly: I would assume constant adiabatic lapse rate extended upwards in radius until the temperature drops to 0 Kelvin, this would give the density as a function of r. However, a reasonable estimate could be achieved by adapting the result of BPL’s calculation, because the atmosphere doesn’t extend very far up.

Barton, could you modify your calculation by referring the potential function to the center of the Earth? In other words, I believe you are usingU_f(z) = mgz ~ GMm(1/R – 1/r)

Therefore,

-GMm/r ~ mgz –GMm/R

So the total PE is

[-GMm/r] ~ [mgz] – [GMm/R]

= [PE_bpl] – GM_e*M_atmosphere/R

If my understanding of your calculation is correct, what do you get for (my definition of) PE?Neal J. King

said:#135, Jan Pompe:

Given Ferencâ€™s responses so far, the only applicable equation is:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

where KE = average total KE of the atmosphere, PE = average total PE of the atmosphere, R = radius of the Earth, P(r=R) = 1 atmosphere of pressure.

What this definitely shows is that Ferencâ€™s assumption that KE/PE = Â½ is in error: the sign is wrong; and if you ignore the sign, the magnitude is wrong.

This matters because he seems to be deriving from this assumption the equation

E_U = S_U/2.Otherwise, what is the justification for the Â½? (There is still the broader question of how the E_U and S_U are related to bulk KE and PE as well.)

As far as the exact values: It would be a fair amount of work to calculate exactly: I would assume constant adiabatic lapse rate extended upwards in radius until the temperature drops to 0 Kelvin, this would give the density as a function of r. However, a reasonable estimate could be achieved by adapting the result of BPLâ€™s calculation, because the atmosphere doesnâ€™t extend very far up.

Barton, could you modify your calculation by referring the potential function to the center of the Earth? In other words, I believe you are usingU_f(z) = mgz ~ GMm(1/R â€“ 1/r)

Therefore,

-GMm/r ~ mgz â€“GMm/R

So the total PE is

[-GMm/r] ~ [mgz] – [GMm/R]

= [PE_bpl] â€“ GM_e*M_atmosphere/R

If my understanding of your calculation is correct, what do you get for (my definition of) PE?Neal J. King

said:#135, Jan Pompe; #136: BPL; #136: Jan Pompe:

Since #131, I have lapsed into Ferenc’s terminology, using “PE” to indicate what I had earlier denoted by {PE}: the average total potential energy of the atmosphere.

As BPL pointed out, this quantity has nothing to do with work done or not done: It comes out of the calculation for the VT as part of the evaluation of

Average(Summation(

r_i .F_i))Since the forces involved are all functions of position, and the spatial configuration of the atmosphere as a whole is static, questions of history do not enter.

BPL, I would be pleased if you would do the calculation of PE along the lines that I proposed in #139 above; or correct my understanding of your calculation. It would then be possible, with minimal fuss, to calculate the ratio KE/PE, according to my understanding of the VT in the spherical-Earth case.

Thanks.

Neal J. King

said:#135, Jan Pompe; #136: BPL; #136: Jan Pompe:

Since #131, I have lapsed into Ferencâ€™s terminology, using â€œPEâ€ to indicate what I had earlier denoted by {PE}: the average total potential energy of the atmosphere.

As BPL pointed out, this quantity has nothing to do with work done or not done: It comes out of the calculation for the VT as part of the evaluation of

Average(Summation(

r_i .F_i))Since the forces involved are all functions of position, and the spatial configuration of the atmosphere as a whole is static, questions of history do not enter.

BPL, I would be pleased if you would do the calculation of PE along the lines that I proposed in #139 above; or correct my understanding of your calculation. It would then be possible, with minimal fuss, to calculate the ratio KE/PE, according to my understanding of the VT in the spherical-Earth case.

Thanks.

Neal J. King

said:#138, Franko:

r = the radial distance from the center of the Earth

R = radius of the Earth

T = temperature, defined locally; it does not appear in this equation, because it is subsumed in the calculation of the KE, the total kinetic energy of the atmosphere.

KE = integral of (3/2)kT*molecular_number_density

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Neal J. King

said:#138, Franko:

r = the radial distance from the center of the Earth

R = radius of the Earth

T = temperature, defined locally; it does not appear in this equation, because it is subsumed in the calculation of the KE, the total kinetic energy of the atmosphere.

KE = integral of (3/2)kT*molecular_number_density

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal

“the only applicable equation is:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)”

empirical evidence says otherwise sorry.

the ((2*pi*R^3)P(r=R) term is a kinetic energy term already included in {KE} and I’ve given you the value for that at r=R (5946 J) no point adding it twice (or subtracting from RHS as you have done).

Jan Pompe

said:Neal

“the only applicable equation is:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)”

empirical evidence says otherwise sorry.

the ((2*pi*R^3)P(r=R) term is a kinetic energy term already included in {KE} and I’ve given you the value for that at r=R (5946 J) no point adding it twice (or subtracting from RHS as you have done).

Neal J. King

said:#142, Jan Pompe:

As we have discussed extensively before, my view of the VT is completely different from your’s.

My posting #133(and subsequent clarifications by me,#139 & #140) constitute my answer to Ferenc’s question to me, in #132.Whether or not they satisfy you is not an issue which concerns me; as I am trying to understand Ferenc’s rationale in his paper, not your’s.

Neal J. King

said:#142, Jan Pompe:

As we have discussed extensively before, my view of the VT is completely different from your’s.

My posting #133(and subsequent clarifications by me,#139 & #140) constitute my answer to Ferenc’s question to me, in #132.Whether or not they satisfy you is not an issue which concerns me; as I am trying to understand Ferenc’s rationale in his paper, not your’s.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal #143

“As we have discussed extensively before, my view of the VT is completely different from your’s.”

Yes I noticed and it’ high time you got it right.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal #143

“As we have discussed extensively before, my view of the VT is completely different from yourâ€™s.”

Yes I noticed and it’ high time you got it right.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 133 #143 Neal

I wrote: ‘ To identify EU as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, theE_U = S_U/2 equation must hold.’

I admit, that this is confusing. If you take the meaning of the word ‘identify’ as ‘equal’ then this is incorrect since flux density can not be equal to bulk energy. Although I am not a ‘distinguisd scientist’ (in Nick’s term), you might assume, that I did not want to equate flux density with energy.

You may also recognize, that to have constant bulk energy in an externally forced system by a constant radiative flux density, you must have different constant radiative flux densities flowing into different directions…(this is also in the Collins book).

Regarding the ‘rationale’ you are looking for:

What I would like to express here is that in the steady state atmosphere the total kinetic energy is REPRESENTED by the Eu flux density, and in terms of radiative fluxes an Su=Su(Eu) type relationship is required by the hydrostatic equilibrium. I call this ‘virial type relationship’, which you may not like, but since I was the first who established this relationship, I can call it anything….

In the special case of Earth – because of the radiative equilibrium – this relation must be Su=2Eu. For the Martian atmosphere the similar relationship is Su=9.5Eu . And again, these relationships are not from the ‘application’ of the classical VT, but empirical facts, showing that my assumed Su=Su(Eu) functions exist.

#139 Neal

With the sign in paragraph (g) you are right, it is an obvious sign error, I should write ‘ the negative total kinetic energy ….’. Many people already pointed to this sign error, together with an other one in Eq. (B6) where, after the first term on the RHS the ‘+’ sign must be changed to ‘-‘ sign…I thank for all these comments, they are noted, and will be considered in the next edition.

#133 Neal (again)

I found a number in the Peixoto_Oort Physics of Climate book which indicate that te global average PE/KE ~ 0.384 , in the Pacheco-Sanudo virial paper (you referred to it somewhere) this ratio is R/Cv=0.4.You say that for the ‘flat’ Earth it must be 0.666….?

Can you give me clue? Or, we may wait for BPL new results…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 133 #143 Neal

I wrote: ‘ To identify EU as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, theE_U = S_U/2 equation must hold.’

I admit, that this is confusing. If you take the meaning of the word ‘identify’ as ‘equal’ then this is incorrect since flux density can not be equal to bulk energy. Although I am not a ‘distinguisd scientist’ (in Nick’s term), you might assume, that I did not want to equate flux density with energy.

You may also recognize, that to have constant bulk energy in an externally forced system by a constant radiative flux density, you must have different constant radiative flux densities flowing into different directions…(this is also in the Collins book).

Regarding the ‘rationale’ you are looking for:

What I would like to express here is that in the steady state atmosphere the total kinetic energy is REPRESENTED by the Eu flux density, and in terms of radiative fluxes an Su=Su(Eu) type relationship is required by the hydrostatic equilibrium. I call this ‘virial type relationship’, which you may not like, but since I was the first who established this relationship, I can call it anything….

In the special case of Earth – because of the radiative equilibrium – this relation must be Su=2Eu. For the Martian atmosphere the similar relationship is Su=9.5Eu . And again, these relationships are not from the ‘application’ of the classical VT, but empirical facts, showing that my assumed Su=Su(Eu) functions exist.

#139 Neal

With the sign in paragraph (g) you are right, it is an obvious sign error, I should write ‘ the negative total kinetic energy ….’. Many people already pointed to this sign error, together with an other one in Eq. (B6) where, after the first term on the RHS the ‘+’ sign must be changed to ‘-‘ sign…I thank for all these comments, they are noted, and will be considered in the next edition.

#133 Neal (again)

I found a number in the Peixoto_Oort Physics of Climate book which indicate that te global average PE/KE ~ 0.384 , in the Pacheco-Sanudo virial paper (you referred to it somewhere) this ratio is R/Cv=0.4.You say that for the ‘flat’ Earth it must be 0.666….?

Can you give me clue? Or, we may wait for BPL new results…

Neal J. King

said:#145, Ferenc:

a) On your statement, ‘”To identify EU as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the

E_U = S_U/2

equation must hold.”: The question of how you relate a bulk energy to a flux is one that has exercised several readers of your paper. This is the basis for my standing question, “What are the equations that relate E_u and KE, temperature and PE?”

Now you are saying that the total KE is

representedby E_u. What do you mean by “represented”? What are the equations that express this representation?When you call this representation “virial-type”, you are allowed to use what terminology you like: but when you state that “Applying the virial theorem to the radiative balance equation we present a coherent picture of the planetary greenhouse effect.”, the reader has a right to expect that there will be some relationship of an element of your argument to the normal use of the term “virial theorem”.

If now you say that the equation

E_u = S_u / 2

is not part of the theoretical foundation of the paper, but an empirical result, what is your basis for thinking that this factor is 0.5, and not 0.48, or 0.52 ?

Also, why do you say that this ratio is (1/0.95) for Mars? Is Mars

notin radiative equilibrium?b) I glad that we find agreement on the minus sign.

c) On the KE/PE ratio:

I am not sure exactly what Peixoto & Oort meant by PE.

On the Pacheco-Sanudo paper: Unfortunately, I have lost my copy of that paper, and can’t refer to it directly. However, my results and the P-S paper are essentially the same; so the result you are quoting should be equivalent to what I quoted before for the flat-Earth (what P-S calls the “planar Earth” model), for which KE/PE should be 3/2. This is derived as eqn(3) of my note, from the VT; P-S also derive it from the VT, and further show it is a result of hydrostatic equilibrium; and it can be explicitly calculated from both the constant-temperature model and the adiabatic model of the atmosphere (as also mentioned in my note).

But notice that the flat-Earth calculation assumes the potential function

U_f = + mgz

Looking at BPL’s page again, I realize that misinterpreted what he was doing before: In fact, he is calculating the PE using the potential function U_s = GMm/r (although he neglects the minus sign), not the flat-Earth potential. So we can use his calculation directly. I will address that below.

Neal J. King

said:#145, Ferenc:

a) On your statement, â€˜”To identify EU as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the

E_U = S_U/2

equation must hold.”: The question of how you relate a bulk energy to a flux is one that has exercised several readers of your paper. This is the basis for my standing question, “What are the equations that relate E_u and KE, temperature and PE?”

Now you are saying that the total KE is

representedby E_u. What do you mean by “represented”? What are the equations that express this representation?When you call this representation “virial-type”, you are allowed to use what terminology you like: but when you state that “Applying the virial theorem to the radiative balance equation we present a coherent picture of the planetary greenhouse effect.”, the reader has a right to expect that there will be some relationship of an element of your argument to the normal use of the term “virial theorem”.

If now you say that the equation

E_u = S_u / 2

is not part of the theoretical foundation of the paper, but an empirical result, what is your basis for thinking that this factor is 0.5, and not 0.48, or 0.52 ?

Also, why do you say that this ratio is (1/0.95) for Mars? Is Mars

notin radiative equilibrium?b) I glad that we find agreement on the minus sign.

c) On the KE/PE ratio:

I am not sure exactly what Peixoto & Oort meant by PE.

On the Pacheco-Sanudo paper: Unfortunately, I have lost my copy of that paper, and can’t refer to it directly. However, my results and the P-S paper are essentially the same; so the result you are quoting should be equivalent to what I quoted before for the flat-Earth (what P-S calls the “planar Earth” model), for which KE/PE should be 3/2. This is derived as eqn(3) of my note, from the VT; P-S also derive it from the VT, and further show it is a result of hydrostatic equilibrium; and it can be explicitly calculated from both the constant-temperature model and the adiabatic model of the atmosphere (as also mentioned in my note).

But notice that the flat-Earth calculation assumes the potential function

U_f = + mgz

Looking at BPL’s page again, I realize that misinterpreted what he was doing before: In fact, he is calculating the PE using the potential function U_s = GMm/r (although he neglects the minus sign), not the flat-Earth potential. So we can use his calculation directly. I will address that below.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #145

“What I would like to express here is that in the steady state atmosphere the total kinetic energy is REPRESENTED by the Eu flux density,”

These days you can buy a clinical (tympanic) thermometer that measures your temperature using a thermopile that measures radiative flux from the ear drum; that radiative flux is

representativeof your temperature.The calibration factor relating the output of the thermopile to body temperature will be an empirically determined one.

The idea of radiative flux representing temperature along with tympanic thermometers has been in use in hospitals for about 18 years now.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #145

“What I would like to express here is that in the steady state atmosphere the total kinetic energy is REPRESENTED by the Eu flux density,”

These days you can buy a clinical (tympanic) thermometer that measures your temperature using a thermopile that measures radiative flux from the ear drum; that radiative flux is

representativeof your temperature.The calibration factor relating the output of the thermopile to body temperature will be an empirically determined one.

The idea of radiative flux representing temperature along with tympanic thermometers has been in use in hospitals for about 18 years now.

Franko

said:Given height of small ideal gas volume, can calculate, internal kinetic and total potential energy of the volume. Then temperatures, and the ideal gas lapse rate.

Deviation from ideal lapse rate, partially attributed to radiation, and other identifiables, one by one.

Any possible payback, or too hard to tack on the non-idealistics ? (looking at the wiki T, altitude, and density chart, Atmosphere model.png , a real roller coaster ride.)

Franko

said:Given height of small ideal gas volume, can calculate, internal kinetic and total potential energy of the volume. Then temperatures, and the ideal gas lapse rate.

Deviation from ideal lapse rate, partially attributed to radiation, and other identifiables, one by one.

Any possible payback, or too hard to tack on the non-idealistics ? (looking at the wiki T, altitude, and density chart, Atmosphere model.png , a real roller coaster ride.)

Neal J. King

said:#146, continued:

Looking carefully at BPL’s calculation, I find that it does calculate directly the things that would be useful in verifying the result of the VT calculation for the spherical-Earth case:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

BPL calculates KE and PE in the appropriate context, with the appropriate zero point (at infinity).

So in principle, his calculations of KE and PE could be used to check the equation above. Unfortunately, he doesn’t use his model to calculate the KE and PE in each layer of his model; instead, he calculates altitude, pressure and temperature in each layer, and then calculates an

averagealtitude and temperature for the entire atmosphere. This is much too crude to get an accurate check for the equation above, which expresses the KE as the difference between two much larger quantities (which makes the KE result very sensitive to inaccuracy).What he gets is that:

– order of magnitude of KE is e23 (J)

– order of magnitude of PE is e26 (J)

and I calculate that the pressure term is 3.26 e26 (J)

So, his results are close enough to rule out the possibility of KE/PE = 0.5; but not close enough to check the equation. However, it is encouraging that the values of PE and the pressure term are very close.

To get a better check, I’ll do the calculation myself. I will model the atmosphere as a spherical shell with adiabatic lapse rate up to the tropopause level, and then fixed temperature for awhile above that. I will use analytic formulas for the density and pressure, and just integrate the PE and KE.

This may take awhile, because this week (in the real world) is busier for me than usual.

#148, Franko:

I think this addresses what you are asking about.

Neal J. King

said:#146, continued:

Looking carefully at BPL’s calculation, I find that it does calculate directly the things that would be useful in verifying the result of the VT calculation for the spherical-Earth case:

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

BPL calculates KE and PE in the appropriate context, with the appropriate zero point (at infinity).

So in principle, his calculations of KE and PE could be used to check the equation above. Unfortunately, he doesn’t use his model to calculate the KE and PE in each layer of his model; instead, he calculates altitude, pressure and temperature in each layer, and then calculates an

averagealtitude and temperature for the entire atmosphere. This is much too crude to get an accurate check for the equation above, which expresses the KE as the difference between two much larger quantities (which makes the KE result very sensitive to inaccuracy).What he gets is that:

– order of magnitude of KE is e23 (J)

– order of magnitude of PE is e26 (J)

and I calculate that the pressure term is 3.26 e26 (J)

So, his results are close enough to rule out the possibility of KE/PE = 0.5; but not close enough to check the equation. However, it is encouraging that the values of PE and the pressure term are very close.

To get a better check, I’ll do the calculation myself. I will model the atmosphere as a spherical shell with adiabatic lapse rate up to the tropopause level, and then fixed temperature for awhile above that. I will use analytic formulas for the density and pressure, and just integrate the PE and KE.

This may take awhile, because this week (in the real world) is busier for me than usual.

#148, Franko:

I think this addresses what you are asking about.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Neal,

The actual lapse rate in the troposphere is not adiabatic (9.77 K/km at sea level). It is closer to 6.5 K/km, though it actually varies from about 4.75 at sea level to roughly adiabatic at the tropopause. The difference comes from the phase changes of water.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Neal,

The actual lapse rate in the troposphere is not adiabatic (9.77 K/km at sea level). It is closer to 6.5 K/km, though it actually varies from about 4.75 at sea level to roughly adiabatic at the tropopause. The difference comes from the phase changes of water.

Neal J. King

said:#150, BPL:

Yes, I’ve heard that before.

I’ve been thinking of improving your calculation (along the lines suggested in #149), but it’s going to be delicate: The equation I have in mind depends on the real ground-level pressure, which depends on the total atmosphere, including (in principle) as high-up as it goes. Are there reasonably good models for P/T/n for the atmosphere, past the constant-T part of the stratosphere all the way out into space?

Of course, it’s possible that the highest levels of the atmosphere become unimportant beyond the stratosphere. But I haven’t done the calculation yet, so I don’t know if that’s true.

Neal J. King

said:#150, BPL:

Yes, I’ve heard that before.

I’ve been thinking of improving your calculation (along the lines suggested in #149), but it’s going to be delicate: The equation I have in mind depends on the real ground-level pressure, which depends on the total atmosphere, including (in principle) as high-up as it goes. Are there reasonably good models for P/T/n for the atmosphere, past the constant-T part of the stratosphere all the way out into space?

Of course, it’s possible that the highest levels of the atmosphere become unimportant beyond the stratosphere. But I haven’t done the calculation yet, so I don’t know if that’s true.

Neal J. King

said:#151, continued:

As BPL has pointed out, the dry adiabatic atmosphere is not realistic. However, it is a self-consistent model amenable to simple analysis, so in this post I’ll use it to check the equation:

KE = (-PE – 4*pi*R^3*P(r=R))/2

The calculation is done by using the adiabatic gas law (P/n^gamma) is constant) in the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium. This gives the density as a function of radius, and from that one can easily get temperature and pressure. The total kinetic energy, KE, can be calculated as (3/2) * Integral (pressure), and the total potential energy, PE, can also be directly calculated from the density and radius, by numerical integration.

Unfortunately, the integral turns out to converge rather slowly as the number of zones increases. Here are some results, where

X = (-PE – 4(pi)R^3*P_o)/2:

N PE/e26 KE/e23 X/e2310 -3.8986 6.3000 306.1

20 -3.5900 5.6700 151.8

30 -3.4900 5.4700 101.8

40 -3.4426 5.3700 78.06

100 -3.3547 5.1965 34.11

1000 -3.3024 5.0928 7.96

2000 -3.2995 5.0871 6.51

3000 -3.2986 5.0852 6.06

4000 -3.2981 5.0842 5.81

5000 -3.2978 5.0835 5.66

10000 -3.2972 5.0825 5.36

20000 -3.2969 5.0819 5.21

40000 -3.2968 5.0816 5.16

I am not sure how readable this is going to be, but the third column shows the increasingly accurate calculations of KE, and should equal the fourth column, if the adiabatic atmosphere complies with the Virial Theorem. As the number of points in the calculation goes from 10 to 40,000 the ratio of the result from the VT to the directly calculated KE goes from 49 to 1.02. The calculations for the KE and PE directly converge much more quickly, but the formula calculates the small difference of two large quantities, so small percentile errors have a big effect.

Taking the last values as the most accurate:

KE = 5.0816 e23

PE = -3.2968 e26

KE/PE = -1.541 e-3

By comparison, BPL’s results were:

KE = 4.696 e23

PE = -3.21 e26

KE/PE = -1.463 e-3

Qualitatively, not very different.

Neal J. King

said:#151, continued:

As BPL has pointed out, the dry adiabatic atmosphere is not realistic. However, it is a self-consistent model amenable to simple analysis, so in this post I’ll use it to check the equation:

KE = (-PE – 4*pi*R^3*P(r=R))/2

The calculation is done by using the adiabatic gas law (P/n^gamma) is constant) in the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium. This gives the density as a function of radius, and from that one can easily get temperature and pressure. The total kinetic energy, KE, can be calculated as (3/2) * Integral (pressure), and the total potential energy, PE, can also be directly calculated from the density and radius, by numerical integration.

Unfortunately, the integral turns out to converge rather slowly as the number of zones increases. Here are some results, where

X = (-PE – 4(pi)R^3*P_o)/2:

N PE/e26 KE/e23 X/e2310 -3.8986 6.3000 306.1

20 -3.5900 5.6700 151.8

30 -3.4900 5.4700 101.8

40 -3.4426 5.3700 78.06

100 -3.3547 5.1965 34.11

1000 -3.3024 5.0928 7.96

2000 -3.2995 5.0871 6.51

3000 -3.2986 5.0852 6.06

4000 -3.2981 5.0842 5.81

5000 -3.2978 5.0835 5.66

10000 -3.2972 5.0825 5.36

20000 -3.2969 5.0819 5.21

40000 -3.2968 5.0816 5.16

I am not sure how readable this is going to be, but the third column shows the increasingly accurate calculations of KE, and should equal the fourth column, if the adiabatic atmosphere complies with the Virial Theorem. As the number of points in the calculation goes from 10 to 40,000 the ratio of the result from the VT to the directly calculated KE goes from 49 to 1.02. The calculations for the KE and PE directly converge much more quickly, but the formula calculates the small difference of two large quantities, so small percentile errors have a big effect.

Taking the last values as the most accurate:

KE = 5.0816 e23

PE = -3.2968 e26

KE/PE = -1.541 e-3

By comparison, BPL’s results were:

KE = 4.696 e23

PE = -3.21 e26

KE/PE = -1.463 e-3

Qualitatively, not very different.

Franko

said:Phase change comment by Barton Paul Levenson and “microphysical processes” by Ferenc M. Miskolczi beg the question, how to try to get a handle on the non-ideal ?

“lapse rate is defined as the negative of the rate of change in an atmospheric variable” The difference between real and ideal lapse indicates a process not in the theory. Derivative of lapse rate can indicate start of a new process.

Like spectral lines, tables of actual measurements, to calculate lapses and derivatives. Hail stone, modeled, bonking on your head ?

Franko

said:Phase change comment by Barton Paul Levenson and “microphysical processes” by Ferenc M. Miskolczi beg the question, how to try to get a handle on the non-ideal ?

“lapse rate is defined as the negative of the rate of change in an atmospheric variable” The difference between real and ideal lapse indicates a process not in the theory. Derivative of lapse rate can indicate start of a new process.

Like spectral lines, tables of actual measurements, to calculate lapses and derivatives. Hail stone, modeled, bonking on your head ?

Steve Short

said:Neal:

“The total kinetic energy, KE, can be calculated as (3/2) * Integral (pressure), …”

Correct me if you think I’m wrong, but in the real Earth atmosphere doesn’t this assumption just provide an absolute minimum for the total KE?

What about the KE contained in water droplets in clouds, various forms of aerosols (both dry and deliquescent), mineral dust and ice (as Franko notes)?

Steve Short

said:Neal:

“The total kinetic energy, KE, can be calculated as (3/2) * Integral (pressure), …”

Correct me if you think I’m wrong, but in the real Earth atmosphere doesn’t this assumption just provide an absolute minimum for the total KE?

What about the KE contained in water droplets in clouds, various forms of aerosols (both dry and deliquescent), mineral dust and ice (as Franko notes)?

Franko

said:From Wikipedia: NRLMSISE-00 __ standard atmosphere chart plots density and temperature against altitude. Best empirical KE/PE derived from this source ?

Franko

said:From Wikipedia: NRLMSISE-00 __ standard atmosphere chart plots density and temperature against altitude. Best empirical KE/PE derived from this source ?

Neal J. King

said:#153, Franko:

Anything concerning the atmosphere that can be calculated on a spreadsheet is going to be quite idealized. The real lapse rate includes the effect of condensation, and in actuality would be highly dependent on the value of the humidity. I looked into one of my books on physical climatology to see if there was a convenient way to handle this analytically, and it looked rather messy: There are formulas, but not simple ones. We would now be looking at a much bigger program, not a spreadsheet calculation – and one that has to cover the variation with humidity.

The point of my computation above was to check that the simplest analytic model of the atmosphere complies with the result of applying the Virial Theorem. I would say that it checks:

The more accurately you compute the integrals, the better the match to the equation, although the integrals converge rather slowly: 40,000 points to get a match to within 2%.The next simplest analytical case is the constant-T atmosphere. There are some puzzling aspects about the KE and PE integrals, because the density seems to go to a non-zero constant at infinity.

#154, Steve Short:

If you are counting the translational kinetic energy of the water droplets, etc., I think each particle contributes its own kT towards the pressure, so I think that is included.

If you’re counting the KE of the constituent atoms within the particle, that would be the internal thermal energy of the particle, and does not contribute to the pressure.

Generally, the question is, Why are we calculating the KE of the atmosphere? The starting point was that Ferenc seemed to invoke the Virial Theorem to justify an equation involving radiation fluxes; in particular, there was a factor of 2 that seemed to find its origin in the “classical” result for the VT. My purpose in this analysis was to indicate that the “classical” result does not apply to the atmosphere, and hence the factor of 2 cannot be justified by the VT. However, I read Ferenc (#145) as now saying that the VT is not really invoked on this matter, and that the equation

E_u = S_u / 2

is justified only empirically. This is certainly not how it appears in the paper, and this has led to quite a bit of confusion for readers.

The related point is that the abstract states that the VT is has been applied to the radiative balance equation. It is not clear how this could be the case, if the VT is not actually invoked. It seems more as if what should really be said is, “We think the equation

E_u = S_u/2

is true empirically.”; with the VT left out of it entirely.

Ferenc, if the word “virial” were purged from the paper entirely, wouldn’t that actually clarify what you’re doing?Neal J. King

said:#153, Franko:

Anything concerning the atmosphere that can be calculated on a spreadsheet is going to be quite idealized. The real lapse rate includes the effect of condensation, and in actuality would be highly dependent on the value of the humidity. I looked into one of my books on physical climatology to see if there was a convenient way to handle this analytically, and it looked rather messy: There are formulas, but not simple ones. We would now be looking at a much bigger program, not a spreadsheet calculation – and one that has to cover the variation with humidity.

The point of my computation above was to check that the simplest analytic model of the atmosphere complies with the result of applying the Virial Theorem. I would say that it checks:

The more accurately you compute the integrals, the better the match to the equation, although the integrals converge rather slowly: 40,000 points to get a match to within 2%.The next simplest analytical case is the constant-T atmosphere. There are some puzzling aspects about the KE and PE integrals, because the density seems to go to a non-zero constant at infinity.

#154, Steve Short:

If you are counting the translational kinetic energy of the water droplets, etc., I think each particle contributes its own kT towards the pressure, so I think that is included.

If you’re counting the KE of the constituent atoms within the particle, that would be the internal thermal energy of the particle, and does not contribute to the pressure.

Generally, the question is, Why are we calculating the KE of the atmosphere? The starting point was that Ferenc seemed to invoke the Virial Theorem to justify an equation involving radiation fluxes; in particular, there was a factor of 2 that seemed to find its origin in the “classical” result for the VT. My purpose in this analysis was to indicate that the “classical” result does not apply to the atmosphere, and hence the factor of 2 cannot be justified by the VT. However, I read Ferenc (#145) as now saying that the VT is not really invoked on this matter, and that the equation

E_u = S_u / 2

is justified only empirically. This is certainly not how it appears in the paper, and this has led to quite a bit of confusion for readers.

The related point is that the abstract states that the VT is has been applied to the radiative balance equation. It is not clear how this could be the case, if the VT is not actually invoked. It seems more as if what should really be said is, “We think the equation

E_u = S_u/2

is true empirically.”; with the VT left out of it entirely.

Ferenc, if the word “virial” were purged from the paper entirely, wouldn’t that actually clarify what you’re doing?Nick Stokes

said:#154

Neal, re your question of whether the mention of virial should be abandoned. There is one point, the “virial term” SV added in Eq 9, which is rather complicated and is definitely attributed to the virial theorem. The basis for this term re the VT is quite unexplained, but there is also (as yet, I believe) no basis from LBL calculations claimed.

Nick Stokes

said:#154

Neal, re your question of whether the mention of virial should be abandoned. There is one point, the “virial term” SV added in Eq 9, which is rather complicated and is definitely attributed to the virial theorem. The basis for this term re the VT is quite unexplained, but there is also (as yet, I believe) no basis from LBL calculations claimed.

Neal J. King

said:#157, Nick Stokes:

Thanks, I missed that: I had already identified, in my note, Eqn. (8) as one I don’t understand, since it seems to be derived from Eqn. (7), which I don’t understand. So I missed the reference to a ‘virial’ term.

Ferenc, could you explain the logical relationship between this additive ‘virial’ term, S_v, and the actual Virial Theorem?Neal J. King

said:#157, Nick Stokes:

Thanks, I missed that: I had already identified, in my note, Eqn. (8) as one I don’t understand, since it seems to be derived from Eqn. (7), which I don’t understand. So I missed the reference to a ‘virial’ term.

Ferenc, could you explain the logical relationship between this additive ‘virial’ term, S_v, and the actual Virial Theorem?Anonymous

said:Neal, I put your notes on VT here. Thanks

http://landshape.org/stats/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-planetary-atmospheres/

davids

said:Neal, I put your notes on VT here. Thanks

http://landshape.org/stats/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-planetary-atmospheres/

Neal J. King

said:#159, davids:

Thanks, David.

Posted at: http://landshape.org/stats/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-planetary-atmospheres/ is a numerical check on the equation derived from the Virial Theorem:

KE = (-PE – 4(pi)R^3*P(r=R))/2

As described in #152, I have taken the pure adiabatic atmosphere as an analytically solvable model, on an Earth-sized planet with standard ground-level pressure, temperature, composition. As shown in the note referenced above, it’s possible to calculate KE and PE explicitly, and show that they satisfy the equation above.

In that note, I used a decreasing increment size to show that the equation was better and better met, as the increment became smaller and smaller. Since then, I have remembered a technique from 1st-year calculus: accelerating the convergence of a numerical integral by taking into account the linear dependence of the value of the Riemann sums on the increment size. When I apply that to the set of values in the note, I get:

KE0 = 5.08134E+23

PE0 = -3.29664E+26

and hence:

KEo_vt = 5.07923E+23

KEo_vt/ KE0 = 0.99958

So now the equation is satisfied extremely well.

I point out that this is not my estimate for the KE and PE values for the

actualEarth, which has a different atmospheric structure (with temperature rising in the stratosphere, then falling again, etc.). It would be possible to do a calculation using the data from the atmospheric models mentioned by Franko – but I would have to get the data in the cheap format I have available (i.e., Excel); also, I’m not sure what significance this value would have.My main point in this exercise was to be check that the result of the VT gave the proper answer to a problem that could be done a different way. It seems to work very well!

Neal J. King

said:#159, davids:

Thanks, David.

Posted at: http://landshape.org/stats/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-planetary-atmospheres/ is a numerical check on the equation derived from the Virial Theorem:

KE = (-PE – 4(pi)R^3*P(r=R))/2

As described in #152, I have taken the pure adiabatic atmosphere as an analytically solvable model, on an Earth-sized planet with standard ground-level pressure, temperature, composition. As shown in the note referenced above, it’s possible to calculate KE and PE explicitly, and show that they satisfy the equation above.

In that note, I used a decreasing increment size to show that the equation was better and better met, as the increment became smaller and smaller. Since then, I have remembered a technique from 1st-year calculus: accelerating the convergence of a numerical integral by taking into account the linear dependence of the value of the Riemann sums on the increment size. When I apply that to the set of values in the note, I get:

KE0 = 5.08134E+23

PE0 = -3.29664E+26

and hence:

KEo_vt = 5.07923E+23

KEo_vt/ KE0 = 0.99958

So now the equation is satisfied extremely well.

I point out that this is not my estimate for the KE and PE values for the

actualEarth, which has a different atmospheric structure (with temperature rising in the stratosphere, then falling again, etc.). It would be possible to do a calculation using the data from the atmospheric models mentioned by Franko – but I would have to get the data in the cheap format I have available (i.e., Excel); also, I’m not sure what significance this value would have.My main point in this exercise was to be check that the result of the VT gave the proper answer to a problem that could be done a different way. It seems to work very well!

Franko

said:145 Ferenc M. Miskolczi states:

“total kinetic energy is REPRESENTED by the Eu flux density, and in terms of radiative fluxes an Su=Su(Eu) type relationship is required by the hydrostatic equilibrium. I call this ‘virial type relationship’”

John Baez: ” “virial theorem”, which also applies to forces other than gravity, and impacts everything from astronomy to the theory of gases”

Is Miskolczi within naming rules, allowed to call the relationship viral type ?

KE, PE, define one, get the other. But would be interesting to look at empirical, actual, Earth atmosphere ratio, not just at current state, but calculated perturbations. Googling to see if anyone has made such a graph.

Franko

said:145 Ferenc M. Miskolczi states:

“total kinetic energy is REPRESENTED by the Eu flux density, and in terms of radiative fluxes an Su=Su(Eu) type relationship is required by the hydrostatic equilibrium. I call this â€˜virial type relationshipâ€™”

John Baez: ” “virial theorem”, which also applies to forces other than gravity, and impacts everything from astronomy to the theory of gases”

Is Miskolczi within naming rules, allowed to call the relationship viral type ?

KE, PE, define one, get the other. But would be interesting to look at empirical, actual, Earth atmosphere ratio, not just at current state, but calculated perturbations. Googling to see if anyone has made such a graph.

Neal J. King

said:#161, Franko:

– Well, I find it a bit confusing to use the term “virial” without intending reliance on the virial theorem. I think it makes it harder to understand his intention.

– The calculation of total KE and total PE are separate. For the first you need pressure profiles, for the second density profiles; the temperature profiles can help relate them. But what will you learn from the ratio under different perturbations? The model calculation gives KE/PE = -1.54e-3, BPL got -1.46e-3. It is hard to believe that you will get anything very different. The value of PE cannot change much, because the height of the atmosphere is small compared to the radius of the Earth. So any change has to come from the value of KE; it is hard to believe that you could get as much as a factor of 2.

Neal J. King

said:#161, Franko:

– Well, I find it a bit confusing to use the term “virial” without intending reliance on the virial theorem. I think it makes it harder to understand his intention.

– The calculation of total KE and total PE are separate. For the first you need pressure profiles, for the second density profiles; the temperature profiles can help relate them. But what will you learn from the ratio under different perturbations? The model calculation gives KE/PE = -1.54e-3, BPL got -1.46e-3. It is hard to believe that you will get anything very different. The value of PE cannot change much, because the height of the atmosphere is small compared to the radius of the Earth. So any change has to come from the value of KE; it is hard to believe that you could get as much as a factor of 2.

Franko

said:“But what will you learn from the ratio under different perturbations?”

Exploring, turning a rock ower to see what is underneath, kicking a tire. Driving function is day and night, (tides), how atmosphere adjusts. Circuit analysis methods to shake out, further refine empiricals.

Puzzled, looking at empirical and predicted, what are other approaches ?

Franko

said:“But what will you learn from the ratio under different perturbations?”

Exploring, turning a rock ower to see what is underneath, kicking a tire. Driving function is day and night, (tides), how atmosphere adjusts. Circuit analysis methods to shake out, further refine empiricals.

Puzzled, looking at empirical and predicted, what are other approaches ?

Franko

said:“factor of 2″ for a gravity system.

Other virial systems , without the constant G, other constant fudged to 2

Franko

said:“factor of 2″ for a gravity system.

Other virial systems , without the constant G, other constant fudged to 2

Neal J. King

said:#164, Franko:

I don’t quite understand what you are asking:

– The factor of 2 I am talking about refers to further variation due to conceivable changes in the temperature profiles, etc. The starting point is still going to be a KE/PE ratio of around 1.5e-3, so I think you will always get something between 7.5e-4 and 3e-3.

– Changing to a non-gravitational force is in the realm of either mathematical physics or science fiction. Neither will provide much insight into climate science; but in either case, you don’t need real data, you can just propose plausible formulas.

Am I missing your point?

Neal J. King

said:#164, Franko:

I don’t quite understand what you are asking:

– The factor of 2 I am talking about refers to further variation due to conceivable changes in the temperature profiles, etc. The starting point is still going to be a KE/PE ratio of around 1.5e-3, so I think you will always get something between 7.5e-4 and 3e-3.

– Changing to a non-gravitational force is in the realm of either mathematical physics or science fiction. Neither will provide much insight into climate science; but in either case, you don’t need real data, you can just propose plausible formulas.

Am I missing your point?

Franko

said:Since gas molecules not in orbit, 90 minutes around Earth; Miskolczi concepts non-gravitational ‘virial type relationship’.

As a guess, the ratio you calculated has relevance to a Virial Equation of State.

Miskolczi should detail this, to avoid all unending virial confusions.

Franko

said:Since gas molecules not in orbit, 90 minutes around Earth; Miskolczi concepts non-gravitational â€˜virial type relationshipâ€™.

As a guess, the ratio you calculated has relevance to a Virial Equation of State.

Miskolczi should detail this, to avoid all unending virial confusions.

Neal J. King

said:#166, Franko:

– The ratio I calculated has relevance to the current atmosphere.

– I also find that the term “virial” used in this paper does not have very clear-cut implications.

Neal J. King

said:#166, Franko:

– The ratio I calculated has relevance to the current atmosphere.

– I also find that the term “virial” used in this paper does not have very clear-cut implications.

Franko

said:Rabett Run: “The greenhouse gas theory that has been used for the last century is TOTALLY WRONG! The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.”

Ray Ladbury Says: “through 40 pages of mumbo jumbo, I’d probably find the kitchen sink in there, too”

Too little, or excess explaining effort ? Miskolczi cannot win. He thinks visually, mathematically, translates into Hungarian (on orphan on the language tree). Then another European language. Finally to American. At his skill level, hard to explain complexities to realclimate ice cube counters.

No one can say they have done all they can. But googling around, Miskolczi is correct in bringing virial, the non-gravitational version, to give insight to another variable.

Although Miskolczi may question your efforts to actually calculate the PE/KE – I am learning from it. An emphasized exclamation proof; atmosphere not in orbit !

Franko

said:Rabett Run: “The greenhouse gas theory that has been used for the last century is TOTALLY WRONG! The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.”

Ray Ladbury Says: â€œthrough 40 pages of mumbo jumbo, Iâ€™d probably find the kitchen sink in there, tooâ€

Too little, or excess explaining effort ? Miskolczi cannot win. He thinks visually, mathematically, translates into Hungarian (on orphan on the language tree). Then another European language. Finally to American. At his skill level, hard to explain complexities to realclimate ice cube counters.

No one can say they have done all they can. But googling around, Miskolczi is correct in bringing virial, the non-gravitational version, to give insight to another variable.

Although Miskolczi may question your efforts to actually calculate the PE/KE – I am learning from it. An emphasized exclamation proof; atmosphere not in orbit !

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#156 Neal

–Ferenc, if the word “virial” were purged from the paper entirely, wouldn’t that actually clarify what you’re doing?—

I do not think so. The Su and Eu are both related to the VT through the hydrostatic equilibrium. The Su=2Eu and Su=9.5Eu are not just accidental relationships. For the Earth, because of the radiative equilibrium Eu/Su~f-Ta~0.5, but for the Mars there is no such relationship…

—

The Sv term assures the validity of the Su=(3/2)OLR and Su=2Eu at St/Su=1/6, and handles the trivial – no absorption case – St=Su and Su=OLR.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#156 Neal

–Ferenc, if the word â€œvirialâ€ were purged from the paper entirely, wouldnâ€™t that actually clarify what youâ€™re doing?—

I do not think so. The Su and Eu are both related to the VT through the hydrostatic equilibrium. The Su=2Eu and Su=9.5Eu are not just accidental relationships. For the Earth, because of the radiative equilibrium Eu/Su~f-Ta~0.5, but for the Mars there is no such relationship…

—

The Sv term assures the validity of the Su=(3/2)OLR and Su=2Eu at St/Su=1/6, and handles the trivial – no absorption case – St=Su and Su=OLR.

Franko

said:Wiki: “virial theorem does not depend on the notion of temperature and holds even for systems that are not in thermal equilibrium”

Magical is an often used description of the virial theorem. Any use, working it out, without the virial theorem ?

Franko

said:Wiki: “virial theorem does not depend on the notion of temperature and holds even for systems that are not in thermal equilibrium”

Magical is an often used description of the virial theorem. Any use, working it out, without the virial theorem ?

Neal J. King

said:#169, Ferenc Miskolczi:

I do not understand your points:

– If the S_u/E_u ratio is controlled by the result of the Virial Theorem, then this ratio should not be 2, but rather either (2/3) or (1/1.54e-3) = 649.35.

– Why do you assert that the Earth is in radiative equilibrium but that Mars is not?

– What does the S_v term have to do with the Virial Theorem?

Neal J. King

said:#169, Ferenc Miskolczi:

I do not understand your points:

– If the S_u/E_u ratio is controlled by the result of the Virial Theorem, then this ratio should not be 2, but rather either (2/3) or (1/1.54e-3) = 649.35.

– Why do you assert that the Earth is in radiative equilibrium but that Mars is not?

– What does the S_v term have to do with the Virial Theorem?

Jan Pompe

said:Ho hum.

“- If the S_u/E_u ratio is controlled by the result of the Virial Theorem, then this ratio should not be 2, but rather either (2/3) or (1/1.54e-3) = 649.35.”

The red dots: Su=2Eu

Jan Pompe

said:Ho hum.

“- If the S_u/E_u ratio is controlled by the result of the Virial Theorem, then this ratio should not be 2, but rather either (2/3) or (1/1.54e-3) = 649.35.”

The red dots: Su=2Eu

Franko

said:Surface upward flux density = S_U —- potential term

Upward atmospheric emittance = E_U —- kinetic term

Potential = Twice kinetic —- (S_U = 2*E_U)

How to reference to —- m*G*h = (m*v^2)

Franko

said:Surface upward flux density = S_U —- potential term

Upward atmospheric emittance = E_U —- kinetic term

Potential = Twice kinetic —- (S_U = 2*E_U)

How to reference to —- m*G*h = (m*v^2)

Jan Pompe

said:franko #173

the kinetic energy provides the buoyancy that lifts the air reducing the KE as it does and the PE (-mgh) becomes more negative the higher the air is.

you can simply calculate KE = 3/2RT for 29g (1 mol) of air and do he same for the PE = -29*9.8*h for a given atmospheric profile ( I used globally averaged TIGR) and got PE/KE= -2.05

Jan Pompe

said:franko #173

the kinetic energy provides the buoyancy that lifts the air reducing the KE as it does and the PE (-mgh) becomes more negative the higher the air is.

you can simply calculate KE = 3/2RT for 29g (1 mol) of air and do he same for the PE = -29*9.8*h for a given atmospheric profile ( I used globally averaged TIGR) and got PE/KE= -2.05

Franko

said:Ok, given an amount of energy, atmosphere is lifted from surface (mgh ~ S_U). Left ower 1/3 energy is kinetic (0.5*m*v^2 ~ E_U)

Maintained at height h, by (kinetic) pressure. While radiating due remaining kinetic energy (temperature). Remaining kinetic does both.

Will have to read paper more, how units match, optical depth etc.

Franko

said:Ok, given an amount of energy, atmosphere is lifted from surface (mgh ~ S_U). Left ower 1/3 energy is kinetic (0.5*m*v^2 ~ E_U)

Maintained at height h, by (kinetic) pressure. While radiating due remaining kinetic energy (temperature). Remaining kinetic does both.

Will have to read paper more, how units match, optical depth etc.

Franko

said:Molecule, photon, temperature radiating, twice momentum recoil against surface than to space. — However, energy, via photon escape recoil, boils off to space

Franko

said:Molecule, photon, temperature radiating, twice momentum recoil against surface than to space. — However, energy, via photon escape recoil, boils off to space

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #175

If you have radiation due to kinetic energy at the top air will sink until new balance is achieved warmer parcel rises to take it’s place.

This might help fill some gaps

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #175

If you have radiation due to kinetic energy at the top air will sink until new balance is achieved warmer parcel rises to take it’s place.

This might help fill some gaps

Franko

said:Thanks.

Twice the momentum transfer, twice the flux, just like the virial.

Curious why your PE/KE= -2.05 not exact ?

Was calculated spherical ? Different from flat model ?

Franko

said:Thanks.

Twice the momentum transfer, twice the flux, just like the virial.

Curious why your PE/KE= -2.05 not exact ?

Was calculated spherical ? Different from flat model ?

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #178

“Curious why your PE/KE= -2.05 not exact ?”

there are several sources of error starting with the non exact 29g gram molecular weight of air which is the weighted average of ~20% O2 at 32 g and N2 at 28g. Then the profiles only go to 70 km and on it goes. Under the circumstances it isn’t bad.

“Was calculated spherical ? Different from flat model ?”

that makes little difference except if you use

Gm_iM(1/R – 1/r_i) as I did you make some allowance for variation of gravitational flied strength with distance. (I did it the other way and got -2.1) .

If you want to play with the profile get it here

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #178

“Curious why your PE/KE= -2.05 not exact ?”

there are several sources of error starting with the non exact 29g gram molecular weight of air which is the weighted average of ~20% O2 at 32 g and N2 at 28g. Then the profiles only go to 70 km and on it goes. Under the circumstances it isn’t bad.

“Was calculated spherical ? Different from flat model ?”

that makes little difference except if you use

Gm_iM(1/R – 1/r_i) as I did you make some allowance for variation of gravitational flied strength with distance. (I did it the other way and got -2.1) .

If you want to play with the profile get it here

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

I don’t think there’s much convection in the stratosphere.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

I don’t think there’s much convection in the stratosphere.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko

“I don’t think there’s much convection in the stratosphere.”

Little or much, in stratosphere or troposphere, if a parcel moves horizontally nothing changes if it moves vertically it displaces and must be replaced so again nothing changes over time.

The identity:

1/2. d^2I/dt^2 = dG/dt = 2{KE} +{PE} must = 0 for the atmosphere height and moment of inertia about the centre of gravity to be constant. By the way it’s never perfect there will always be some boil off.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko

“I donâ€™t think thereâ€™s much convection in the stratosphere.”

Little or much, in stratosphere or troposphere, if a parcel moves horizontally nothing changes if it moves vertically it displaces and must be replaced so again nothing changes over time.

The identity:

1/2. d^2I/dt^2 = dG/dt = 2{KE} +{PE} must = 0 for the atmosphere height and moment of inertia about the centre of gravity to be constant. By the way it’s never perfect there will always be some boil off.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#179

Jan, I guess the most important is the way how you select a global average profile from about 1700 radiosonde observatios. I did in a way that – as you showed – the PE/KE turned out to be close to -2.The USST76 – a declared global average profil by Kiehl-Trenberth gives a different ratio.The global-annual averaging is not trivial and it can change both the thermal structure and the absorber amount. Both are crucial for the global average flux densities and the radiative equilibrium.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#179

Jan, I guess the most important is the way how you select a global average profile from about 1700 radiosonde observatios. I did in a way that – as you showed – the PE/KE turned out to be close to -2.The USST76 – a declared global average profil by Kiehl-Trenberth gives a different ratio.The global-annual averaging is not trivial and it can change both the thermal structure and the absorber amount. Both are crucial for the global average flux densities and the radiative equilibrium.

Franko

said:Miskolczi refers to the Virial theorem, as an eleganmt way to tie together fluxes exactly.

Potential = Twice kinetic —- (S_U = 2*E_U)

How well does the impulse, momentum via photon transfer argument fly ? Extra messy to prove formally ?

Franko

said:Miskolczi refers to the Virial theorem, as an eleganmt way to tie together fluxes exactly.

Potential = Twice kinetic â€”- (S_U = 2*E_U)

How well does the impulse, momentum via photon transfer argument fly ? Extra messy to prove formally ?

Franko

said:#180 Barton Paul Levenson

We are here to understand the atmosphere, not to pick arguments.

Miskolczi has what looks like real gold. Not just fools gold, a cruel hoax of the mafia climatists.

The virial tree, on the tresure map, to the gold mine; did he make three lefts to go right. Averaged to perfect grey accuracy ?

Please contribute positively; things you are puzzled about might help others also to understand.

Franko

said:#180 Barton Paul Levenson

We are here to understand the atmosphere, not to pick arguments.

Miskolczi has what looks like real gold. Not just fools gold, a cruel hoax of the mafia climatists.

The virial tree, on the tresure map, to the gold mine; did he make three lefts to go right. Averaged to perfect grey accuracy ?

Please contribute positively; things you are puzzled about might help others also to understand.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #182

Thank you this is interesting. The two possible sources of error were just the first two I could think of that I felt I could explain adequately. The problem with global averaging did cross my mind but I didn’t want to go there just yet.

You do mention in your paper that you selected ~230 0f the ~1700 profiles, but I have no idea as to your selection criteria. I just suspect that conditions were such that surface readings were

effectivelycollocated and contemporary with those at the top of the atmosphere and along the way. I see now even that may be too simple.Is it worth do you think to see what result

I will get using the pressure and number density.

Franko

“How well does the impulse, momentum via photon transfer argument fly ? ”

It does in star interiors where radiation pressure prevents further collapse but not on planets the pressure is too small. (I’m guessing at your meaning here).

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #182

Thank you this is interesting. The two possible sources of error were just the first two I could think of that I felt I could explain adequately. The problem with global averaging did cross my mind but I didn’t want to go there just yet.

You do mention in your paper that you selected ~230 0f the ~1700 profiles, but I have no idea as to your selection criteria. I just suspect that conditions were such that surface readings were

effectivelycollocated and contemporary with those at the top of the atmosphere and along the way. I see now even that may be too simple.Is it worth do you think to see what result

I will get using the pressure and number density.

Franko

“How well does the impulse, momentum via photon transfer argument fly ? ”

It does in star interiors where radiation pressure prevents further collapse but not on planets the pressure is too small. (I’m guessing at your meaning here).

Franko

said:I was thinking that at surface molecular bounce is just short range photon/quantum (2*m*v). Top of atmosphere only one (m*v) loss — one molecule looses momentum to another molecule, via emitting a to be lost photon. The exact 2:1 ratio is prompting me to think more.

Actual measure, deviation from 2:1 theory, is very sensitive to higher order effects.

Franko

said:I was thinking that at surface molecular bounce is just short range photon/quantum (2*m*v). Top of atmosphere only one (m*v) loss — one molecule looses momentum to another molecule, via emitting a to be lost photon. The exact 2:1 ratio is prompting me to think more.

Actual measure, deviation from 2:1 theory, is very sensitive to higher order effects.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#185

Jan, I have some details on the work with the

TIGR profiles, however they are rather old. But probably I would do it now in the same way.

I E-mail you the pdf files.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#185

Jan, I have some details on the work with the

TIGR profiles, however they are rather old. But probably I would do it now in the same way.

I E-mail you the pdf files.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #186

I like the explanation of John Baez where he says

AS for assumption 1 I don’t think those “well-defined” values can be precisely known.

For photon bounce of a surface we get 2*m*v if it bounces and m*v if absorbed and the balance of those probabilities to deal with. While it’s an interesting idea I don’t think it will fly.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #186

I like the explanation of John Baez where he says

AS for assumption 1 I don’t think those “well-defined” values can be precisely known.

For photon bounce of a surface we get 2*m*v if it bounces and m*v if absorbed and the balance of those probabilities to deal with. While it’s an interesting idea I don’t think it will fly.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #188

Thanks for that I’ll look at them soon. I have a clean up to do in my garage today and lawns to mow (maybe) before I go to work.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #188

Thanks for that I’ll look at them soon. I have a clean up to do in my garage today and lawns to mow (maybe) before I go to work.

Neal J. King

said:Ference:

My questions to you, stated in #171, remain:

– If you are using the Virial Theorem to justify the equation, then the factor of 2 is [b]not[/b] correct for the S_u/E_u ratio: It should be 0.66666 or 649.35.

– If you are [b]not[/b] using the Virial Theorem to justify the equation (because it is based only on measurements), what is the point of calling it “virial-related” or “virial-like”? How does that clarify what you are trying to explain?

I am not really interested in anyone else’s explication of this point: [b]This question is directed specifically at the author of the paper, Ferenc Miskolczi[/b].

Neal J. King

said:Ference:

My questions to you, stated in #171, remain:

– If you are using the Virial Theorem to justify the equation, then the factor of 2 is [b]not[/b] correct for the S_u/E_u ratio: It should be 0.66666 or 649.35.

– If you are [b]not[/b] using the Virial Theorem to justify the equation (because it is based only on measurements), what is the point of calling it “virial-related” or “virial-like”? How does that clarify what you are trying to explain?

I am not really interested in anyone else’s explication of this point: [b]This question is directed specifically at the author of the paper, Ferenc Miskolczi[/b].

Jan Pompe

said:Neal #190

I’m just pointing out where the question is already answered.

What is your problem with this?

Jan Pompe

said:Neal #190

I’m just pointing out where the question is already answered.

What is your problem with this?

Franko

said:King’s Road to the support by radiation, 2:1 flux ratio answer; Virial theorem, optical depth, just easy to get lost alleys ?

There must be an exact theoretical solution. Perhaps build up from a mixed bag of molecules, photons, surface and gravity bounded, exchanging, converting. Simple exact property defined objects, giving one exact answer.

Computer simulation could give insights. Model with sufficiently small number of molecules and photons, start, zero, on the surface energy. Then zap with high energy photons, more fun than a glider in the game of life ?

Franko

said:King’s Road to the support by radiation, 2:1 flux ratio answer; Virial theorem, optical depth, just easy to get lost alleys ?

There must be an exact theoretical solution. Perhaps build up from a mixed bag of molecules, photons, surface and gravity bounded, exchanging, converting. Simple exact property defined objects, giving one exact answer.

Computer simulation could give insights. Model with sufficiently small number of molecules and photons, start, zero, on the surface energy. Then zap with high energy photons, more fun than a glider in the game of life ?

Steve Short

said:Regarding the stratosphere, convection and the true PE/KE ratio :

“Recent observations reported in the literature have provoked renewed interest in the effects of deep convection on the water content of the stratosphere.

Measurements of extraneous abundances of the heavy water vapour isotopologues in the lower stratosphere above N. American vapour plumes, solid particles – most likely ice – over tropical continental regions and frequencies of occurrence of overshooting deep convection suggest that such clouds inject ice into the stratosphere and that the moistening effect is likely to be greater than previously thought.

If, as observations suggest, mid-latitude storms can provide an important stratospheric moistening effect then the combined effect of tropical and mid-latitude storms will make it more likely for deep convection to play a role in determining stratospheric water vapour levels and trends.”

Moistening of the stratosphere by deep convection as

simulated by Cloud Resolving Models.

D. P. Grosvenor (1), T. W. Choularton (1), H. Coe (1) and G. Held (2).

(1) The University of Manchester, UK, (2) IPMET, S.P., Brazil.

(daniel.grosvenor@manchester.ac.uk)

Geophysical Research Abstracts,

Vol. 10, EGU2008-A-11206, 2008

Ferenc:

“…the most important is the way how you select a global average profile from about 1700 radiosonde observatios. I did in a way that – as you showed – the PE/KE turned out to be close to -2.The USST76 – a declared global average profil by Kiehl-Trenberth gives a different ratio.The global-annual averaging is not trivial and it can change both the thermal structure and the absorber amount. Both are crucial for the global average flux densities and the radiative equilibrium.”

?????

Steve Short

said:Regarding the stratosphere, convection and the true PE/KE ratio :

“Recent observations reported in the literature have provoked renewed interest in the effects of deep convection on the water content of the stratosphere.

Measurements of extraneous abundances of the heavy water vapour isotopologues in the lower stratosphere above N. American vapour plumes, solid particles – most likely ice – over tropical continental regions and frequencies of occurrence of overshooting deep convection suggest that such clouds inject ice into the stratosphere and that the moistening effect is likely to be greater than previously thought.

If, as observations suggest, mid-latitude storms can provide an important stratospheric moistening effect then the combined effect of tropical and mid-latitude storms will make it more likely for deep convection to play a role in determining stratospheric water vapour levels and trends.”

Moistening of the stratosphere by deep convection as

simulated by Cloud Resolving Models.

D. P. Grosvenor (1), T. W. Choularton (1), H. Coe (1) and G. Held (2).

(1) The University of Manchester, UK, (2) IPMET, S.P., Brazil.

(daniel.grosvenor@manchester.ac.uk)

Geophysical Research Abstracts,

Vol. 10, EGU2008-A-11206, 2008

Ferenc:

“…the most important is the way how you select a global average profile from about 1700 radiosonde observatios. I did in a way that – as you showed – the PE/KE turned out to be close to -2.The USST76 – a declared global average profil by Kiehl-Trenberth gives a different ratio.The global-annual averaging is not trivial and it can change both the thermal structure and the absorber amount. Both are crucial for the global average flux densities and the radiative equilibrium.”

?????

Franko

said:1# 193 Steve Short

“N. American vapour plumes, solid particles – most likely ice” — So this suggests bias, decreasing the KE – But PE gets converted back to KE as it falls. What do you get for the resulting average PE/KE ?

Franko

said:1# 193 Steve Short

“N. American vapour plumes, solid particles – most likely ice” — So this suggests bias, decreasing the KE – But PE gets converted back to KE as it falls. What do you get for the resulting average PE/KE ?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#193 Steve Short

Here I am trying to say that the general circulation distributes the thermal energy, absorber amounts, ect. in a stochastic way. For example instantaneous (or artificial) atmospheric structures are not supposed to satisfy the Su=(3/2)OLR and Su=OLR/f equations. Occasionally it can happen, but for a global average atmosphere they are strict requirements, since the first maximizes the greenhouse effect in the cloudy atmosphere, and the second is the radiative equilibrium criteria which maximizes the atmospheric cooling. For a good global average atmosphere the f=2/3 and also the hydrostatic equilibrium (PE/KE=-2) are expected. And a good global average is needed for global average radiative forcing studies. Once I asked GCM people at GFDL in Princeton for an initial and final global average atmospheric structure of their climate simulations and I never got them…

However, I am not sure if this is an answer for your question marks…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#193 Steve Short

Here I am trying to say that the general circulation distributes the thermal energy, absorber amounts, ect. in a stochastic way. For example instantaneous (or artificial) atmospheric structures are not supposed to satisfy the Su=(3/2)OLR and Su=OLR/f equations. Occasionally it can happen, but for a global average atmosphere they are strict requirements, since the first maximizes the greenhouse effect in the cloudy atmosphere, and the second is the radiative equilibrium criteria which maximizes the atmospheric cooling. For a good global average atmosphere the f=2/3 and also the hydrostatic equilibrium (PE/KE=-2) are expected. And a good global average is needed for global average radiative forcing studies. Once I asked GCM people at GFDL in Princeton for an initial and final global average atmospheric structure of their climate simulations and I never got them…

However, I am not sure if this is an answer for your question marks…

Steve Short

said:Hi Ference

Yes, I think that is an answer for my questions marks. Thank you.

I am familiar with your solid scientific history (having read all your papers I could find) although I am certainly not an expert in your field (my field is aqueous and mixed solvent chemothermodynamics and hydrometallurgy). However I have a number of good friends in science who were educated in Poland, Hungary, Russia etc and I have never been able to fault their mathematical abilities. It is not generally appreciated how many of those who provide much of the mathematical sophistication to ‘Western science’ were educated in such countries.

So, if you are saying to me that:

(1) you selected what you believe, based on your professional experience, is a global average profile from the about 1700 radiosonde observations available; AND

(2) it just so happened this gave a PE/KE that turned out to be close to -2,

then I am happy to accept that, and to accept that it is a unique (and very important) empirical finding for Earth’s atmosphere.

But, if you somehow filtered through the 1700 radiosonde observations available only to accept those datasets which essentially satisfied the PE/KE = – 2 relation then I would be very worried. However, I am sure this latter possibility did not occur.

Steve Short

said:Hi Ference

Yes, I think that is an answer for my questions marks. Thank you.

I am familiar with your solid scientific history (having read all your papers I could find) although I am certainly not an expert in your field (my field is aqueous and mixed solvent chemothermodynamics and hydrometallurgy). However I have a number of good friends in science who were educated in Poland, Hungary, Russia etc and I have never been able to fault their mathematical abilities. It is not generally appreciated how many of those who provide much of the mathematical sophistication to ‘Western science’ were educated in such countries.

So, if you are saying to me that:

(1) you selected what you believe, based on your professional experience, is a global average profile from the about 1700 radiosonde observations available; AND

(2) it just so happened this gave a PE/KE that turned out to be close to -2,

then I am happy to accept that, and to accept that it is a unique (and very important) empirical finding for Earth’s atmosphere.

But, if you somehow filtered through the 1700 radiosonde observations available only to accept those datasets which essentially satisfied the PE/KE = – 2 relation then I would be very worried. However, I am sure this latter possibility did not occur.

Anonymous

said:Ferenc, The image above you provided in support of Kirchhoff’s law some time ago. I have been thinking of some experiments proving it.

Would it make sense to put two pyrgeometers together, one facing up and the other facing down, and run it up the profile, measuring humidity temperature etc as well so you can calculate transmittance? Or is it that the disequilibrium locally is too great for this to even approximate the figure above?

davids

said:Ferenc, The image above you provided in support of Kirchhoff’s law some time ago. I have been thinking of some experiments proving it.

Would it make sense to put two pyrgeometers together, one facing up and the other facing down, and run it up the profile, measuring humidity temperature etc as well so you can calculate transmittance? Or is it that the disequilibrium locally is too great for this to even approximate the figure above?

Neal J. King

said:Ferenc, Jan Pompe:

wrt #190: The purpose to having a discussion is to get a direct answer to a direct question, not to getting a quoted answer by a third party.

Ferenc, I’m hoping that you will respond directly to #190.Thanks.

Neal J. King

said:Ferenc, Jan Pompe:

wrt #190: The purpose to having a discussion is to get a direct answer to a direct question, not to getting a quoted answer by a third party.

Ferenc, I’m hoping that you will respond directly to #190.Thanks.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 196 Steve Short

…’But, if you somehow filtered through the 1700 radiosonde observations available only to accept those datasets which essentially satisfied the PE/KE = – 2 relation then I would be very worried.’…

At the time when the 228 profile subset and the global average profile was created I worked on satellite remote sensing problems, and the only concern was the spatial and temporal statistical characteristics of the datata. The PE/KE ratio was never checked and Jan’s result was a surprise to me. I never thought it could be that close to -2.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 196 Steve Short

…’But, if you somehow filtered through the 1700 radiosonde observations available only to accept those datasets which essentially satisfied the PE/KE = – 2 relation then I would be very worried.’…

At the time when the 228 profile subset and the global average profile was created I worked on satellite remote sensing problems, and the only concern was the spatial and temporal statistical characteristics of the datata. The PE/KE ratio was never checked and Jan’s result was a surprise to me. I never thought it could be that close to -2.

Steve Short

said:Hi Ferenc

Thank you (and to Jan). Very interesting!

Steve Short

said:Hi Ferenc

Thank you (and to Jan). Very interesting!

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Hydrodynamic pressure. Radiation pressure is secondary at best. Check A.C. Phillips “The Physics of Stars” (1994) or a similar work.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Hydrodynamic pressure. Radiation pressure is secondary at best. Check A.C. Phillips “The Physics of Stars” (1994) or a similar work.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Steve Short posts:

Steve, did you actually read the paper? The deep convection in question is not taking place in the stratosphere.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Steve Short posts:

Steve, did you actually read the paper? The deep convection in question is not taking place in the stratosphere.

Steve Short

said:Hi Barton

Yes, I did. Very carefully.

I agree that the paper is about deep convection which occurs in the troposphere and the ‘overshooting’ effects of that on the lower stratosphere. FYI I found the paper originally via Googling because I was intrigued by your comment at #180:

“I don’t think there’s much convection in the stratosphere.”

In fact, that comment of yours led me to look at a number of other papers which can be found using keywords like ‘stratosphere, convection’ etc. Obviously you are familiar with the literature on convective penetration of the stratosphere by volcanic action and major regional fires.

However, it turns out there are quite few papers also showing that the overshooting effects of deep convection are to transfer water into the lower stratosphere e.g.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/15/5664.short

There is widespread photographic evidence for transfer of water ([presumably ice) into cirrus above major storm anvils and of course there is also more recent photographic evidence obtained by astronauts for extremely high altitude cloud.

I freely admit this is all well outside my field and mainly like to ‘lurk’ here but I am intrigued by the possibility of widespread water transfer into the stratosphere by the convective ‘overshooting’ effect and the implications of this for setting a de facto global average radiative profile. Being a thermodynamicist by trade I certainly know what happens to the heat content of water when it freezes.

Please feel free to correct me if you think I’m off track. I’m here for personal enlightenment only, not to defend anything crackpot.

Steve Short

said:Hi Barton

Yes, I did. Very carefully.

I agree that the paper is about deep convection which occurs in the troposphere and the ‘overshooting’ effects of that on the lower stratosphere. FYI I found the paper originally via Googling because I was intrigued by your comment at #180:

“I donâ€™t think thereâ€™s much convection in the stratosphere.”

In fact, that comment of yours led me to look at a number of other papers which can be found using keywords like ‘stratosphere, convection’ etc. Obviously you are familiar with the literature on convective penetration of the stratosphere by volcanic action and major regional fires.

However, it turns out there are quite few papers also showing that the overshooting effects of deep convection are to transfer water into the lower stratosphere e.g.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/15/5664.short

There is widespread photographic evidence for transfer of water ([presumably ice) into cirrus above major storm anvils and of course there is also more recent photographic evidence obtained by astronauts for extremely high altitude cloud.

I freely admit this is all well outside my field and mainly like to ‘lurk’ here but I am intrigued by the possibility of widespread water transfer into the stratosphere by the convective ‘overshooting’ effect and the implications of this for setting a de facto global average radiative profile. Being a thermodynamicist by trade I certainly know what happens to the heat content of water when it freezes.

Please feel free to correct me if you think I’m off track. I’m here for personal enlightenment only, not to defend anything crackpot.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #202

Someone else disagrees with you</a?

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #202

Someone else disagrees with you</a?

Jan Pompe

said:Correction to 204

Someone else disagrees with you for stars near Eddington luminosity.

Jan Pompe

said:Correction to 204

Someone else disagrees with you for stars near Eddington luminosity.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 197 Davids

To prove the Kirchhoff law by observations is not that straightforward.

From the up-looking pyrgeometer (anywhere in the atmosphere) you will measure the correct Ed(z) because there is no radiative contribution from the upper boundary (top of atmosphere). In this case to prove the KL you need the detailed atmospheric structure and an RT (preferable LBL) model to compute the accurate tau(z)=-log(Ta(z)) and compare the measured Ed(z)with the theoretical B(z)(1-Ta(z) ) , where B(z) comes from the t(z) temperature profile. In the figure you refer to the Ed(z) was not measured, but also computed by HARTCODE.

The down-looking pyrgeometer at any altitude z will always measure the OLR(z)=Eu(z)+St(z) sum. To separate St(z) (from OLR(z)) you MUST USE RT computations to obtain the flux transmittance for the atmospheric layer between the surface and the measurement altitude z. The St or (Su-St)=Aa flux densities can never be measured directly. If your pyrgeometr is very close to the surface, z~0 then you will get the trivial case St=Su=B(z=0) which is not the proof of the Kirchoff law. Even 1.5 m altitude makes a lot of difference in tau(z).

The proof of the atmospheric Kirchhoff law will always depend on the accuracy of the RT computations of the flux transmittance and the accuracy of the knowledge about the vertical structure of the involved atmospheric layer (t(z) h2o(z) o3(z) ect.). Jan measurements will probably give us the details of these profiles.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 197 Davids

To prove the Kirchhoff law by observations is not that straightforward.

From the up-looking pyrgeometer (anywhere in the atmosphere) you will measure the correct Ed(z) because there is no radiative contribution from the upper boundary (top of atmosphere). In this case to prove the KL you need the detailed atmospheric structure and an RT (preferable LBL) model to compute the accurate tau(z)=-log(Ta(z)) and compare the measured Ed(z)with the theoretical B(z)(1-Ta(z) ) , where B(z) comes from the t(z) temperature profile. In the figure you refer to the Ed(z) was not measured, but also computed by HARTCODE.

The down-looking pyrgeometer at any altitude z will always measure the OLR(z)=Eu(z)+St(z) sum. To separate St(z) (from OLR(z)) you MUST USE RT computations to obtain the flux transmittance for the atmospheric layer between the surface and the measurement altitude z. The St or (Su-St)=Aa flux densities can never be measured directly. If your pyrgeometr is very close to the surface, z~0 then you will get the trivial case St=Su=B(z=0) which is not the proof of the Kirchoff law. Even 1.5 m altitude makes a lot of difference in tau(z).

The proof of the atmospheric Kirchhoff law will always depend on the accuracy of the RT computations of the flux transmittance and the accuracy of the knowledge about the vertical structure of the involved atmospheric layer (t(z) h2o(z) o3(z) ect.). Jan measurements will probably give us the details of these profiles.

Franko

said:Steve Short has identified a strong negative water vapor content feedback, momentum overshoot upwards, cool, loose KE and fall back s ice. Energy limited mass of water in atmosphere.

—————————————-

#198 Neal J. King

“Ferenc, I’m hoping that you will respond directly to #190.”

Silence is deafening. There is no good theortical answer at the moment. Google, but only find photon-gas-plasma models. Extremes yes, but no photons in low temperature kinetic gas models, that you can factor out effects from.

Void, a defifiency, lack of theory. Waiting for Neal J. King to analyze, keep digging to find the water in a new theoretical well.

Franko

said:Steve Short has identified a strong negative water vapor content feedback, momentum overshoot upwards, cool, loose KE and fall back s ice. Energy limited mass of water in atmosphere.

—————————————-

#198 Neal J. King

“Ferenc, Iâ€™m hoping that you will respond directly to #190.”

Silence is deafening. There is no good theortical answer at the moment. Google, but only find photon-gas-plasma models. Extremes yes, but no photons in low temperature kinetic gas models, that you can factor out effects from.

Void, a defifiency, lack of theory. Waiting for Neal J. King to analyze, keep digging to find the water in a new theoretical well.

Neal J. King

said:#207, Franko:

I have nothing else to analyze: I am waiting for Ferenc to respond to my fully documented calculation of KE/PE, instead of to the travesty by Jan Pompe.

My calculation, by the way, is backed up by:

– The Virial Theorem, calculated along the lines of Pf. Collins and Kondo

– The exact result is also calculated in Pacheco & Sanudo, along the same lines, in a recently published paper in a well-known peer-reviewed journal,

Nuovo Cimento– The exact result can be calculated by hydrostatic equilibrium

– And I have done a direct calculation of KE/PE from the definition, using a reasonable adiabatic model.

So, PE/KE is

nowhere near2.Neal J. King

said:#207, Franko:

I have nothing else to analyze: I am waiting for Ferenc to respond to my fully documented calculation of KE/PE, instead of to the travesty by Jan Pompe.

My calculation, by the way, is backed up by:

– The Virial Theorem, calculated along the lines of Pf. Collins and Kondo

– The exact result is also calculated in Pacheco & Sanudo, along the same lines, in a recently published paper in a well-known peer-reviewed journal,

Nuovo Cimento– The exact result can be calculated by hydrostatic equilibrium

– And I have done a direct calculation of KE/PE from the definition, using a reasonable adiabatic model.

So, PE/KE is

nowhere near2.Jan Pompe

said:Neal #208

“instead of to the travesty by Jan Pompe.”

Yes Neal it’s simple and straight forward not convoluted at all but

it just works.You might ask

yourselfwhy the way you have done things doesn’t .Don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Jan Pompe

said:Neal #208

“instead of to the travesty by Jan Pompe.”

Yes Neal it’s simple and straight forward not convoluted at all but

it just works.You might ask

yourselfwhy the way you have done things doesn’t .Don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #206

A couple of quetions re:

Will my planned 2 m high profile be enough?

Is it worthwhile collecting contemporary air sample[s] and getting it/them analysed for other absorbers if I can?

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #206

A couple of quetions re:

Will my planned 2 m high profile be enough?

Is it worthwhile collecting contemporary air sample[s] and getting it/them analysed for other absorbers if I can?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Yes, Jan, extremely large stars have significant radiation pressure. Very true. And you apparently think this applies to stars in general. It doesn’t. Again, I’d suggest reading an introductory stellar astronomy text. Oh, and you might want to google “Initial Mass Function” to find out how frequent really, really massive stars are.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Yes, Jan, extremely large stars have significant radiation pressure. Very true. And you apparently think this applies to stars in general. It doesn’t. Again, I’d suggest reading an introductory stellar astronomy text. Oh, and you might want to google “Initial Mass Function” to find out how frequent really, really massive stars are.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

Obviously not strong enough, since precipitable water has, in fact, been going up at about 0.9 mm/year, compatible with the Clausius-Clapeyron law and positive water-vapor feedback.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

Obviously not strong enough, since precipitable water has, in fact, been going up at about 0.9 mm/year, compatible with the Clausius-Clapeyron law and positive water-vapor feedback.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 210 Jan

The CO2 and other well mixed GHG-s could be taken with constant volum mixing ratios, I expect only the relative humidity and temperature to change considerably. If you can get reference mixing ratios for CO2, O3 and CH4 from somewhere nearby your measurement site that could be useful input to the LBL code.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 210 Jan

The CO2 and other well mixed GHG-s could be taken with constant volum mixing ratios, I expect only the relative humidity and temperature to change considerably. If you can get reference mixing ratios for CO2, O3 and CH4 from somewhere nearby your measurement site that could be useful input to the LBL code.

Jan Pompe

said:Braton #211

“And you apparently think this applies to stars in general.”

Oh I do? Where exactly do I say this?

Try not jumping to conclusions in future.

Jan Pompe

said:Braton #211

“And you apparently think this applies to stars in general.”

Oh I do? Where exactly do I say this?

Try not jumping to conclusions in future.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #213

Thanks.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc #213

Thanks.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #212

“been going up at about 0.9 mm/year,”

Apparently not in the mid to upper troposphere

Before you get exited about it beinfg relative humidity

it’s a similar story for specific humidity according to

ESRL Time series data

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #212

“been going up at about 0.9 mm/year,”

Apparently not in the mid to upper troposphere

Before you get exited about it beinfg relative humidity

it’s a similar story for specific humidity according to

ESRL Time series data

Franko

said:#212 Barton Paul Levenson

— “Obviously not strong enough, since precipitable water has, in fact, been going up at about 0.9 mm/year”

Strong indication that sun/greenhouse/albedo fueled heat engine is working well, carrying heat up to be radiated way. Effiiency is (1-T2/T1) and convection, radiation proportional to (T^4)

Incoming effects, greenhouse, albedo etc are linear (T^1). Not only does (T^4) dominate and strongly accelerate the heat convection to the sky. But also latent heat of vapor to water, then to ice, holds the temperature up for even more dramatic heat transport.

(hurricane violence, keeping the slight rise in temperature down, is the dramatic example to start from)

Franko

said:#212 Barton Paul Levenson

— “Obviously not strong enough, since precipitable water has, in fact, been going up at about 0.9 mm/year”

Strong indication that sun/greenhouse/albedo fueled heat engine is working well, carrying heat up to be radiated way. Effiiency is (1-T2/T1) and convection, radiation proportional to (T^4)

Incoming effects, greenhouse, albedo etc are linear (T^1). Not only does (T^4) dominate and strongly accelerate the heat convection to the sky. But also latent heat of vapor to water, then to ice, holds the temperature up for even more dramatic heat transport.

(hurricane violence, keeping the slight rise in temperature down, is the dramatic example to start from)

Neal J. King

said:Ferenc,

I am very disappointed that you don’t respond to #190. It is a very clearly stated question, well-documented both by myself and by published textbooks and a peer-reviewed article. And you haven’t pointed out any problem with the reasoning I have given in previous postings.

I don’t see why you don’t show the courtesy of giving an answer.

Neal J. King

said:Ferenc,

I am very disappointed that you don’t respond to #190. It is a very clearly stated question, well-documented both by myself and by published textbooks and a peer-reviewed article. And you haven’t pointed out any problem with the reasoning I have given in previous postings.

I don’t see why you don’t show the courtesy of giving an answer.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:218 Neal

Please do not be dissapointed I shall get back to you on this. Right now I am running lengthy simulations for Ken Gregory, and this is taking most of my time. Just do not be in a hurry…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:218 Neal

Please do not be dissapointed I shall get back to you on this. Right now I am running lengthy simulations for Ken Gregory, and this is taking most of my time. Just do not be in a hurry…

Alex Harvey

said:Neal:

In the meantime, I have a question:

You show by a number of methods that PE/KE = 0.666, which, as you say, is nowhere near -2. Likewise you say that the S_U/E_U ratio should also be 0.666.

That’s fine, but it seems to be accepted in Kiehl & Trenberth’s (1997) paper (and I suppose in the IPCC report as well) that S_U/E_U is, in fact, approximately equal to -2! K&T 1997 have estimated S_U/E_U as ~ -390/195 or ~ -2.

Now, I understand that K&T’s energy budget is not your concern; but your result nevertheless presents a problem for the received theory as well.

Surely, if you’re right, someone needs to explain how K&T got this so wrong?

Alex Harvey

said:Neal:

In the meantime, I have a question:

You show by a number of methods that PE/KE = 0.666, which, as you say, is nowhere near -2. Likewise you say that the S_U/E_U ratio should also be 0.666.

That’s fine, but it seems to be accepted in Kiehl & Trenberth’s (1997) paper (and I suppose in the IPCC report as well) that S_U/E_U is, in fact, approximately equal to -2! K&T 1997 have estimated S_U/E_U as ~ -390/195 or ~ -2.

Now, I understand that K&T’s energy budget is not your concern; but your result nevertheless presents a problem for the received theory as well.

Surely, if you’re right, someone needs to explain how K&T got this so wrong?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Jan, do you understand what “precipitable water” means? It’s the whole column from the ground to the top of the atmosphere, if the atmosphere had a top. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is up. Precipitable water has been going up 0.9 mm/decade for the past several decades. I can’t give the cite because this blog rejects my posts whenever I list a cite, but if you go to Google Scholar and enter “Brown 2007 precipitation” it will be the first hit.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe writes:

Jan, do you understand what “precipitable water” means? It’s the whole column from the ground to the top of the atmosphere, if the atmosphere had a top. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is up. Precipitable water has been going up 0.9 mm/decade for the past several decades. I can’t give the cite because this blog rejects my posts whenever I list a cite, but if you go to Google Scholar and enter “Brown 2007 precipitation” it will be the first hit.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #221

Yes I know what precipital water means but you don’t seem to understand that we were talking about stratosphere and upper troposphere where radiation losses can be greater because of it.

The feedback is negative.

Jan Pompe

said:Barton #221

Yes I know what precipital water means but you don’t seem to understand that we were talking about stratosphere and upper troposphere where radiation losses can be greater because of it.

The feedback is negative.

Franko

said:(T^4) hammers the Temperature nail that stands up. A pile driver, made even stronger and more efficient, by water phase changes.

Just how tipping point the efect this is; Demonstrated by a moist hailstone that gets blown (hurled up) several times, into the freezing cold, then falls to the lower warmer moist layer, picking up more water. Oscillating behaviour, energy constrained, till too heavy, dropping, (precipitating, roof destroying), from the sky.

Franko

said:(T^4) hammers the Temperature nail that stands up. A pile driver, made even stronger and more efficient, by water phase changes.

Just how tipping point the efect this is; Demonstrated by a moist hailstone that gets blown (hurled up) several times, into the freezing cold, then falls to the lower warmer moist layer, picking up more water. Oscillating behaviour, energy constrained, till too heavy, dropping, (precipitating, roof destroying), from the sky.

Jan Pompe

said:Frankp #223

I’m not quite sure what is going on here but there seems to be a cognitive dissonance. To vaporise water takes an enormous (~2260 J/g) amount of energy that cools the surface from which it is evaporating. All this extra water down low with the help of demthylsulphide cloud nucleating aerosols from CO2 fertilized cyanobacteria(Hat Tip Steve Short) condensing and forming clouds. Middle to upper troposphere is depleted allowing more radiation to space at WV absorbing wavelength. How anyone can think this is possibly +ve feedback is beyond me.

While I will agree it needs more (rigorous) work I think it’s a good working hypothesis. It’s also worth remembering that positive feedback is thermodynamically impossible in a passive system (a system with no internal power source).

Jan Pompe

said:Frankp #223

I’m not quite sure what is going on here but there seems to be a cognitive dissonance. To vaporise water takes an enormous (~2260 J/g) amount of energy that cools the surface from which it is evaporating. All this extra water down low with the help of demthylsulphide cloud nucleating aerosols from CO2 fertilized cyanobacteria(Hat Tip Steve Short) condensing and forming clouds. Middle to upper troposphere is depleted allowing more radiation to space at WV absorbing wavelength. How anyone can think this is possibly +ve feedback is beyond me.

While I will agree it needs more (rigorous) work I think it’s a good working hypothesis. It’s also worth remembering that positive feedback is thermodynamically impossible in a passive system (a system with no internal power source).

Franko

said:#224 Jan Pompe

“How anyone can think this is possibly +ve feedback is beyond me”

Stable ocillation has unity gain around the loop. Destructive oscillation accepts external energy, (pigs out) till process is destroyed (by heart attack).

High latitude oscillators were recently described as “debris” of trophical events, the drivers, the energy sources. Like the damped oscillation rumble, of the thunder, against the window plane.

The mind is in the “crucible of survival” . “Only the paranoid survive”. The need to survive drives the paranoid over-reaction. Hence close attention, when the shout “wolf” is heard

Franko

said:#224 Jan Pompe

“How anyone can think this is possibly +ve feedback is beyond me”

Stable ocillation has unity gain around the loop. Destructive oscillation accepts external energy, (pigs out) till process is destroyed (by heart attack).

High latitude oscillators were recently described as “debris” of trophical events, the drivers, the energy sources. Like the damped oscillation rumble, of the thunder, against the window plane.

The mind is in the “crucible of survival” . “Only the paranoid survive”. The need to survive drives the paranoid over-reaction. Hence close attention, when the shout “wolf” is heard

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #225

“Stable ocillation has unity gain around the loop.”

This raises the question how can one get unity gain around the loop if the open loop gain is < 1?

Destructive oscillation like stable oscillation requires internal energy source i.e. the power supply which might come from the power station 30 km away it’s still “internal”.

Without that internal power supply both are a perpetuum mobile.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #225

“Stable ocillation has unity gain around the loop.”

This raises the question how can one get unity gain around the loop if the open loop gain is < 1?

Destructive oscillation like stable oscillation requires internal energy source i.e. the power supply which might come from the power station 30 km away it’s still “internal”.

Without that internal power supply both are a perpetuum mobile.

Franko

said:Power to transistor enables high gain, but negative feedback is introduced to ensure linaer amplification.

Insufficient negative feedback, self stabilized to a microphone amplifier howl, (unity loop gain) or breaks a link (speakers) in the loop.

Intelligent beings reduce local entrophy (sweep the floor), at the expense of increased entrophy in the surrounding garbage dump.

We can construct or destroy, but within the envelope of incoming energy limitations. Perhaps free lunch, Midas touch, cosmologically, but not observed in Earth’s climate.

Franko

said:Power to transistor enables high gain, but negative feedback is introduced to ensure linaer amplification.

Insufficient negative feedback, self stabilized to a microphone amplifier howl, (unity loop gain) or breaks a link (speakers) in the loop.

Intelligent beings reduce local entrophy (sweep the floor), at the expense of increased entrophy in the surrounding garbage dump.

We can construct or destroy, but within the envelope of incoming energy limitations. Perhaps free lunch, Midas touch, cosmologically, but not observed in Earth’s climate.

Steve Short

said:Ha! Entrophy indeed!

Quite a character this Franko!

I (and David too methinks) can hear the shades of numerous deceased biologists chittering away in agitation ‘on the other side’ (;-)

However, noting we are O2-breathing organism i.e. we breath the excreta of those (cyanobacteria) who evolved before us……and in turn excrete CO2…..let us not forget that:

‘Phylogeny recapitulates Entropy’

PS: No apologies whatsoever to James Lovelock who ‘got it’ – only to ‘lose it’ again.

Steve Short

said:Ha! Entrophy indeed!

Quite a character this Franko!

I (and David too methinks) can hear the shades of numerous deceased biologists chittering away in agitation ‘on the other side’ (;-)

However, noting we are O2-breathing organism i.e. we breath the excreta of those (cyanobacteria) who evolved before us……and in turn excrete CO2…..let us not forget that:

‘Phylogeny recapitulates Entropy’

PS: No apologies whatsoever to James Lovelock who ‘got it’ – only to ‘lose it’ again.

Neal J. King

said:#220, Alex Harvey:

Not quite: I do say that PE/KE = 0.666 (in the planar-Earth approximation).

Then I say that:

If, as Miskolczi claims, PE/KE must equal S_u/E_u, then S_u/E_u should also equal 0.666.However, this is just a claim by Miskolczi: I am only one of a number of people who have asked him why he asserts that relationship; and have not received a clear answer, to date.

If S_u/E_u is

measuredto be 2, then no invocation of the Virial Theorem is needed: The ratio is what it is. But then the VT also provides no justification for it, either.So logically, I believe that Miskolczi should either drop reference to the VT with regard to the ratio value of 2, or explain why the two ratios ought to be equal (and set them both equal to 0.666, or 1.5e-3).

He has promised (see #219) to reply at some point.

Neal J. King

said:#220, Alex Harvey:

Not quite: I do say that PE/KE = 0.666 (in the planar-Earth approximation).

Then I say that:

If, as Miskolczi claims, PE/KE must equal S_u/E_u, then S_u/E_u should also equal 0.666.However, this is just a claim by Miskolczi: I am only one of a number of people who have asked him why he asserts that relationship; and have not received a clear answer, to date.

If S_u/E_u is

measuredto be 2, then no invocation of the Virial Theorem is needed: The ratio is what it is. But then the VT also provides no justification for it, either.So logically, I believe that Miskolczi should either drop reference to the VT with regard to the ratio value of 2, or explain why the two ratios ought to be equal (and set them both equal to 0.666, or 1.5e-3).

He has promised (see #219) to reply at some point.

Franko

said:#229 Neal J. King “If S_u/E_u is measured to be 2, then no invocation of the Virial Theorem is needed: The ratio is what it is. But then the VT also provides no justification for it, either.”

Long wave flux ground up S_U is proxy for potenial energy in 5.6 km supported height of atmosphere mass center.

Long wave flux atmosphere up E_U is proxy for internal kinetic energy

Longwave flux from atmosphere originating from S_U. Half goes up other half down. hence the factor of 2.

Can say virial, magically. Or prove the long way around. (Similar to very quick proof of gas law, via virial, or long and arduous)

Analogy is pumping up a tire, leaking equally, on top and bottom. Air (energy) goes in, proxy for lift. Leaks on top, proxy for kinetic. Is this analogy flat ?

Franko

said:#229 Neal J. King “If S_u/E_u is measured to be 2, then no invocation of the Virial Theorem is needed: The ratio is what it is. But then the VT also provides no justification for it, either.”

Long wave flux ground up S_U is proxy for potenial energy in 5.6 km supported height of atmosphere mass center.

Long wave flux atmosphere up E_U is proxy for internal kinetic energy

Longwave flux from atmosphere originating from S_U. Half goes up other half down. hence the factor of 2.

Can say virial, magically. Or prove the long way around. (Similar to very quick proof of gas law, via virial, or long and arduous)

Analogy is pumping up a tire, leaking equally, on top and bottom. Air (energy) goes in, proxy for lift. Leaks on top, proxy for kinetic. Is this analogy flat ?

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #229

The terminology for what Neal is doing here

“If S_u/E_u is measured to be 2, then no invocation of the Virial Theorem is needed: The ratio is what it is. But then the VT also provides no justification for it, either.”

is Flogging a dead horse

Ferenc gave it the coup de grace in 123, 125 and 132.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #229

The terminology for what Neal is doing here

“If S_u/E_u is measured to be 2, then no invocation of the Virial Theorem is needed: The ratio is what it is. But then the VT also provides no justification for it, either.”

is Flogging a dead horse

Ferenc gave it the coup de grace in 123, 125 and 132.

Franko

said:Ok, the dead cat or horse bounce is beyond my comprehension.

Dead atmosphere bounce, I can visualize. Start with a lifeless atmosphere. Dead, Zero energy. At height Zero. Shine w*m^-2*s^-1 from bottom. What is steady state function to give height, temperature profile, E_u. Can calculate long way without the magical virial ?

Franko

said:Ok, the dead cat or horse bounce is beyond my comprehension.

Dead atmosphere bounce, I can visualize. Start with a lifeless atmosphere. Dead, Zero energy. At height Zero. Shine w*m^-2*s^-1 from bottom. What is steady state function to give height, temperature profile, E_u. Can calculate long way without the magical virial ?

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #232

“Can calculate long way without the magical virial ?”

It’s only magical until we can come up with a general relationship. As it stands it only seems to work for the whole atmosphere (which is pretty much what I would expect) at the poles the relationship Su:OLR is too small and for tropics too large but averages just right over the whole sphere. I don’t know how it goes for Su:Eu except globally.

At least that is how it seems to me.

Anyway it’s still early days and IMO more work needs to be done and is being done.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #232

“Can calculate long way without the magical virial ?”

It’s only magical until we can come up with a general relationship. As it stands it only seems to work for the whole atmosphere (which is pretty much what I would expect) at the poles the relationship Su:OLR is too small and for tropics too large but averages just right over the whole sphere. I don’t know how it goes for Su:Eu except globally.

At least that is how it seems to me.

Anyway it’s still early days and IMO more work needs to be done and is being done.

Franko

said:Given incoming energy, Stefan–Boltzmann law, (radiant flux proportional to T^4), fixes, (determines), the atmosphere temperature.

From temperature, then determine internal kinetic energy, pressure volume, potential, effective height above ground.

Found this good place for further google and basic explanations: ” The Virial Theorem, or Energy Equipartition “

Franko

said:Given incoming energy, Stefanâ€“Boltzmann law, (radiant flux proportional to T^4), fixes, (determines), the atmosphere temperature.

From temperature, then determine internal kinetic energy, pressure volume, potential, effective height above ground.

Found this good place for further google and basic explanations: ” The Virial Theorem, or Energy Equipartition “

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan,

That increased water vapor in the stratosphere increases the greenhouse effect on Earth has been known at least since Manabe and Wetherall analyzed it in 1967. But water vapor doesn’t only occur in the stratosphere. It also occurs in the troposphere, where it is the major greenhouse gas on Earth. More water vapor, overall, means hotter temperatures, not cooler. The feedback you want doesn’t exist, no matter how many statements apparently to the contrary you cherry-pick out of papers you don’t understand.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan,

That increased water vapor in the stratosphere increases the greenhouse effect on Earth has been known at least since Manabe and Wetherall analyzed it in 1967. But water vapor doesn’t only occur in the stratosphere. It also occurs in the troposphere, where it is the major greenhouse gas on Earth. More water vapor, overall, means hotter temperatures, not cooler. The feedback you want doesn’t exist, no matter how many statements apparently to the contrary you cherry-pick out of papers you don’t understand.

Steve Short

said:This was not my understanding of Manabe and Wetherall. I have always assumed that it was agreed increasing water vapor in the stratosphere tends to cool it e.g.

Shindell, D.T. 2001. Climate and ozone response to increased stratospheric water vapor. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1551-1554

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/

In theory, as for increasing CO2 in the stratosphere, increasing H2O (prior to photolytic reaction) would also increases the stratosphere’s ability to radiate in the LW, but doesn’t substantially increase its ability to gain heat, because most of that comes from the SW. Hence it cools.

Steve Short

said:This was not my understanding of Manabe and Wetherall. I have always assumed that it was agreed increasing water vapor in the stratosphere tends to cool it e.g.

Shindell, D.T. 2001. Climate and ozone response to increased stratospheric water vapor. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1551-1554

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/

In theory, as for increasing CO2 in the stratosphere, increasing H2O (prior to photolytic reaction) would also increases the stratosphere’s ability to radiate in the LW, but doesnâ€™t substantially increase its ability to gain heat, because most of that comes from the SW. Hence it cools.

Steve Short

said:Furthermore:

Stratospheric temperature increases with increasing ozone concentration. This is because solar energy is converted to kinetic energy when ozone molecules absorb ultraviolet radiation, resulting in heating of the stratosphere.

Increasing stratospheric ice content tends to decrease stratospheric ozone content as the ozone is principally decomposed on the surface of ice crystals.

Hence increasing increasing stratospheric ice content tends to lower stratospheric temperature.

Presumably increasing increasing stratospheric ice content tends to correlate with increasing stratospheric water vapor (noting the ice forms by epitaxial nucleation in sulfuric acid aerosols).

Steve Short

said:Furthermore:

Stratospheric temperature increases with increasing ozone concentration. This is because solar energy is converted to kinetic energy when ozone molecules absorb ultraviolet radiation, resulting in heating of the stratosphere.

Increasing stratospheric ice content tends to decrease stratospheric ozone content as the ozone is principally decomposed on the surface of ice crystals.

Hence increasing increasing stratospheric ice content tends to lower stratospheric temperature.

Presumably increasing increasing stratospheric ice content tends to correlate with increasing stratospheric water vapor (noting the ice forms by epitaxial nucleation in sulfuric acid aerosols).

Steve Short

said:Sorry: that was ‘ON’ sulfuric acid aerosols.

Better watch out for lurking chemists before rushing to the keyboard…

Steve Short

said:Sorry: that was ‘ON’ sulfuric acid aerosols.

Better watch out for lurking chemists before rushing to the keyboard…

Neal J. King

said:Franko,

I raise the issue with Ferenc again because he revived the issue with #169: Just when I thought he had abandoned the invocation of the VT, he re-invoked it.

Neal J. King

said:Franko,

I raise the issue with Ferenc again because he revived the issue with #169: Just when I thought he had abandoned the invocation of the VT, he re-invoked it.

Franko

said:Giant, Centrifuge for real, not just thought experiments; Experimental Atmosphere in a giant test tube. Quickly test different conditions, and scale the results.

Hobby sized model, If we climate fry a fly, happy is the barbecue loving pet spider .Baking with a newer before tasted density gradient, the most expensive conniseur bread.

Franko

said:Giant, Centrifuge for real, not just thought experiments; Experimental Atmosphere in a giant test tube. Quickly test different conditions, and scale the results.

Hobby sized model, If we climate fry a fly, happy is the barbecue loving pet spider .Baking with a newer before tasted density gradient, the most expensive conniseur bread.

Franko

said:Neal;

Working backwards from radiation flux to space, to derive the temperature, atmosphere kinetic ,potential etc. is very hard.

There is a Virial Magical, somehow applicable. This has to be very accurately stated, (photons are considered part of kinetic). It is the one issue that I just cannot tie together. Getting ideas via googling, anyone have a really simple, straightforward Magical viewpoint ?

Franko

said:Neal;

Working backwards from radiation flux to space, to derive the temperature, atmosphere kinetic ,potential etc. is very hard.

There is a Virial Magical, somehow applicable. This has to be very accurately stated, (photons are considered part of kinetic). It is the one issue that I just cannot tie together. Getting ideas via googling, anyone have a really simple, straightforward Magical viewpoint ?

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #241

“There is a Virial Magical, somehow applicable.”

You are probably right (at least I think you are) though I would not characterise it as “Magical” but as it stands Ferenc was surprised that PE/KE ~ -2 and that shows he did not use the VT per se to justify the S_u = 2E_u equation but empirical measurements, globally average. If you average these values (temperature and pressure etc) over time and space taking care not to bias the sample you remove the degrees of freedom and effectively obtain a state that is statistically (?) equivalent to hydrostatic equilibrium.

This gets us to the equivalence with the VT which is also may be seen as a statistical relationship between {PE} and {KE} particles may be moving up and down but the average over time and space the relationship is constant.

The Virial Theorem does not necessarily lead to the same {PE}/{KE} = -2 for all systems.

See Here

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #241

“There is a Virial Magical, somehow applicable.”

You are probably right (at least I think you are) though I would not characterise it as “Magical” but as it stands Ferenc was surprised that PE/KE ~ -2 and that shows he did not use the VT per se to justify the S_u = 2E_u equation but empirical measurements, globally average. If you average these values (temperature and pressure etc) over time and space taking care not to bias the sample you remove the degrees of freedom and effectively obtain a state that is statistically (?) equivalent to hydrostatic equilibrium.

This gets us to the equivalence with the VT which is also may be seen as a statistical relationship between {PE} and {KE} particles may be moving up and down but the average over time and space the relationship is constant.

The Virial Theorem does not necessarily lead to the same {PE}/{KE} = -2 for all systems.

See Here

Franko

said:Reading once more; #125 Ferenc M. Miskolczi;

“are sufficient to apply the virial concept. I assumed that these conditions hold for the atmosphere and I did not even computed the PE/KE ratio. You may also noticed that I did not â€˜applyâ€™ the virial concept (numerically). My intention was simply to indicate the connection between the hydrostatic equilibrium (surface variables) and the internal energy (temperature profil)”

Looking at S_u (flux up feeds (supports) tmosphere by mixing in photon, molecule, etc. soup in local thetmal equilibrium). The soup radiates half up and half down. Hence the factor of 2.

Virial concept arises only after the factor of 2 is spied. And virial is used, then to indicate other things.

Still, diving into the radiating photon soup, could be used to validate this insight.

Franko

said:Reading once more; #125 Ferenc M. Miskolczi;

“are sufficient to apply the virial concept. I assumed that these conditions hold for the atmosphere and I did not even computed the PE/KE ratio. You may also noticed that I did not ‘apply’ the virial concept (numerically). My intention was simply to indicate the connection between the hydrostatic equilibrium (surface variables) and the internal energy (temperature profil)”

Looking at S_u (flux up feeds (supports) tmosphere by mixing in photon, molecule, etc. soup in local thetmal equilibrium). The soup radiates half up and half down. Hence the factor of 2.

Virial concept arises only after the factor of 2 is spied. And virial is used, then to indicate other things.

Still, diving into the radiating photon soup, could be used to validate this insight.

Franko

said:So, if you had a cube, S_u ground up, then soup mixing, radiating equally, all 6 sides. (not just up and down). S_u=6*E_u

The Magic of the Virial would be based upon the flux factor of 6.

Franko

said:So, if you had a cube, S_u ground up, then soup mixing, radiating equally, all 6 sides. (not just up and down). S_u=6*E_u

The Magic of the Virial would be based upon the flux factor of 6.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#243 Franko

The Earth is misleading, I mentioned that the eu=su(f-Ta) explains the factor 2. We need explanation simultaneously for the Mars.The only common in the two planets is the hydrostatic quilibrium. On the Earth the su=2eu is practically independent of the absorber amount because the absorbers do not have significant contribution to the surface pressure (or the mass of the atmosphere).

The Martian atmosphere can not be in radiative equilibrium, it violates slighly the su=olr/f and su=ed/a but the su+st/2=3olr/2 is perfect, and you also have there the su=3eu/(2a) , which is now clearly showing the explicite dependence on the co2 amount (surface pressure). eu is the rate of conversion of the kinetic energy to radiation and this is uni-directional (the reverse path is taken by the kirchhoff’s law). Considering all this little facts I think the VT can help, but need more work…By the time we find the answer to the su=9.5eu for the Mars, and why Mars prefers the Ta=5/6 and A=1/6 and the Earth prefers the Ta=1/6 and A=5/6, the exact theoretical connection to the VT probably will be established.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#243 Franko

The Earth is misleading, I mentioned that the eu=su(f-Ta) explains the factor 2. We need explanation simultaneously for the Mars.The only common in the two planets is the hydrostatic quilibrium. On the Earth the su=2eu is practically independent of the absorber amount because the absorbers do not have significant contribution to the surface pressure (or the mass of the atmosphere).

The Martian atmosphere can not be in radiative equilibrium, it violates slighly the su=olr/f and su=ed/a but the su+st/2=3olr/2 is perfect, and you also have there the su=3eu/(2a) , which is now clearly showing the explicite dependence on the co2 amount (surface pressure). eu is the rate of conversion of the kinetic energy to radiation and this is uni-directional (the reverse path is taken by the kirchhoff’s law). Considering all this little facts I think the VT can help, but need more work…By the time we find the answer to the su=9.5eu for the Mars, and why Mars prefers the Ta=5/6 and A=1/6 and the Earth prefers the Ta=1/6 and A=5/6, the exact theoretical connection to the VT probably will be established.

Franko

said:Some want to “terraform” Mars by adding “super” greenhouse SF6 gas.

Any guesses to the effects ?

Franko

said:Some want to “terraform” Mars by adding “super” greenhouse SF6 gas.

Any guesses to the effects ?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 246 Franko

Mars has an equilibrium atmosphere, where the general principles of physics should work too. Adding GHG could not do much, but remove the CO2. The su+su/2=3olr/2 and su=3eu/(2a) needs the Ta=5/6 . If the Mars wants to be warmer, it could do it by evaporating the polar co2 caps. But it does not do this because its greenhouse effect is at maximum and the constraint is not the available GHG.

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 246 Franko

Mars has an equilibrium atmosphere, where the general principles of physics should work too. Adding GHG could not do much, but remove the CO2. The su+su/2=3olr/2 and su=3eu/(2a) needs the Ta=5/6 . If the Mars wants to be warmer, it could do it by evaporating the polar co2 caps. But it does not do this because its greenhouse effect is at maximum and the constraint is not the available GHG.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM,

How would adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in Mars result in a decrease of carbon dioxide? What mechanism is involved here? How does it work?

And why do Zubrin and Chris McKay and Fogg and everybody else who has looked into terraforming Mars concluded that you could do it by introducing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? I take it that, like everybody else in planetary astronomy apart from you, they’re just wrong?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:FM,

How would adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in Mars result in a decrease of carbon dioxide? What mechanism is involved here? How does it work?

And why do Zubrin and Chris McKay and Fogg and everybody else who has looked into terraforming Mars concluded that you could do it by introducing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? I take it that, like everybody else in planetary astronomy apart from you, they’re just wrong?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#248 BPL

They did not know the new equations (su+st/2=3olr/2, su=3eu/(2a) etc., and they can not simulate accurate enough the eu and other flux densities to revial the connections between them….

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#248 BPL

They did not know the new equations (su+st/2=3olr/2, su=3eu/(2a) etc., and they can not simulate accurate enough the eu and other flux densities to revial the connections between them….

Steve Short

said:Apologies if this has been posted before but the tropospheric temperature plots therein are relevant to the discussions here.

http://sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/NIPCC_Findings.pdf

Steve Short

said:Apologies if this has been posted before but the tropospheric temperature plots therein are relevant to the discussions here.

http://sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/NIPCC_Findings.pdf

Franko

said:Much enlightening comments on Mars.

Back to beating the air with the Virial Magical.

Su goes up. Some is captured by atmosphere. The captured represents potential.

Radiated, all directions, Eu + Ed represents kinetic, Looking at only Eu, hence the factor 2

Mars, the thin atmosphere, only captures part (representing potential) of Surface up, Radiates the captured, representing kinetic.

Virial Magical can be applied to non-equilibrium, Even Mars atmosphere, dust storming, bouncing up and down.

Franko

said:Much enlightening comments on Mars.

Back to beating the air with the Virial Magical.

Su goes up. Some is captured by atmosphere. The captured represents potential.

Radiated, all directions, Eu + Ed represents kinetic, Looking at only Eu, hence the factor 2

Mars, the thin atmosphere, only captures part (representing potential) of Surface up, Radiates the captured, representing kinetic.

Virial Magical can be applied to non-equilibrium, Even Mars atmosphere, dust storming, bouncing up and down.

Franko

said:Potential, kinetic, represented by flux in and out. Equations describing into atmosphere photon, molecule soup. Run equations in reverse, radiating, hence the strong connection, enabling actual numerical calculations.

Total flux into soup (potential) and total flux out (kinetic). Then bring in the Magical Virial to explain inside the gas. The factor of 2 inherent, the Magical number of the Virial. .

Franko

said:Potential, kinetic, represented by flux in and out. Equations describing into atmosphere photon, molecule soup. Run equations in reverse, radiating, hence the strong connection, enabling actual numerical calculations.

Total flux into soup (potential) and total flux out (kinetic). Then bring in the Magical Virial to explain inside the gas. The factor of 2 inherent, the Magical number of the Virial. .

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Interesting, then, that Mars used to have open water on its surface, which means it used to have higher surface temperatures, which means, since the sun was smaller and cooler then, that the Mars atmosphere optical depth must have been greater.

Your theory wouldn’t allow for that to have happened. How do you explain those fossil riverbeds?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Interesting, then, that Mars used to have open water on its surface, which means it used to have higher surface temperatures, which means, since the sun was smaller and cooler then, that the Mars atmosphere optical depth must have been greater.

Your theory wouldn’t allow for that to have happened. How do you explain those fossil riverbeds?

Franko

said:#253 Barton Paul Levenson

“Your theory wouldn’t allow for that to have happened. How do you explain those fossil riverbeds?”

Does not include, crashing, Pluto sized iceballs, Carrington solar flares, atmosphere blowing away. Fossils of Little Green Men, to be added in updated, corrected version ?

Franko

said:#253 Barton Paul Levenson

“Your theory wouldnâ€™t allow for that to have happened. How do you explain those fossil riverbeds?”

Does not include, crashing, Pluto sized iceballs, Carrington solar flares, atmosphere blowing away. Fossils of Little Green Men, to be added in updated, corrected version ?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#253 BPL

If you supply me with the Fo(t) , Po(t) and the variations in the mass and composition of the atmosphere and surface properties on planetary evolution time scale, I will let you know what was going on with the Martian surface temperature .

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:#253 BPL

If you supply me with the Fo(t) , Po(t) and the variations in the mass and composition of the atmosphere and surface properties on planetary evolution time scale, I will let you know what was going on with the Martian surface temperature .

Franko

said:If we add same number of SF6 molecules, as the CO2 number.

What final CO2 % remains, increase in surface T ?

Franko

said:If we add same number of SF6 molecules, as the CO2 number.

What final CO2 % remains, increase in surface T ?

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 256 Franko

Tis may be computed from the

Fo=OLR, Su=3OLR/(2+Ta), and Su=3Eu/(2*(1-Ta)) equations…

Ferenc M. Miskolczi

said:# 256 Franko

Tis may be computed from the

Fo=OLR, Su=3OLR/(2+Ta), and Su=3Eu/(2*(1-Ta)) equations…

Franko

said:Mars minimum = -140° C

SF6 Melting point = −64 °C

CO2 Melting point= −56.6°C

No luck for the Terraformers.

Dead atmosphere bounce.

Bouncing slowly, seasonnlly, one pole to another ?

Franko

said:Mars minimum = -140Â° C

SF6 Melting point = âˆ’64 Â°C

CO2 Melting point= âˆ’56.6Â°C

No luck for the Terraformers.

Dead atmosphere bounce.

Bouncing slowly, seasonnlly, one pole to another ?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

All of it, unless you know of some mechanism by which sulfur hexafluoride can displace carbon dioxide.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

All of it, unless you know of some mechanism by which sulfur hexafluoride can displace carbon dioxide.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Oh, and my basic point remains unaddressed — since Mars once had liquid water flowing over its surface, it must have been warmer, and since the sun was smaller and cooler than, the optical depth of the Mars atmosphere must have been greater.

Now you can argue, as Franko is apparently trying to imply, that the atmospheric pressure was higher then, until it all got ablated away by a big impact. No doubt that’s true. But that would still mean that when you have more greenhouse gases in the air, you get a higher surface temperature. There really isn’t any way around that.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:And you might want to google “Faint Young Sun problem.”

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Oh, and my basic point remains unaddressed — since Mars once had liquid water flowing over its surface, it must have been warmer, and since the sun was smaller and cooler than, the optical depth of the Mars atmosphere must have been greater.

Now you can argue, as Franko is apparently trying to imply, that the atmospheric pressure was higher then, until it all got ablated away by a big impact. No doubt that’s true. But that would still mean that when you have more greenhouse gases in the air, you get a higher surface temperature. There really isn’t any way around that.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:And you might want to google “Faint Young Sun problem.”

Franko

said:Barton Paul Levenson has raised some very interesting insights.

Surface converts ShortWave to LongWave. No GreenhouseGas, no blanket. Add little by little the, better and better is the insulation.

However, the blanket, like a leaking car tire, needs constant energy flow, to keet it from completely flat. The height limit is determined by how fast you pump.

Saturated effect, SuperGas, hugs the heat closer, slightly warmer at the surface ? but same energy available for convection, the effect that T^4 dominates by.

One remowing another ? Try adding more CO2 gas, eventually one CO2 molecule freezes out the other. More CO2 gas, more CO2 ice. Cannot win, CO2 gas needs 3 meals a day, or hibernates till springtime food supply.

Franko

said:Barton Paul Levenson has raised some very interesting insights.

Surface converts ShortWave to LongWave. No GreenhouseGas, no blanket. Add little by little the, better and better is the insulation.

However, the blanket, like a leaking car tire, needs constant energy flow, to keet it from completely flat. The height limit is determined by how fast you pump.

Saturated effect, SuperGas, hugs the heat closer, slightly warmer at the surface ? but same energy available for convection, the effect that T^4 dominates by.

One remowing another ? Try adding more CO2 gas, eventually one CO2 molecule freezes out the other. More CO2 gas, more CO2 ice. Cannot win, CO2 gas needs 3 meals a day, or hibernates till springtime food supply.

Franko

said:— 259 Barton Paul Levenson

“All of it, unless you know of some mechanism by which sulfur hexafluoride can displace carbon dioxide.”

One isotope not the same as the other. Same temperature, same energy. Molecular (1/2)*m*v^2 same for both. Heavier mass, less velocity; easier to be captured by another molecules attraction. Chained, lead ball shacles, behind prision bars, for speeding under the posted limit. no longer free is the slow molecule.

Similar arguments, for different molecules, in the Atmosphere Ghoulash Stew. Masses, speeds, and intermolecular forces. All are energy prision constrained. Available energy, (surface ShortWave to LongWave is the source), dictates destiny.

Franko

said:— 259 Barton Paul Levenson

“All of it, unless you know of some mechanism by which sulfur hexafluoride can displace carbon dioxide.”

One isotope not the same as the other. Same temperature, same energy. Molecular (1/2)*m*v^2 same for both. Heavier mass, less velocity; easier to be captured by another molecules attraction. Chained, lead ball shacles, behind prision bars, for speeding under the posted limit. no longer free is the slow molecule.

Similar arguments, for different molecules, in the Atmosphere Ghoulash Stew. Masses, speeds, and intermolecular forces. All are energy prision constrained. Available energy, (surface ShortWave to LongWave is the source), dictates destiny.

Steve Short

said:http://climatesci.org/2008/10/02/an-essay-the-ipcc-report-what-the-lead-authors-really-think/

“Energy budget is really worrisome; we should have had 20 years of ERBE [Earth Radiation Budget Experiment] type data by now- this would have told us about cloud feedback and climate sensitivity. I’m worried that we’ll never have a reliable long-term measurement. This combined with accurate ocean heat uptake data would really help constrain the big-picture climate change outcome, and then we can work on the details.”

Steve Short

said:http://climatesci.org/2008/10/02/an-essay-the-ipcc-report-what-the-lead-authors-really-think/

“Energy budget is really worrisome; we should have had 20 years of ERBE [Earth Radiation Budget Experiment] type data by now- this would have told us about cloud feedback and climate sensitivity. Iâ€™m worried that weâ€™ll never have a reliable long-term measurement. This combined with accurate ocean heat uptake data would really help constrain the big-picture climate change outcome, and then we can work on the details.”

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #262

“However, the blanket, like a leaking car tire, needs constant energy flow, to keet it from completely flat. The height limit is determined by how fast you pump.”

Adding absorbers is also adding emitters, so you putting spiked/corrosive air into the tyre the more you put in the more it leaks.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #262

“However, the blanket, like a leaking car tire, needs constant energy flow, to keet it from completely flat. The height limit is determined by how fast you pump.”

Adding absorbers is also adding emitters, so you putting spiked/corrosive air into the tyre the more you put in the more it leaks.

Jan Pompe

said:Steve #264

“we should have had 20 years of ERBE [Earth Radiation Budget Experiment] type data by now”

Yes why don’t we? It’s certainly bothersome.

As I understand the TIGR profiles Ferenc has been using are 22 years old and were 11 years young, when Keihl and Trenberth in their “seminal” 1997 paper used the, at that time, 23 year old USST76 standard profile.

Jan Pompe

said:Steve #264

“we should have had 20 years of ERBE [Earth Radiation Budget Experiment] type data by now”

Yes why don’t we? It’s certainly bothersome.

As I understand the TIGR profiles Ferenc has been using are 22 years old and were 11 years young, when Keihl and Trenberth in their “seminal” 1997 paper used the, at that time, 23 year old USST76 standard profile.

Franko

said:Incoming ShortWave is fixed

This fixed the heat, converted at the surface

The surface heat fixes the energy that has to be convected, And to be radiated at the atmosphere top

The greenhouse effect, the controllable variable, tries to hug the heat to the surface, but is strongly limited by convection. Convection dominates, close to the surface and up above.

Extra super greenhouse effect ? linear T^1, just gone with the wind, convected via T^4

Franko

said:Incoming ShortWave is fixed

This fixed the heat, converted at the surface

The surface heat fixes the energy that has to be convected, And to be radiated at the atmosphere top

The greenhouse effect, the controllable variable, tries to hug the heat to the surface, but is strongly limited by convection. Convection dominates, close to the surface and up above.

Extra super greenhouse effect ? linear T^1, just gone with the wind, convected via T^4

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

The saturation argument against global warming was disproved by high-altitude observations in the 1940s. Here’s an explanation of why it doesn’t work:

http://www.g e o c i t i e s.com/bpl1960/Saturation.html

(take out the spaces. I put them in because g e o c i t i e s contains c i t i, which makes the stupid spam filter think the message is some b a n k scam.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

The saturation argument against global warming was disproved by high-altitude observations in the 1940s. Here’s an explanation of why it doesn’t work:

http://www.g e o c i t i e s.com/bpl1960/Saturation.html

(take out the spaces. I put them in because g e o c i t i e s contains c i t i, which makes the stupid spam filter think the message is some b a n k scam.

Franko

said:My argument, is adapted from the isotope/temperature proxy. A null experiment, everything, but the atomic weight, is the same. Reality, logical simplicity, trumps complicated interaction models, that Barton Paul Levenson has proposed.

Franko

said:My argument, is adapted from the isotope/temperature proxy. A null experiment, everything, but the atomic weight, is the same. Reality, logical simplicity, trumps complicated interaction models, that Barton Paul Levenson has proposed.

Franko

said:On Earth, the tropopause, near the poles, can be lower than 4 km. On Mars, during winter, can the tropopause hit the polar ice caps ?

Franko

said:On Earth, the tropopause, near the poles, can be lower than 4 km. On Mars, during winter, can the tropopause hit the polar ice caps ?

Steve Short

said:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

Steve Short

said:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko, what is the physical mechanism by which one molecule of sulfur hexafluoride displaces one molecule of carbon dioxide? Where does the carbon dioxide go? Why? No vague hand-waving, please, I would like a clear answer, preferably incorporating a mathematical model.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko, what is the physical mechanism by which one molecule of sulfur hexafluoride displaces one molecule of carbon dioxide? Where does the carbon dioxide go? Why? No vague hand-waving, please, I would like a clear answer, preferably incorporating a mathematical model.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#158 Neal

While running Ken’s noaa optical depth trend simulations, I have some time . Now let us get back to the virial problem.

You wrote to me:

—-I have had some doubts about applying this statement of the VT to this case, because it is normally applied to collections of particles held together by mutual gravitation, whereas planetary atmospheres are held together by gravitational attraction to the central planetary mass: the mutual attraction among gas molecules is negligible by comparison.—-

I do not see what is behind of this comment. To my best knowledge, particles moving in a force field which can be derived from a potential function should satisfy the PE/KE=-2…And Jan showed, that for my global average TIGR atmosphere this is valid. Why the source of the potential field is a concern?

—

The Sv virial term is to assure that at the Ta=1/6 flux transmittance (at the surface) the su=3olr/2 and su=2Eu relationships simultaneously satisfied, and at the Tr=1 trivial case su=olr. In my terminology the su=2Eu virial rule is a synonym for the hydrostatic equilibrium therefore I call Sv virial term.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#158 Neal

While running Ken’s noaa optical depth trend simulations, I have some time . Now let us get back to the virial problem.

You wrote to me:

—-I have had some doubts about applying this statement of the VT to this case, because it is normally applied to collections of particles held together by mutual gravitation, whereas planetary atmospheres are held together by gravitational attraction to the central planetary mass: the mutual attraction among gas molecules is negligible by comparison.—-

I do not see what is behind of this comment. To my best knowledge, particles moving in a force field which can be derived from a potential function should satisfy the PE/KE=-2…And Jan showed, that for my global average TIGR atmosphere this is valid. Why the source of the potential field is a concern?

—

The Sv virial term is to assure that at the Ta=1/6 flux transmittance (at the surface) the su=3olr/2 and su=2Eu relationships simultaneously satisfied, and at the Tr=1 trivial case su=olr. In my terminology the su=2Eu virial rule is a synonym for the hydrostatic equilibrium therefore I call Sv virial term.

Franko

said:SF6 Melting point = −64 °C

CO2 Melting point= −56.6°C

The first step in the reasoning is that SF6 competes for the ground generated, available heat, hugs the heat closer to the surface, reduces the effect of CO2. Will have to think out details thereafter.

Tropopause competition, SF6 cools, good IR radiator to space. Still working while CO2 ice falling.

Similar to Earth, CO2 above Tropopause cools, Precipicating H2O. Removing the competition for the flux to space.

Hugging to ground, or throwing to space, viva la difference.

Franko

said:SF6 Melting point = âˆ’64 Â°C

CO2 Melting point= âˆ’56.6Â°C

The first step in the reasoning is that SF6 competes for the ground generated, available heat, hugs the heat closer to the surface, reduces the effect of CO2. Will have to think out details thereafter.

Tropopause competition, SF6 cools, good IR radiator to space. Still working while CO2 ice falling.

Similar to Earth, CO2 above Tropopause cools, Precipicating H2O. Removing the competition for the flux to space.

Hugging to ground, or throwing to space, viva la difference.

Franko

said:The key concept is that, one removes the “effect” of another, on the available flux.

CO2 removes the effect of water in the Tropopause, and above. Even if water is allowed to hang around, clouded, frozen out, bouyed by upward drafts.

Demonstration of how slow conduction is; Can have inversion of temperature without inversion of density. Lake 4°C, most dense at the bottom, Ice, 0°C, least dense on top. Conduction very slow to increase T^1. Heated, once convection takes over, T^4 dominates.

Numerous other examples of temperature inversions, without density inversions.

As for the math; Extended irreversible thermodynamics, able to leave empirical anchors behind ?

Franko

said:The key concept is that, one removes the “effect” of another, on the available flux.

CO2 removes the effect of water in the Tropopause, and above. Even if water is allowed to hang around, clouded, frozen out, bouyed by upward drafts.

Demonstration of how slow conduction is; Can have inversion of temperature without inversion of density. Lake 4Â°C, most dense at the bottom, Ice, 0Â°C, least dense on top. Conduction very slow to increase T^1. Heated, once convection takes over, T^4 dominates.

Numerous other examples of temperature inversions, without density inversions.

As for the math; Extended irreversible thermodynamics, able to leave empirical anchors behind ?

pochas

said:Ferenc,

I for one have no problem with the “virial law” since the derivative of Neil’s function

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

is

dKE/dPE = -1/2

which is really what you want.

I also have no problem with the surface “Kirchoff’s Law” as long as it is understood that the law only applies to wavelengths for which the atmosphere is opaque. For other wavelengths, of course the surface sees the sun directly and we have a far-from-equilibrium condition. This quibble will not affect your analysis.

I agree that your eq(6) is a correct representation of the energy balance.

However, in eq (7) I do not see why

Su−(F0+P0)

and

Ed−Eu

are both required to be one-half of OLR as they seem to be. I think this artificially overspecifies your variables and that your Su=3OLR/2 relationship may be an artifact.

I feel that you have made a significant contribution to climate science and hope you will view my comments as constructive.

pochas

said:Ferenc,

I for one have no problem with the “virial law” since the derivative of Neil’s function

KE = -(1/2)PE – (2*pi*R^3)P(r=R)

is

dKE/dPE = -1/2

which is really what you want.

I also have no problem with the surface “Kirchoff’s Law” as long as it is understood that the law only applies to wavelengths for which the atmosphere is opaque. For other wavelengths, of course the surface sees the sun directly and we have a far-from-equilibrium condition. This quibble will not affect your analysis.

I agree that your eq(6) is a correct representation of the energy balance.

However, in eq (7) I do not see why

Suâˆ’(F0+P0)

and

Edâˆ’Eu

are both required to be one-half of OLR as they seem to be. I think this artificially overspecifies your variables and that your Su=3OLR/2 relationship may be an artifact.

I feel that you have made a significant contribution to climate science and hope you will view my comments as constructive.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:# 276 pochas

Although you are right with the dP/dK=-2, Jan showed that the PE/KE ratio is also ~-2 for my global average atmosphere. This is a fact, anybody can reproduce his computations, and I would like to understand why Neal, Pacheco-Sanudo or anybody state, that it is wrong…

—-

In my comments of #20 and #23 I explained how I arrived to Eq. 7. Is your problem the OLR on the RHS of Eq. 7, or the equality of Su-OLR and Ed-Eu in Eq. 6 ?

—-

I am talking about Atmospheric Kirchhoff’ law for the atmospheric flux densities which is a new thing, but empirically supported, and it has clear connection to the well known monochromatic Kirchhoff law for spectral flux densities…

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:# 276 pochas

Although you are right with the dP/dK=-2, Jan showed that the PE/KE ratio is also ~-2 for my global average atmosphere. This is a fact, anybody can reproduce his computations, and I would like to understand why Neal, Pacheco-Sanudo or anybody state, that it is wrong…

—-

In my comments of #20 and #23 I explained how I arrived to Eq. 7. Is your problem the OLR on the RHS of Eq. 7, or the equality of Su-OLR and Ed-Eu in Eq. 6 ?

—-

I am talking about Atmospheric Kirchhoff’ law for the atmospheric flux densities which is a new thing, but empirically supported, and it has clear connection to the well known monochromatic Kirchhoff law for spectral flux densities…

Franko

said:For the PE/KE integral, is the zero PE set at the surface ?

Where a completely dead atmosphere would rest ?

Franko

said:For the PE/KE integral, is the zero PE set at the surface ?

Where a completely dead atmosphere would rest ?

Franko

said:For the Kirchoff Law;

Color version absorbing and Black and White version radiating,

to discount the color change during thermalization ?

Franko

said:For the Kirchoff Law;

Color version absorbing and Black and White version radiating,

to discount the color change during thermalization ?

pochas

said:Ferencz Miskolczi:

“Is your problem the OLR on the RHS of Eq. 7….”

I certainly accept eq (6), and I see by your notes above that you characterize the Sg = 3/2*OLR relationship as empirical and applicable to the special case of the earth, and if it is imposed eq (7) will of course be satisfied. That answers my question. Thanks for your response.

pochas

said:Ferencz Miskolczi:

“Is your problem the OLR on the RHS of Eq. 7….”

I certainly accept eq (6), and I see by your notes above that you characterize the Sg = 3/2*OLR relationship as empirical and applicable to the special case of the earth, and if it is imposed eq (7) will of course be satisfied. That answers my question. Thanks for your response.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#280 pochas

I am a bit confused with the term ’empirical’. As long as you look at the simulated data poins and they show that Su=3OLR/2 (Earth) or Su=3OLR/(2+Ta) (Mars) with a reasonable correlation, they are certainly empirical.

But if you accept the theoretical assumptions that the LTE requires the Ed=B(1-Ta) (Atmospheric Kirchhoff law) and the system maintains the maximum greenhouse effect (based on the entropy maximum principle) and you derive the above relationships from the (Su-OLR)+(Ed-Eu)=Fo or (Earth) or (Su-(OLR-St))+(Ed-Eu)=Fo-St (Mars) energy conservation equations then these relationships are not anymore ’empirical’. They are in fact based on theoretical assumptions (not to be confused with ‘approximations’) which are supported by empirical (simulation) data….

Telling the truth, in the original versions of the manuscript only the empirical facts were presented. However, one Hungarian astrophysicist (reviewer of the Idojaras journal ) insisted on giving reference or theoretical support for the new equations. He accepted the Su=OLR/f based on the mathematical proof in the Appendix B , but he thought that the other relationships needs some kind of theoretical backing (Su=Ed/A, Su=3OLR/2, Su=2Eu (Earth) and Su=3OLR/(2+Ta) and Su=3Eu/(2(1-Ta)) (Mars). Since no reference existed in the literature for the above relationships I had to create the new ‘laws’. At that time I was not happy about his arguments since new empirical facts alone used to be published, but know I am very grateful to him that he forced me to look deeper into the reasonings behind the equations and found some theoretical explanation.

However, this is not a ‘perfect’ greenhouse theory, (in science nothing is settled forever, no matter what IPCC believs) but could be a contribution to the better understanding of the radiative processes in the atmosphere.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#280 pochas

I am a bit confused with the term ’empirical’. As long as you look at the simulated data poins and they show that Su=3OLR/2 (Earth) or Su=3OLR/(2+Ta) (Mars) with a reasonable correlation, they are certainly empirical.

But if you accept the theoretical assumptions that the LTE requires the Ed=B(1-Ta) (Atmospheric Kirchhoff law) and the system maintains the maximum greenhouse effect (based on the entropy maximum principle) and you derive the above relationships from the (Su-OLR)+(Ed-Eu)=Fo or (Earth) or (Su-(OLR-St))+(Ed-Eu)=Fo-St (Mars) energy conservation equations then these relationships are not anymore ’empirical’. They are in fact based on theoretical assumptions (not to be confused with ‘approximations’) which are supported by empirical (simulation) data….

Telling the truth, in the original versions of the manuscript only the empirical facts were presented. However, one Hungarian astrophysicist (reviewer of the Idojaras journal ) insisted on giving reference or theoretical support for the new equations. He accepted the Su=OLR/f based on the mathematical proof in the Appendix B , but he thought that the other relationships needs some kind of theoretical backing (Su=Ed/A, Su=3OLR/2, Su=2Eu (Earth) and Su=3OLR/(2+Ta) and Su=3Eu/(2(1-Ta)) (Mars). Since no reference existed in the literature for the above relationships I had to create the new ‘laws’. At that time I was not happy about his arguments since new empirical facts alone used to be published, but know I am very grateful to him that he forced me to look deeper into the reasonings behind the equations and found some theoretical explanation.

However, this is not a ‘perfect’ greenhouse theory, (in science nothing is settled forever, no matter what IPCC believs) but could be a contribution to the better understanding of the radiative processes in the atmosphere.

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc, #281

So are we all :- it has given some of us new insights and all of us something to exercise our minds:)

Jan Pompe

said:Ferenc, #281

So are we all :- it has given some of us new insights and all of us something to exercise our minds:)

pochas

said:Ferenc,

To get a better feel for your theory, I did a couple of energy balances using different assumptions. Always, Kirchoff’s law and the Virial law were applied, and the “planet” was assumed to be receiving 10 units of energy from its sun. In case A (the earth) the Su = 3OLR / 2 relationship was applied. After working the energy balance, the transparency Ta for case A turned out to be 0.167, and eq (7) was satisfied. In case B (fictitious planet) the Su = 3OLR/2 relationship was not applied, but Ta was specified to be 0.125. After again running the numbers, case B yielded a perfectly reasonable looking energy balance, but eq (7) was not satisfied. The LHS of eq (7) yielded 12 instead of the OLR of 10.

Should a case A planet be preferred to the fictitious case B? My feeling at this point is no. The Su = 3/2OLR relationship should be understood as earth-specific and if we encounter another planet with a semi-transparent atmosphere we should measure its Ta, and use it for the basis of our energy balance calculations. Do you agree?

Again, thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

pochas

said:Ferenc,

To get a better feel for your theory, I did a couple of energy balances using different assumptions. Always, Kirchoff’s law and the Virial law were applied, and the “planet” was assumed to be receiving 10 units of energy from its sun. In case A (the earth) the Su = 3OLR / 2 relationship was applied. After working the energy balance, the transparency Ta for case A turned out to be 0.167, and eq (7) was satisfied. In case B (fictitious planet) the Su = 3OLR/2 relationship was not applied, but Ta was specified to be 0.125. After again running the numbers, case B yielded a perfectly reasonable looking energy balance, but eq (7) was not satisfied. The LHS of eq (7) yielded 12 instead of the OLR of 10.

Should a case A planet be preferred to the fictitious case B? My feeling at this point is no. The Su = 3/2OLR relationship should be understood as earth-specific and if we encounter another planet with a semi-transparent atmosphere we should measure its Ta, and use it for the basis of our energy balance calculations. Do you agree?

Again, thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

Franko

said:Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium ?

Non linear, irreversible, why does it average out to Not Totally Wrong ?

Earth radiates, mainly in the infrared, all directions. Sometimes Gamma Rays, from top of lightning bolts. Cannot time reverse the process, produce day and night, with a beam of visible light, directed at the Sun.

Franko

said:Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium ?

Non linear, irreversible, why does it average out to Not Totally Wrong ?

Earth radiates, mainly in the infrared, all directions. Sometimes Gamma Rays, from top of lightning bolts. Cannot time reverse the process, produce day and night, with a beam of visible light, directed at the Sun.

jae

said:Something that I posted on the CA Message Board that might have some relevance here:

“Back to Tuscon in July. We know there is an average of 11,000 w-hr total energy received from the sun during one day in July. Let’s assume it is spread out over 15 hours of daylight. That’s 11,000 w-hr/m-2/15 hr = 733 w/m-2 radiation (average) being received at the surface during the day (forget about albedo for now). That is equivalent to a black body radiator at 64 C (148 F). Interestingly, that is about exactly the average daily temperature we would see in a greenhouse in Tuscon. But the average daylight temperature outside the greenhouse in Tuscon in July is only about 45 C. We know from Wood’s experiments that almost all of the difference of 19 C is due to convection, alone, since it is just as hot in a greenhouse made of NaCl (which is transparent to IR) as one made of glass. Thus, RADIATION does not cool the IR-transparent greenhouse. And, therefore, it does not cool the surface; only convection is cooling the surface during the day. There is no place for or any need for a backradiation flux here. “

jae

said:Something that I posted on the CA Message Board that might have some relevance here:

“Back to Tuscon in July. We know there is an average of 11,000 w-hr total energy received from the sun during one day in July. Let’s assume it is spread out over 15 hours of daylight. That’s 11,000 w-hr/m-2/15 hr = 733 w/m-2 radiation (average) being received at the surface during the day (forget about albedo for now). That is equivalent to a black body radiator at 64 C (148 F). Interestingly, that is about exactly the average daily temperature we would see in a greenhouse in Tuscon. But the average daylight temperature outside the greenhouse in Tuscon in July is only about 45 C. We know from Wood’s experiments that almost all of the difference of 19 C is due to convection, alone, since it is just as hot in a greenhouse made of NaCl (which is transparent to IR) as one made of glass. Thus, RADIATION does not cool the IR-transparent greenhouse. And, therefore, it does not cool the surface; only convection is cooling the surface during the day. There is no place for or any need for a backradiation flux here. “

Franko

said:#285 jae “There is no place for or any need for a backradiation flux here.“

The need is to “Tie Me Kangaroo Down” — Profiling, laboratory conditions, replacing climate of real long chained guessing.

Absorbed frequency spectra, radiated frequency spectra. size of convection bubbles, temperature and flux dependent, what limited feedback determined ?

Franko

said:#285 jae “There is no place for or any need for a backradiation flux here.â€œ

The need is to “Tie Me Kangaroo Down” — Profiling, laboratory conditions, replacing climate of real long chained guessing.

Absorbed frequency spectra, radiated frequency spectra. size of convection bubbles, temperature and flux dependent, what limited feedback determined ?

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#283 pochas

Think about the usst76 atmosphere. (You may look at slide 7 of my NewYork presentation.)

For the usst76 olr/su=2/3 and Ta=0.232. The global average TIGR atmosphere gives olr/su=2/3 and Ta=0.1541. The transfer function f=2/(1-log(Ta)+Ta) for the usst76 is 0.742 and for the it is TIGR 0.66 =olr/su=2/3. As you see the usst76 f=0.742 do not satisfy the f=2/3 requirement (which is coming from eq. 7).

This does not mean, that the usst76 is an unrealistic atmosphere. It can be perfect local atmospheric structure at some latitudes , where the K term in eq. 5. ( eu=k+f+p) supplies the the required thermal energy from outside the air column. General circulation can do this. But the usst76 is not good for a global average atmosphere where there is nothing outside the air column, and the K=0.0 condition must apply.

The usst76 alone with its olr=F0 can not maintain the 391 wm-2 su.

I do not know if this helps, but for more you may e-mail me your model calculation details and I shall be happy to look at it (fmiskolczi@cox.net)….

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#283 pochas

Think about the usst76 atmosphere. (You may look at slide 7 of my NewYork presentation.)

For the usst76 olr/su=2/3 and Ta=0.232. The global average TIGR atmosphere gives olr/su=2/3 and Ta=0.1541. The transfer function f=2/(1-log(Ta)+Ta) for the usst76 is 0.742 and for the it is TIGR 0.66 =olr/su=2/3. As you see the usst76 f=0.742 do not satisfy the f=2/3 requirement (which is coming from eq. 7).

This does not mean, that the usst76 is an unrealistic atmosphere. It can be perfect local atmospheric structure at some latitudes , where the K term in eq. 5. ( eu=k+f+p) supplies the the required thermal energy from outside the air column. General circulation can do this. But the usst76 is not good for a global average atmosphere where there is nothing outside the air column, and the K=0.0 condition must apply.

The usst76 alone with its olr=F0 can not maintain the 391 wm-2 su.

I do not know if this helps, but for more you may e-mail me your model calculation details and I shall be happy to look at it (fmiskolczi@cox.net)….

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae posts:

The surface is cooled by absorption of sunlight in the atmosphere before it reaches the surface (67 Watts per square meter), sensible heat loss (24 W m^-2), latent heat loss (78) and window radiation (40). Of the 390 W m^-2 or so radiated by the surface, most is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae posts:

The surface is cooled by absorption of sunlight in the atmosphere before it reaches the surface (67 Watts per square meter), sensible heat loss (24 W m^-2), latent heat loss (78) and window radiation (40). Of the 390 W m^-2 or so radiated by the surface, most is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:# 283 pochas

In my 284 comment:

…..But the usst76 is not good for a global average atmosphere where there is nothing outside the air column, and the K=0.0 condition must apply…..

I meant here, that the contribution to K from outside the air column must be zero. Here K must be a strictly vertical flux density term….

#288 BPL

Whatever IR is absorbed from the surface, it is returned to the surface as Ed. Surface can only cool by non-radiative processes…..

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:# 283 pochas

In my 284 comment:

…..But the usst76 is not good for a global average atmosphere where there is nothing outside the air column, and the K=0.0 condition must apply…..

I meant here, that the contribution to K from outside the air column must be zero. Here K must be a strictly vertical flux density term….

#288 BPL

Whatever IR is absorbed from the surface, it is returned to the surface as Ed. Surface can only cool by non-radiative processes…..

Franko

said:Radio and around 10 microns leave directly. Without atmospheric involvement.

What %, as a function of surface temperature, escapes the surface, directly to space ?

Almost fog, not quite clouds, block the 10 micron window ?

Franko

said:Radio and around 10 microns leave directly. Without atmospheric involvement.

What %, as a function of surface temperature, escapes the surface, directly to space ?

Almost fog, not quite clouds, block the 10 micron window ?

Franko

said:Measured by 10 micron IR window, used as an indicator of surface radiating temperature. How temperature changes as air pressure is changed from vacum upwards ? Any chart of similar, measured, effective surface radiating temperature ?

Surface radiated, escaped or returned. Percent ?

Surface solid to gas conducted, by molecular contact; Percent ?

Franko

said:Measured by 10 micron IR window, used as an indicator of surface radiating temperature. How temperature changes as air pressure is changed from vacum upwards ? Any chart of similar, measured, effective surface radiating temperature ?

Surface radiated, escaped or returned. Percent ?

Surface solid to gas conducted, by molecular contact; Percent ?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

Which part of “the surface is cooled 67 watts per square meter by atmospheric absorption and 40 watts per square meter by direct window radiation” did you not understand? Your statement that the surface “can only cool by non-radiative processes” is just plain false. You’re wrong. Period, end of paragraph.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

Which part of “the surface is cooled 67 watts per square meter by atmospheric absorption and 40 watts per square meter by direct window radiation” did you not understand? Your statement that the surface “can only cool by non-radiative processes” is just plain false. You’re wrong. Period, end of paragraph.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#292 Franko

At the NASA BSRN site (20 miles off Virgina Beach) the surface skin temperature ( which is actually from the 10 micron window radiance ), the air temperature and the upward Su and downward Ed is measured simultaneously. I can send you time series of these data, or you can get them from their archives…I used these data for slides 20 and 21 of my NewYork presentation….They were quite useful for theestimation of the flux optical depth from the Kirchhoff law: tau=log(1/(1-Ed/Su))…

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#292 Franko

At the NASA BSRN site (20 miles off Virgina Beach) the surface skin temperature ( which is actually from the 10 micron window radiance ), the air temperature and the upward Su and downward Ed is measured simultaneously. I can send you time series of these data, or you can get them from their archives…I used these data for slides 20 and 21 of my NewYork presentation….They were quite useful for theestimation of the flux optical depth from the Kirchhoff law: tau=log(1/(1-Ed/Su))…

Franko

said:#292 BPL

“Whatever IR is absorbed from the surface, it is returned to the surface as Ed.”

IR, that is absorbed, travels only short distance, thermalized. Radiated internally ~ absorption and radiation bands are the same, cannot 10 micron, 30 Thz generate. Heat escape window is barred from use. Trapped is the heat. Conduction in a gas, is not fast.

To seperate convection, conduction, radiation. Turn a flat heated plate upside down, that eliminates convection. Measure temperature gradient. along a well insulated column, (a space station, no gravity experiment ?). Will have to see if someone has such a chart.

“Surface can only cool by non-radiative processesâ€¦..”

From the surface, ~8% is direectly out the 10 micron window. Hot gas can have the surface thermalize, radiate, into the 30 Thz window. Surface is non linear, the requirement for any mixer.

Right is Barton Paul Levenson !

Franko

said:#292 BPL

“Whatever IR is absorbed from the surface, it is returned to the surface as Ed.”

IR, that is absorbed, travels only short distance, thermalized. Radiated internally ~ absorption and radiation bands are the same, cannot 10 micron, 30 Thz generate. Heat escape window is barred from use. Trapped is the heat. Conduction in a gas, is not fast.

To seperate convection, conduction, radiation. Turn a flat heated plate upside down, that eliminates convection. Measure temperature gradient. along a well insulated column, (a space station, no gravity experiment ?). Will have to see if someone has such a chart.

“Surface can only cool by non-radiative processes…..”

From the surface, ~8% is direectly out the 10 micron window. Hot gas can have the surface thermalize, radiate, into the 30 Thz window. Surface is non linear, the requirement for any mixer.

Right is Barton Paul Levenson !

Alex Harvey

said:pochas # 276:

I’m sure I’m not alone amongst non-scientists following this thread in finding your sudden appearance supporting some of the basic points of Miskolczi’s theory very interesting indeed, given that the same points have been written off by others who apparently should know just as well as “absurd, dangerous nonsense, etc., etc.”

Whilst it’s your prerogative to write anonymously if you choose, would it be possible if we could learn a little bit more about your scientific background?

Alex Harvey

said:pochas # 276:

I’m sure I’m not alone amongst non-scientists following this thread in finding your sudden appearance supporting some of the basic points of Miskolczi’s theory very interesting indeed, given that the same points have been written off by others who apparently should know just as well as “absurd, dangerous nonsense, etc., etc.”

Whilst it’s your prerogative to write anonymously if you choose, would it be possible if we could learn a little bit more about your scientific background?

Franko

said:#293 Ferenc Miskolczi

Thanks for the offer. At the moment, I would not know what to do with it.

Presently, I am visualizing the Optical Depth, as the pressure relief valve. Actually, how the Optical Depth adjusts, is still a puzzle.

I am curios about the 10 micron window. If we plugged it with SF6; could we stop the next Ice Age ?

Franko

said:#293 Ferenc Miskolczi

Thanks for the offer. At the moment, I would not know what to do with it.

Presently, I am visualizing the Optical Depth, as the pressure relief valve. Actually, how the Optical Depth adjusts, is still a puzzle.

I am curios about the 10 micron window. If we plugged it with SF6; could we stop the next Ice Age ?

Franko

said:#295 Alex Harvey;

The purpose here is to learn.

Not to stop the reasioning process by the logical fallacy of appeal to authority

Franko

said:#295 Alex Harvey;

The purpose here is to learn.

Not to stop the reasioning process by the logical fallacy of appeal to authority

Anonymous

said:hi franco, IMHO the purpose of this blog is to raise and discuss modelling issues in a gentlemanly (or ladylike) manner. I wouldn’t presume to guess other’s agenda, and I think thats up to them. A gentleman can ask for another’s credentials, or nail another’s thumbs to the table in an argument if need be, politely.

admin

said:hi franco, IMHO the purpose of this blog is to raise and discuss modelling issues in a gentlemanly (or ladylike) manner. I wouldn’t presume to guess other’s agenda, and I think thats up to them. A gentleman can ask for another’s credentials, or nail another’s thumbs to the table in an argument if need be, politely.

Franko

said:“the purpose of this blog is to raise and discuss modelling issues”

I agree. But given the quote below:

“absurd, dangerous nonsense, etc., etc.”

The discussion is prompted in another direction. An unnecessay distraction.

Franko

said:“the purpose of this blog is to raise and discuss modelling issues”

I agree. But given the quote below:

â€œabsurd, dangerous nonsense, etc., etc.â€

The discussion is prompted in another direction. An unnecessay distraction.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

We have already stopped the next ice age.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

We have already stopped the next ice age.

Franko

said:Than you for emitting.

I saw the reasoning.

But, can I have sandy Arctic beaches

24 hour suntanning.

For the price of Super Gas, SF6 ?

Franko

said:Than you for emitting.

I saw the reasoning.

But, can I have sandy Arctic beaches

24 hour suntanning.

For the price of Super Gas, SF6 ?

Alex Harvey

said:Franko # 299:

Alright, the colourful language probably wasn’t needed. I am a little frustrated, I suppose, that opposing experts disagree to such an extent over such a seemingly basic point. My own background is a career in information technology and a degree in history & philosophy of science. I’m sure like thousands of other educated non-scientists, I just want to know if the theory is true or not! So there’s no agenda other than a lot of curiosity.

Alex Harvey

said:Franko # 299:

Alright, the colourful language probably wasn’t needed. I am a little frustrated, I suppose, that opposing experts disagree to such an extent over such a seemingly basic point. My own background is a career in information technology and a degree in history & philosophy of science. I’m sure like thousands of other educated non-scientists, I just want to know if the theory is true or not! So there’s no agenda other than a lot of curiosity.

jae

said:BPL, 292.

“Which part of “the surface is cooled 67 watts per square meter by atmospheric absorption and 40 watts per square meter by direct window radiation” did you not understand? Your statement that the surface “can only cool by non-radiative processes” is just plain false. You’re wrong. Period, end of paragraph.”

Then you don’t believe (or understand) my 285, eh? If you are correct, an IR-transparent closed greenhouse (NaCl walls) should be cooler than a glass greenhouse. It’s not.

jae

said:BPL, 292.

“Which part of â€œthe surface is cooled 67 watts per square meter by atmospheric absorption and 40 watts per square meter by direct window radiationâ€ did you not understand? Your statement that the surface â€œcan only cool by non-radiative processesâ€ is just plain false. Youâ€™re wrong. Period, end of paragraph.”

Then you don’t believe (or understand) my 285, eh? If you are correct, an IR-transparent closed greenhouse (NaCl walls) should be cooler than a glass greenhouse. It’s not.

Franko

said:#302 Alex Harvey

“All theories are wrong, but some are useful”

The main scientific point is simple. (T^4 dominates, (2^4=16)).

The other decorations fall into place. But have to be carefully assembled, as the “Grey atmosphere”, “Virial” etc. to simplify the calculations.

My amazement is; why so little empirical, just computer fantasy modelling ? (russians are building giant chamber to test climate modification by aerosols)

For example; large centrifuged test tube, like the astronaut G force testing. Spun to vacun one end, to model the atmosphre.

**admin should move some posts to a gory dogfight category**

Franko

said:#302 Alex Harvey

“All theories are wrong, but some are useful”

The main scientific point is simple. (T^4 dominates, (2^4=16)).

The other decorations fall into place. But have to be carefully assembled, as the “Grey atmosphere”, “Virial” etc. to simplify the calculations.

My amazement is; why so little empirical, just computer fantasy modelling ? (russians are building giant chamber to test climate modification by aerosols)

For example; large centrifuged test tube, like the astronaut G force testing. Spun to vacun one end, to model the atmosphre.

**admin should move some posts to a gory dogfight category**

Alex Harvey

said:Franko # 304:

Thanks; you’re preaching to the choir here. :)

Alex Harvey

said:Franko # 304:

Thanks; you’re preaching to the choir here. :)

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae writes:

Maybe I did misunderstand you. I read Franko as saying “the surface” pertaining to the Earth’s surface. If you were discussing physical greenhouses, you come close to having a point.

The greenhouse, whether salt or glass, will still cool by radiation, however. Remember the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Neither salt nor glass have an IR emissivity of zero.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae writes:

Maybe I did misunderstand you. I read Franko as saying “the surface” pertaining to the Earth’s surface. If you were discussing physical greenhouses, you come close to having a point.

The greenhouse, whether salt or glass, will still cool by radiation, however. Remember the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Neither salt nor glass have an IR emissivity of zero.

Franko

said:Theory produced equations. Some equations are confitmed by observation. These equations are the newly produced tools.

Next, the observables are fed into the black box computer, which uses the described tools. Out come the results, compared to observation.

What actually are the inputs and outputs ? How was CO2 sensitivity determined ? I want to know; What if I replace every molecule with CO2 only ?

Franko

said:Theory produced equations. Some equations are confitmed by observation. These equations are the newly produced tools.

Next, the observables are fed into the black box computer, which uses the described tools. Out come the results, compared to observation.

What actually are the inputs and outputs ? How was CO2 sensitivity determined ? I want to know; What if I replace every molecule with CO2 only ?

jae

said:BPL: I guess what I’m saying is that folks are too hung up on radiation and are ignoring other forms of heat transport. If you consider only radiation, the ambient temperature of the air near the surface would be the same as that in a closed greenhouse during the day, that is, almost twice as hot as it really is. Because of convection this doesn’t happen. Heat from the surface is transported from the surface to the atmosphere mainly by convection (and/or evaporation), not radiation. Like M says, heat is mainly removed from the surface by non-radiative mechanisms.

jae

said:BPL: I guess what I’m saying is that folks are too hung up on radiation and are ignoring other forms of heat transport. If you consider only radiation, the ambient temperature of the air near the surface would be the same as that in a closed greenhouse during the day, that is, almost twice as hot as it really is. Because of convection this doesn’t happen. Heat from the surface is transported from the surface to the atmosphere mainly by convection (and/or evaporation), not radiation. Like M says, heat is mainly removed from the surface by non-radiative mechanisms.

Franko

said:Miskolczi needs a slogan;

“Go ahead break my model”

People kick the tires of a car.

See if they can break something, before the warranty expires.

Same here. What if we try various gas combinations. Really simple ones. Get same result ? predicted from another theoretical approach ?

Mars looks good. But a java version, where you, just casually, can try any gas combination ?.

Miskolczi might as well moniterize this. Line his own pockets; Web site with advertisements. Become a worlwide atmosphere consultant etc. Even a good wrestler needs good advertising.

Franko

said:Miskolczi needs a slogan;

“Go ahead break my model”

People kick the tires of a car.

See if they can break something, before the warranty expires.

Same here. What if we try various gas combinations. Really simple ones. Get same result ? predicted from another theoretical approach ?

Mars looks good. But a java version, where you, just casually, can try any gas combination ?.

Miskolczi might as well moniterize this. Line his own pockets; Web site with advertisements. Become a worlwide atmosphere consultant etc. Even a good wrestler needs good advertising.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#307 Franko

Interesting…what would be the virial rule in that case? I can compute this for you….I can create an atmosphere with 1013 mb CO2 and no water vapor and no clouds and other absorbers, fixed Fo (OLR) and find the equilibrium global average thermal structure, it looks a very simple planet….If this is what you mean…The problem is similar to force more co2 into the Martian atmosphere – while it likes the amount it has now….

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#307 Franko

Interesting…what would be the virial rule in that case? I can compute this for you….I can create an atmosphere with 1013 mb CO2 and no water vapor and no clouds and other absorbers, fixed Fo (OLR) and find the equilibrium global average thermal structure, it looks a very simple planet….If this is what you mean…The problem is similar to force more co2 into the Martian atmosphere – while it likes the amount it has now….

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#309 Franko

Once I wrote to you that I am not doing this for money. However, I am still jobless and having a better computer would cerainly make my life easier. Would you by HARTCODE? I am selling it…

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#309 Franko

Once I wrote to you that I am not doing this for money. However, I am still jobless and having a better computer would cerainly make my life easier. Would you by HARTCODE? I am selling it…

jae

said:Ferenc: You should put up a website with a “tip jar,” like Steve Mc did. I would gladly contribute.

jae

said:Ferenc: You should put up a website with a “tip jar,” like Steve Mc did. I would gladly contribute.

Jan Pompe

said:jae #312

You should put up a website with a “tip jar,” like Steve Mc did.

Ferenc,

It’s not such a silly idea.

How about it I’ll gladly help administer it if you need such help, I am sure will others who are here will also.

Jan Pompe

said:jae #312

You should put up a website with a â€œtip jar,â€ like Steve Mc did.

Ferenc,

It’s not such a silly idea.

How about it I’ll gladly help administer it if you need such help, I am sure will others who are here will also.

Anonymous

said:I think it works better if it was put to a specific project, like a new computer or publication in PNAS. I have thought about this, and instead of just tips for $20 say, I would put a button for donation of the whole lot $2000 or whatever, and another for tips. I’m happy to try it. There is just the spot in the upper corners of this theme.

David Stockwell

said:I think it works better if it was put to a specific project, like a new computer or publication in PNAS. I have thought about this, and instead of just tips for $20 say, I would put a button for donation of the whole lot $2000 or whatever, and another for tips. I’m happy to try it. There is just the spot in the upper corners of this theme.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

Depending on the season, the partial pressure of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere varies by 40% — 6 to 10 millibars. That’s because CO2 sublimes off the polar caps when they are in summer, and condenses on them when they are in winter, and they’re asymmetrical.

So there’s no fixed amount of CO2 Mars “prefers” to have.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

Depending on the season, the partial pressure of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere varies by 40% — 6 to 10 millibars. That’s because CO2 sublimes off the polar caps when they are in summer, and condenses on them when they are in winter, and they’re asymmetrical.

So there’s no fixed amount of CO2 Mars “prefers” to have.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#315 BPL

We are talking about long time global averages….

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#315 BPL

We are talking about long time global averages….

Jan Pompe

said:David #314

I haven’t made a blog donation this month yet and it’s burning a hole in my pocket. I’m happy to use paypal.

Ferenc #316 do you know where there is a profile available for Mars?

I’m still waiting for those bits Farnell have quite a different definition of 7-10 days than I do. So I might take a squiz at Mars in the meantime.

Jan Pompe

said:David #314

I haven’t made a blog donation this month yet and it’s burning a hole in my pocket. I’m happy to use paypal.

Ferenc #316 do you know where there is a profile available for Mars?

I’m still waiting for those bits Farnell have quite a different definition of 7-10 days than I do. So I might take a squiz at Mars in the meantime.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe — What kind of profile do you mean? There’s a standard atmosphere for Mars (Barth 1985) which is available in Levin et al.’s “The Photochemistry of Atmospheres: Earth, the Other Planets, and Comets.” It’s also listed in Lodders and Fegley 1998. “The Planetary Scientist’s Companion.”

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Jan Pompe — What kind of profile do you mean? There’s a standard atmosphere for Mars (Barth 1985) which is available in Levin et al.’s “The Photochemistry of Atmospheres: Earth, the Other Planets, and Comets.” It’s also listed in Lodders and Fegley 1998. “The Planetary Scientist’s Companion.”

Barton Paul Levenson

said:To get you started, surface pressure on Mars averages 636 Pascals, temperature 214 K, and the lapse rate is about 0.9 K/km (the adiabatic rate is 4.5 but the carbon dioxide apparently plays the role water vapor does on Earth as far as latent heat is concerned). Composition is about 95.32% CO2, 2.7% N2, 1.6% Ar, 0.13% O2, 0.08% CO, and 210 ppmv H2O, if I remember correctly. Specific heat at constant pressure comes out at about 850 J/K/kg.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:To get you started, surface pressure on Mars averages 636 Pascals, temperature 214 K, and the lapse rate is about 0.9 K/km (the adiabatic rate is 4.5 but the carbon dioxide apparently plays the role water vapor does on Earth as far as latent heat is concerned). Composition is about 95.32% CO2, 2.7% N2, 1.6% Ar, 0.13% O2, 0.08% CO, and 210 ppmv H2O, if I remember correctly. Specific heat at constant pressure comes out at about 850 J/K/kg.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #319

Thanks Barton I was looking for atmospheric temperature content etc Ferenc has sent me a set that I can feed into the tools. The second book you mention will probably be a good one to have on the shelf. i’ll see if can get it when I hve some spare pennies.

#319 “carbon dioxide apparently plays the role water vapor does on Earth as far as latent heat is concerned” wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Jan Pompe

said:BPL #319

Thanks Barton I was looking for atmospheric temperature content etc Ferenc has sent me a set that I can feed into the tools. The second book you mention will probably be a good one to have on the shelf. i’ll see if can get it when I hve some spare pennies.

#319 “carbon dioxide apparently plays the role water vapor does on Earth as far as latent heat is concerned” wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Ken Gregory

said:Last month I asked Ferenc Miskolczi to calculate a 60 year trend of optical depths using radiosonde data I compiled from the NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory to confirm his prediction of constant optical depth. We finally got the results:

*There has been no increase in the effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the last 60 years.*

Miskolczi’ theory shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. The theory predicts the optical depth will remain approximately constant at 1.87. This is a longterm equilibrium value, but will vary over the short term with El Nino/La Nina, etc. Our atmosphere holds just that amount of water vapor that allows the maximum radiation of heat into space. This causes a constant greenhouse effect, so as CO2 increases, water vapour decreases.

This graph shows the global relative humidity trends.

The average relative humidity at the 300 mbar altitude has declined by 21.5% from 1948 to 2007.

The results of Miskolczi’s calculations using his line-by-line HARTCODE program are given here.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Optical%20depth%20trend.pdf

The calculations are independent of any greenhouse theory and contains no assumptions on how the greenhouse effect works. The 60 year average optical depth of 1.869 matches the theoretical 1.87.

In 60 years of CO2 emissions, the optical depth trend line has increased about 0.03%, which is nothing, resulting in no temperature change. The result confirms the theory, and shows that the total effective amount of greenhouse gases have not increased in 60 years. Therefore, the warming during the last century was not due to greenhouse gas emissions.

The blue line on the graph shows what the optical depth trend would be if only the CO2 is changed, with water vapour held constant. This is the no-feedback case. The trend line shows 0.3% increase over 60 years. By my calculations, using Eq. 18 and 28, Su increases by 0.131%. The corresponding temperature increase is 0.083 C. During this 60 years, the CO2 content increased 24.6%. So the temperature change at co2 doubling is 0.26 C.

This agrees with the estimate of 0.24 C on page 22.

Ken Gregory

said:Last month I asked Ferenc Miskolczi to calculate a 60 year trend of optical depths using radiosonde data I compiled from the NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory to confirm his prediction of constant optical depth. We finally got the results:

*There has been no increase in the effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the last 60 years.*

Miskolczi’ theory shows that the atmosphere maintains a â€œsaturatedâ€ greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. The theory predicts the optical depth will remain approximately constant at 1.87. This is a longterm equilibrium value, but will vary over the short term with El Nino/La Nina, etc. Our atmosphere holds just that amount of water vapor that allows the maximum radiation of heat into space. This causes a constant greenhouse effect, so as CO2 increases, water vapour decreases.

This graph shows the global relative humidity trends.

The average relative humidity at the 300 mbar altitude has declined by 21.5% from 1948 to 2007.

The results of Miskolczi’s calculations using his line-by-line HARTCODE program are given here.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Optical%20depth%20trend.pdf

The calculations are independent of any greenhouse theory and contains no assumptions on how the greenhouse effect works. The 60 year average optical depth of 1.869 matches the theoretical 1.87.

In 60 years of CO2 emissions, the optical depth trend line has increased about 0.03%, which is nothing, resulting in no temperature change. The result confirms the theory, and shows that the total effective amount of greenhouse gases have not increased in 60 years. Therefore, the warming during the last century was not due to greenhouse gas emissions.

The blue line on the graph shows what the optical depth trend would be if only the CO2 is changed, with water vapour held constant. This is the no-feedback case. The trend line shows 0.3% increase over 60 years. By my calculations, using Eq. 18 and 28, Su increases by 0.131%. The corresponding temperature increase is 0.083 C. During this 60 years, the CO2 content increased 24.6%. So the temperature change at co2 doubling is 0.26 C.

This agrees with the estimate of 0.24 C on page 22.

Franko

said:“i’ll see if can get it when I hve some spare pennies”

Bunch of penniless Hoboes, we are. Soles of our shoes flapping , with each step, as we pound the pavement, for the climactic truth.

Financially, the bad drove out the good. Suffer now ? or Reward now ? Heaven on Earth, before death ?

I am willing to get a web hosting with a very general url. Miskolczi can have free space, a subdirectory.

The plan for Truth to defeat Dogma is a rallying page. Links to the Devil Climatist’s victims.

For less tha $200 for 3 years, web hosting, my pennies can cover that ?

Franko

said:“iâ€™ll see if can get it when I hve some spare pennies”

Bunch of penniless Hoboes, we are. Soles of our shoes flapping , with each step, as we pound the pavement, for the climactic truth.

Financially, the bad drove out the good. Suffer now ? or Reward now ? Heaven on Earth, before death ?

I am willing to get a web hosting with a very general url. Miskolczi can have free space, a subdirectory.

The plan for Truth to defeat Dogma is a rallying page. Links to the Devil Climatist’s victims.

For less tha $200 for 3 years, web hosting, my pennies can cover that ?

eilert

said:We should all congratulate Ferenc Miskolczi’s for the DISCOVERY of the “Greenhouse Warming Equilibrium” through empirical observation and his attempt to explain it. Whether his theory explains it correctly remains to be seen.

The anthropogenic greenhouse warming theory says, that as we humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature will rise, which in turn will vaporize water in the ocean, thus putting more water vapour, which is actually by far the dominating greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. This in turn will increase the temperature, starting a vicious cycle – The Greenhouse Warming Runaway effect. What is actually missing here, as Ken Gregory pointed out, but unfortunately no one seems to pick it up, is, if we really have such effect on earth it does not need the CO2 to increase the temperature, any natural temperature increase (El Nino or otherwise) should trigger such an effect and since the ocean is such a vast pool of potential greenhouse gas this effect should have been triggered eons ago and humans could not be here at all.

We only have to look at the highly fluctuating temperature graph of the last few years to see that it is not the case. There thus MUST be some kind of equilibrium. Also the amount of greenhouse gas, mainly in the form of water vapour already in the atmosphere, keeps the average temperature far above what it actually should be without it (22 deg C depending on which theory you look at), so that living beings can actually survey on this planet. It is actually very stable at that level, despite some fluctuations.

This, in hindsight, is so OBVIOUS, why didn’t We (sceptics and non-sceptics) pick it up? This actually should be brought to the attention of the main stream media and should be widely publicised.

Hopefully both sceptics and non-sceptics can now declare a truth, so that the politics can be taken out of Climate Science. Furthermore this is another sign that it does not pay in Science to have a consensus view. The huge consensus did not see what is obvious. A lone scientist had to swim against the stream to have a vastly different viewpoint and could derive what the consensus couldn’t.

Congratulations Ferenec.

eilert

said:We should all congratulate Ferenc Miskolcziâ€™s for the DISCOVERY of the “Greenhouse Warming Equilibrium” through empirical observation and his attempt to explain it. Whether his theory explains it correctly remains to be seen.

The anthropogenic greenhouse warming theory says, that as we humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature will rise, which in turn will vaporize water in the ocean, thus putting more water vapour, which is actually by far the dominating greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. This in turn will increase the temperature, starting a vicious cycle â€“ The Greenhouse Warming Runaway effect. What is actually missing here, as Ken Gregory pointed out, but unfortunately no one seems to pick it up, is, if we really have such effect on earth it does not need the CO2 to increase the temperature, any natural temperature increase (El Nino or otherwise) should trigger such an effect and since the ocean is such a vast pool of potential greenhouse gas this effect should have been triggered eons ago and humans could not be here at all.

We only have to look at the highly fluctuating temperature graph of the last few years to see that it is not the case. There thus MUST be some kind of equilibrium. Also the amount of greenhouse gas, mainly in the form of water vapour already in the atmosphere, keeps the average temperature far above what it actually should be without it (22 deg C depending on which theory you look at), so that living beings can actually survey on this planet. It is actually very stable at that level, despite some fluctuations.

This, in hindsight, is so OBVIOUS, why didnâ€™t We (sceptics and non-sceptics) pick it up? This actually should be brought to the attention of the main stream media and should be widely publicised.

Hopefully both sceptics and non-sceptics can now declare a truth, so that the politics can be taken out of Climate Science. Furthermore this is another sign that it does not pay in Science to have a consensus view. The huge consensus did not see what is obvious. A lone scientist had to swim against the stream to have a vastly different viewpoint and could derive what the consensus couldnâ€™t.

Congratulations Ferenec.

eilert

said:to Eilert #323

unfortunately the coment got truncated here the rest:

We only have to look at the highly fluctuating temperature graph of the last few years to see that it is not the case. There thus MUST be some kind of equilibrium. Also the amount of greenhouse gas, mainly in the form of water vapour already in the atmosphere, keeps the average temperature far above what it actually should be without it (22 deg C depending on which theory you look at), so that living beings can actually survey on this planet. It is actually very stable at that level, despite some fluctuations.

This, in hindsight, is so OBVIOUS, why didn’t We (sceptics and non-sceptics) pick it up? This actually should be brought to the attention of the main stream media and should be widely publicised.

Hopefully both sceptics and non-sceptics can now declare a truth, so that the politics can be taken out of Climate Science. Furthermore this is another sign that it does not pay in Science to have a consensus view. The huge consensus did not see what is obvious. A lone scientist had to swim against the stream to have a vastly different viewpoint and could derive what the consensus couldn’t.

Congratulations Ferenec.

eilert

said:to Eilert #323

unfortunately the coment got truncated here the rest:

We only have to look at the highly fluctuating temperature graph of the last few years to see that it is not the case. There thus MUST be some kind of equilibrium. Also the amount of greenhouse gas, mainly in the form of water vapour already in the atmosphere, keeps the average temperature far above what it actually should be without it (22 deg C depending on which theory you look at), so that living beings can actually survey on this planet. It is actually very stable at that level, despite some fluctuations.

This, in hindsight, is so OBVIOUS, why didnâ€™t We (sceptics and non-sceptics) pick it up? This actually should be brought to the attention of the main stream media and should be widely publicised.

Hopefully both sceptics and non-sceptics can now declare a truth, so that the politics can be taken out of Climate Science. Furthermore this is another sign that it does not pay in Science to have a consensus view. The huge consensus did not see what is obvious. A lone scientist had to swim against the stream to have a vastly different viewpoint and could derive what the consensus couldnâ€™t.

Congratulations Ferenec.

Franko

said:“Congratulations Ferenec.”

High personal price, we can all surmise.

When is NASA going to admit wrong ?

Re-instate Miskolczi’s passwords and priviledges ?

Franko

said:“Congratulations Ferenec.”

High personal price, we can all surmise.

When is NASA going to admit wrong ?

Re-instate Miskolczi’s passwords and priviledges ?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Ken Gregory writes:

Except that it has been increasing, not decreasing. Precipitable water has gone up 0.9 mm/decade for the past several decades. See:

Brown, S., Desai, S., Keihm, S., and C. Ruf, 2007.

“Ocean water vapor and cloud burden trends derived from the topex microwave radiometer.”

Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium.

Barcelona, Spain: IGARSS 2007, pp. 886-889.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Ken Gregory writes:

Except that it has been increasing, not decreasing. Precipitable water has gone up 0.9 mm/decade for the past several decades. See:

Brown, S., Desai, S., Keihm, S., and C. Ruf, 2007.

“Ocean water vapor and cloud burden trends derived from the topex microwave radiometer.”

Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium.

Barcelona, Spain: IGARSS 2007, pp. 886-889.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:eilert writes:

Why congratulate him for a “DISCOVERY” of something that doesn’t really exist?

You have that all wrong. The fact that something involves a positive feedback does not necessarily mean that it runs away. It’s a converging series.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:eilert writes:

Why congratulate him for a “DISCOVERY” of something that doesn’t really exist?

You have that all wrong. The fact that something involves a positive feedback does not necessarily mean that it runs away. It’s a converging series.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:eilert writes:

18-19 K according to every estimate I’ve seen. The Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is 254-255 K and its surface temperature is 287-288 K.

It’s stable, but not that stable. We’ve had at least three “snowball Earth” glaciations, and temperature during parts of the Coal Age was significantly higher than now.

Peer review and the scientific consensus are how science is done nowadays, and it has been a tremendously productive system. Any time someone starts railing against either, they almost always have a pseudoscience axe to grind.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:eilert writes:

18-19 K according to every estimate I’ve seen. The Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is 254-255 K and its surface temperature is 287-288 K.

It’s stable, but not that stable. We’ve had at least three “snowball Earth” glaciations, and temperature during parts of the Coal Age was significantly higher than now.

Peer review and the scientific consensus are how science is done nowadays, and it has been a tremendously productive system. Any time someone starts railing against either, they almost always have a pseudoscience axe to grind.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

How about “never?” Does “never” work for you?

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

How about “never?” Does “never” work for you?

Franko

said:#329 Barton Paul Levenson

“How about “never?” Does “never” work for you?”

You are good future teller, Barton Paul Levenson. To be expected; Climatist Dogma Department at NASA will be closed down.

Still, better later than newer, constructive dismissal lawsuit ?

Franko

said:#329 Barton Paul Levenson

“How about â€œnever?â€ Does â€œneverâ€ work for you?”

You are good future teller, Barton Paul Levenson. To be expected; Climatist Dogma Department at NASA will be closed down.

Still, better later than newer, constructive dismissal lawsuit ?

Alex Harvey

said:BPL # 326:

I’m not sure how you’re getting “the past several decades” out of 13 years of data (1992-2005) — data that happen to overlap perfectly with the recent El Nino. Anyway, are there other studies to support your assertion?

Alex Harvey

said:BPL # 326:

I’m not sure how you’re getting “the past several decades” out of 13 years of data (1992-2005) — data that happen to overlap perfectly with the recent El Nino. Anyway, are there other studies to support your assertion?

James

said:#326

The paper you cite seems inconsistent with this data that shows SH in the lower troposphere is increasing. But SH in the upper troposphere is decreasing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

(Note, AW’s first post on the subject was wrong. This is the second, correct post.)

Since radiative effects are mostly irrelevant for lower troposphere, the SH increase there is also irrelevant. The decrease in SH in the upper troposphere is what matters. And it is consistent with Miskolczi’s theory.

Any thoughts on which SH data is more correct?

James

said:#326

The paper you cite seems inconsistent with this data that shows SH in the lower troposphere is increasing. But SH in the upper troposphere is decreasing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

(Note, AWâ€™s first post on the subject was wrong. This is the second, correct post.)

Since radiative effects are mostly irrelevant for lower troposphere, the SH increase there is also irrelevant. The decrease in SH in the upper troposphere is what matters. And it is consistent with Miskolcziâ€™s theory.

Any thoughts on which SH data is more correct?

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#332 James

Does anybody have comments on the credibility or accuracy of the NOAA 60 year annual global average radiosonde dataset?

The h2o column amount anomaly computed from the above data shows a definite decrease in the last 60 years…See the top figure (middle plot) here:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Optical%20depth%20trend.pdf

#326,327,328,329 BPL

Can you offer an explanation for the shown very small IR optical depth trend? And also on how this trend is related to the surface temperature trend using the ‘standard’ greenhouse theory?

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#332 James

Does anybody have comments on the credibility or accuracy of the NOAA 60 year annual global average radiosonde dataset?

The h2o column amount anomaly computed from the above data shows a definite decrease in the last 60 years…See the top figure (middle plot) here:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Optical%20depth%20trend.pdf

#326,327,328,329 BPL

Can you offer an explanation for the shown very small IR optical depth trend? And also on how this trend is related to the surface temperature trend using the ‘standard’ greenhouse theory?

Franko

said:Optical depth is a function of various fluctuating things. But they all add up as w/m^2 flux, a proxy for solar radiation. Any detectable optical depth chnges, corresponding to orbital parameters, sunspot cycles etc ?

Franko

said:Optical depth is a function of various fluctuating things. But they all add up as w/m^2 flux, a proxy for solar radiation. Any detectable optical depth chnges, corresponding to orbital parameters, sunspot cycles etc ?

Anonymous

said:Do you think we could move comments on the new results over to here?

http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/

I will move any comments over later when I get a plugin for moving posts.

admin

said:Do you think we could move comments on the new results over to here?

http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/

I will move any comments over later when I get a plugin for moving posts.

jae

said:BPL said:

“18-19 K according to every estimate I’ve seen. The Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is 254-255 K and its surface temperature is 287-288 K.”

That 255 K calculation is just plain silly. It treats the earth as it would the moon, with no atmosphere or water. The atmosphere and water store a lot of heat, which can easily explain the 288 K.

jae

said:BPL said:

“18-19 K according to every estimate Iâ€™ve seen. The Earthâ€™s radiative equilibrium temperature is 254-255 K and its surface temperature is 287-288 K.”

That 255 K calculation is just plain silly. It treats the earth as it would the moon, with no atmosphere or water. The atmosphere and water store a lot of heat, which can easily explain the 288 K.

jae

said:BPL also says:

“Peer review and the scientific consensus are how science is done nowadays, and it has been a tremendously productive system. Any time someone starts railing against either, they almost always have a pseudoscience axe to grind.”

LOL. Go study the hockey stick debate and come back here and say this. Peer-review guarantees nothing, and has actually become a joke in climate science!

jae

said:BPL also says:

“Peer review and the scientific consensus are how science is done nowadays, and it has been a tremendously productive system. Any time someone starts railing against either, they almost always have a pseudoscience axe to grind.”

LOL. Go study the hockey stick debate and come back here and say this. Peer-review guarantees nothing, and has actually become a joke in climate science!

Jan Pompe

said:jae #336

more precisely it’s just an inconsistent model: it includes opposition (albedo) to incoming to no opposition (nonsense) for outgoing.

Jan Pompe

said:jae #336

more precisely it’s just an inconsistent model: it includes opposition (albedo) to incoming to no opposition (nonsense) for outgoing.

Alex Harvey

said:BPL # 328:

“… scientific consensus [is] how science is done nowadays…”

Sorry to edit this out of context a little, but I couldn’t help picking up on the irony. Never have truer words been spoken — a slip of the pen, Barton Paul Levenson? :)

Alex Harvey

said:BPL # 328:

“… scientific consensus [is] how science is done nowadays…”

Sorry to edit this out of context a little, but I couldn’t help picking up on the irony. Never have truer words been spoken — a slip of the pen, Barton Paul Levenson? :)

Franko

said:“â€¦ scientific consensus ” — stories of accidents, tales of horror, even happy events — near the end of our attention horizon , morph into jokes.

Franko

said:“… scientific consensus ” — stories of accidents, tales of horror, even happy events — near the end of our attention horizon , morph into jokes.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:James writes:

Irrelevant for the lower troposphere??? You have to be kidding. That’s where most absorption of terrestrial infrared radiation takes place. Water vapor has a very shallow scale height, you know — 1.8 km as opposed to 8.4.km for the atmosphere as a whole.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:James writes:

Irrelevant for the lower troposphere??? You have to be kidding. That’s where most absorption of terrestrial infrared radiation takes place. Water vapor has a very shallow scale height, you know — 1.8 km as opposed to 8.4.km for the atmosphere as a whole.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

No, they don’t. Optical depth (or optical path or optical thickness) is dimensionless by definition:

τ = k ρ ds

where k is the extinction coefficient, ρ is the density of the medium and ds the change in distance (for optical depth, the change in altitude).

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

No, they don’t. Optical depth (or optical path or optical thickness) is dimensionless by definition:

τ = k ρ ds

where k is the extinction coefficient, ρ is the density of the medium and ds the change in distance (for optical depth, the change in altitude).

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae writes:

It’s not silly at all. It’s the temperature a satellite would actually measure at some distance from the Earth.

No, they can’t. You’re confusing energy with power. Warm oceans and atmosphere radiate energy; their temperature is, over the long term, a balance between power in and power out. If the difference between Earth’s surface temperature and its equilibrium temperature were caused solely by stored heat, the temperature would steadily drop over the course of a few weeks and the Earth would go into a “Snowball Earth” glaciation.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae writes:

It’s not silly at all. It’s the temperature a satellite would actually measure at some distance from the Earth.

No, they can’t. You’re confusing energy with power. Warm oceans and atmosphere radiate energy; their temperature is, over the long term, a balance between power in and power out. If the difference between Earth’s surface temperature and its equilibrium temperature were caused solely by stored heat, the temperature would steadily drop over the course of a few weeks and the Earth would go into a “Snowball Earth” glaciation.

jae

said:BPL:

“No, they can’t. You’re confusing energy with power. Warm oceans and atmosphere radiate energy; their temperature is, over the long term, a balance between power in and power out. If the difference between Earth’s surface temperature and its equilibrium temperature were caused solely by stored heat, the temperature would steadily drop over the course of a few weeks and the Earth would go into a “Snowball Earth” glaciation.”

No, the temperature does not steadily drop because of the Sun. The 255 K does not account for all the kinetic and potential energy stored in the atmosphere (or for all that is stored in the water). You need to consider the Ideal Gas Law, and you will get your 288 K, as Thieme shows.

Suppose there were no sun, but the earth still had it’s atmosphere and water (ice). It would be close to absolute zero. The atmosphere would be a meter thick, lying on the ground. Now , the sun appears. For millions of years the earth would absorb much more radiation than it receives, gradually warming the planet. Eventually, an equilibrium would be reached. But that equilibrium would be above the 255 K, due to the energy neessary to keep the atmosphere functioning as it now does. The 255 K completely ignores all the energy in the atmosphere and water.

jae

said:BPL:

“No, they canâ€™t. Youâ€™re confusing energy with power. Warm oceans and atmosphere radiate energy; their temperature is, over the long term, a balance between power in and power out. If the difference between Earthâ€™s surface temperature and its equilibrium temperature were caused solely by stored heat, the temperature would steadily drop over the course of a few weeks and the Earth would go into a â€œSnowball Earthâ€ glaciation.”

No, the temperature does not steadily drop because of the Sun. The 255 K does not account for all the kinetic and potential energy stored in the atmosphere (or for all that is stored in the water). You need to consider the Ideal Gas Law, and you will get your 288 K, as Thieme shows.

Suppose there were no sun, but the earth still had it’s atmosphere and water (ice). It would be close to absolute zero. The atmosphere would be a meter thick, lying on the ground. Now , the sun appears. For millions of years the earth would absorb much more radiation than it receives, gradually warming the planet. Eventually, an equilibrium would be reached. But that equilibrium would be above the 255 K, due to the energy neessary to keep the atmosphere functioning as it now does. The 255 K completely ignores all the energy in the atmosphere and water.

jae

said:“For millions of years the earth would absorb much more radiation than it receives”

Make that ” For millions of years the earth would absorb more radiation than it LOSES”

jae

said:“For millions of years the earth would absorb much more radiation than it receives”

Make that ” For millions of years the earth would absorb more radiation than it LOSES”

Franko

said:We have an optical depth at the bottom, and another optical depth at the top. The two have different composition, density, and temperature.

How far does a photon live at the bottom, before dead as heat. Up above, different temperature gradient, because heat is lost.

Franko

said:We have an optical depth at the bottom, and another optical depth at the top. The two have different composition, density, and temperature.

How far does a photon live at the bottom, before dead as heat. Up above, different temperature gradient, because heat is lost.

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #346

Jan Pompe

said:Franko #346

Jan Pompe

said:oops

Jan Pompe

said:oops

James

said:#341

Irrelevant for the lower troposphere??? You have to be kidding. That’s where mostabsorptionof terrestrial infrared radiation takes place. Water vapor has a very shallow scale height, you know — 1.8 km as opposed to 8.4.km for the atmosphere as a whole.Agree.

But isn’t the crux issue what altitude photons are

emittedto space, not where they are firstabsorbed?Unless I’m missing something important, it doesn’t matter much that you add more H2O at lower altitudes (e.g 900 mb). In the relevant frequencies for H2O, the atmosphere was already opaque to outbound IR radiation. Also, via convection and collisions heat has other ways to move upward for eventual radiative emission to space.

Conversely, removing H2O from high altitudes (e.g 300 mb) does matter. As you point out, at that altitude water is much less prevalent than at lower altitudes, so the atmosphere is no longer completely opaque at the relevant frequencies for H2O. Further reducing H2O further reduces the opacity. And per Miskolczi’s theory and per the NOAA measurements, that appears to be what’s going on.

So….it seems that humans adding CO2 leads to “higher the colder” for CO2-relevant wavelengths. But Nature responds by reducing mid and high level H2O leading to “lower the warmer” for H2O-relevant wavelengths.

So…back to #326. Any thoughts on how to reconcile the paper you cite with the NOAA data that shows declining SH?

James

said:#341

Irrelevant for the lower troposphere??? You have to be kidding. Thatâ€™s where mostabsorptionof terrestrial infrared radiation takes place. Water vapor has a very shallow scale height, you know â€” 1.8 km as opposed to 8.4.km for the atmosphere as a whole.Agree.

But isn’t the crux issue what altitude photons are

emittedto space, not where they are firstabsorbed?Unless I’m missing something important, it doesn’t matter much that you add more H2O at lower altitudes (e.g 900 mb). In the relevant frequencies for H2O, the atmosphere was already opaque to outbound IR radiation. Also, via convection and collisions heat has other ways to move upward for eventual radiative emission to space.

Conversely, removing H2O from high altitudes (e.g 300 mb) does matter. As you point out, at that altitude water is much less prevalent than at lower altitudes, so the atmosphere is no longer completely opaque at the relevant frequencies for H2O. Further reducing H2O further reduces the opacity. And per Miskolczi’s theory and per the NOAA measurements, that appears to be what’s going on.

So….it seems that humans adding CO2 leads to “higher the colder” for CO2-relevant wavelengths. But Nature responds by reducing mid and high level H2O leading to “lower the warmer” for H2O-relevant wavelengths.

So…back to #326. Any thoughts on how to reconcile the paper you cite with the NOAA data that shows declining SH?

Franko

said:More CO2, radiates, cools, lowers the Tropopause.

Same H2O latent heat is needed, but for a shorter distance ?

As in a heat pipe, longer means more vapor.

Franko

said:More CO2, radiates, cools, lowers the Tropopause.

Same H2O latent heat is needed, but for a shorter distance ?

As in a heat pipe, longer means more vapor.

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#349 James

Where to find the clue for this? The NOAA data show decreasing precipitable water trend and BPL and others say it is increasing. Both of these can not be true, and this is the most important question regarding the long term constant global averave optical depth…

Ferenc Miskolczi

said:#349 James

Where to find the clue for this? The NOAA data show decreasing precipitable water trend and BPL and others say it is increasing. Both of these can not be true, and this is the most important question regarding the long term constant global averave optical depth…

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae, you’re still confusing energy with power. Earth’s surface is 288 K compared to 254 K for the r.e. temperature because of the greenhouse effect, not because of “stored energy.” Stored energy would go away very quickly. That’s why the temperature drops at night. The surface and the atmosphere radiate.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:jae, you’re still confusing energy with power. Earth’s surface is 288 K compared to 254 K for the r.e. temperature because of the greenhouse effect, not because of “stored energy.” Stored energy would go away very quickly. That’s why the temperature drops at night. The surface and the atmosphere radiate.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

You’re confusing optical depth, which is a dimensionless measure of light extinction, with the composition of the atmosphere itself. And yes, optical depth varies with altitude, since it depends on the amount of absorber present. If there were only one absorber the optical depth would be half the surface value at the point where half the absorber was above and half below, and it would be zero at the effective top-of-atmosphere.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:Franko writes:

You’re confusing optical depth, which is a dimensionless measure of light extinction, with the composition of the atmosphere itself. And yes, optical depth varies with altitude, since it depends on the amount of absorber present. If there were only one absorber the optical depth would be half the surface value at the point where half the absorber was above and half below, and it would be zero at the effective top-of-atmosphere.

Anonymous

said:#351 Ferenc, There are a series of 3 posts on the water vapor controversy, with references to articles and the IPCC treatment here http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-water-vapor/

admin

said:#351 Ferenc, There are a series of 3 posts on the water vapor controversy, with references to articles and the IPCC treatment here http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-water-vapor/

Barton Paul Levenson

said:A quick review of radiative equilibrium temperature:

The amount of energy the Earth intercepts from the sun is the solar constant S times the Earth’s cross-sectional area π R^2. But not all of this is absorbed; the fraction represented by the bolometric Bond albedo gets reflected back out to space. Power in is therefore:

Pin = S π R^2 (1 – A)

Power out is the Earth’s Boltzmann output σ Te^4 times its total surface area 4 π R^2:

Pout = σ Te^4 4 π R^2

Equating the two, the π R^2 terms cancel and we have:

S (1 – A) = 4 σ Te^4

Solving for Te:

Te = [S (1 – A) / (4 σ)]^0.25

for S = 1366.1 watts per square meter (the average TSI from 1951 to 2000 from Lean’s tables) and A = 0.306 (NASA planetary fact sheet for Earth), this yields Te = 254 K, the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature. σ, of course, is the Stefan Boltzmann constant, which has the value 5.6704 x 10^-8 W /m^2 /K^4 in the SI.

For another planet we would have

S = S0 / a^2

where a is the planet’s semimajor axis in AUs. Thus with a = 0.72333 and A = 0.750 for Venus, the radiative equilibrium temperature is 232 K, while for Mars with a = 1.62366 and A = 0.250, Te = 210 K.

Surface temperatures are 735 K for Venus, 288 K for Earth and 214 K for Mars. The difference is primarily due to the greenhouse effect in each case.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:A quick review of radiative equilibrium temperature:

The amount of energy the Earth intercepts from the sun is the solar constant S times the Earth’s cross-sectional area π R^2. But not all of this is absorbed; the fraction represented by the bolometric Bond albedo gets reflected back out to space. Power in is therefore:

Pin = S π R^2 (1 – A)

Power out is the Earth’s Boltzmann output σ Te^4 times its total surface area 4 π R^2:

Pout = σ Te^4 4 π R^2

Equating the two, the π R^2 terms cancel and we have:

S (1 – A) = 4 σ Te^4

Solving for Te:

Te = [S (1 – A) / (4 σ)]^0.25

for S = 1366.1 watts per square meter (the average TSI from 1951 to 2000 from Lean’s tables) and A = 0.306 (NASA planetary fact sheet for Earth), this yields Te = 254 K, the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature. σ, of course, is the Stefan Boltzmann constant, which has the value 5.6704 x 10^-8 W /m^2 /K^4 in the SI.

For another planet we would have

S = S0 / a^2

where a is the planet’s semimajor axis in AUs. Thus with a = 0.72333 and A = 0.750 for Venus, the radiative equilibrium temperature is 232 K, while for Mars with a = 1.62366 and A = 0.250, Te = 210 K.

Surface temperatures are 735 K for Venus, 288 K for Earth and 214 K for Mars. The difference is primarily due to the greenhouse effect in each case.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:The heat content of an object is

H = m cp T

where m is the object’s mass, cp its specific heat at constant pressure, and T its temperature. For the atmosphere we have

m = 5.136 x 10^18 kg

cp = 1010 J/K/kg

T = 288 K

and for the ocean

m = 1.39 x 10^21 kg

cp = 4184 J/K/kg

T = 288 K

The actual temperatures of the atmosphere and ocean are closer to 254 K and 277 K, respectively, but let’s give jae all the heat content he can get; he’s going to need it.

The total heat content is then 1.676 x 10^27 J. But just 1.979 x 10^26 J of this is from temperature being higher than 254 K.

We’re radiating at 288 K, which means power going out (Pout equation above) is 1.99 x 10^17 watts. Incoming solar power (Pin equation above) is 1.21 x 10^17 W. Net power out is 7.8 x 10^16 watts and the excess is radiated away in 80 years.

But this is at a temperature of 288 K, and power radiated out goes as the fourth power of temperature, so this is an unfair comparison. Let’s instead use a radiating temperature of 255 K, 1 K above equilibrium. Then Pout = 1.40 x 10^15 watts and it takes 4,487 years for Earth to get down to its radiative equilibrium temperature. For an exact answer, we’d need either an analytical solution or a high-resolution iterative model, both of which I’m too lazy to figure at the moment.

The point is, even with a huge amount of heat stored in the climate system, it will not persist if there are no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Even the creationists would make it 6,000 years old or so. Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth would be frozen solid, a point first noticed by Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Fourier in 1824.

Barton Paul Levenson

said:The heat content of an object is

H = m cp T

where m is the object’s mass, cp its specific heat at constant pressure, and T its temperature. For the atmosphere we have

m = 5.136 x 10^18 kg

cp = 1010 J/K/kg

T = 288 K

and for the ocean

m = 1.39 x 10^21 kg

cp = 4184 J/K/kg

T = 288 K

The actual temperatures of the atmosphere and ocean are closer to 254 K and 277 K, respectively, but let’s give jae all the heat content he can get; he’s going to need it.

The total heat content is then 1.676 x 10^27 J. But just 1.979 x 10^26 J of this is from temperature being higher than 254 K.

We’re radiating at 288 K, which means power going out (Pout equation above) is 1.99 x 10^17 watts. Incoming solar power (Pin equation above) is 1.21 x 10^17 W. Net power out is 7.8 x 10^16 watts and the excess is radiated away in 80 years.

But this is at a temperature of 288 K, and power radiated out goes as the fourth power of temperature, so this is an unfair comparison. Let’s instead use a radiating temperature of 255 K, 1 K above equilibrium. Then Pout = 1.40 x 10^15 watts and it takes 4,487 years for Earth to get down to its radiative equilibrium temperature. For an exact answer, we’d need either an analytical solution or a high-resolution iterative model, both of which I’m too lazy to figure at the moment.

The point is, even with a huge amount of heat stored in the climate system, it will not persist if there are no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Even the creationists would make it 6,000 years old or so. Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth would be frozen solid, a point first noticed by Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Fourier in 1824.

Franko

said:Ocean levels, water vapor, glaciers, CO2, temperatures, barometers. How accurately can the interactions be modeled ? Anyone run a multiple correlation ?

Franko

said:Ocean levels, water vapor, glaciers, CO2, temperatures, barometers. How accurately can the interactions be modeled ? Anyone run a multiple correlation ?

James

said:#349 Ferenc

…Both of these can not be true…I completely agree.

I think my writing style is confusing you. My post was an attempt to get BPL to acknowledge the inconsistency and encourage him to explain it away…if he can.

James

said:#349 Ferenc

…Both of these can not be true…I completely agree.

I think my writing style is confusing you. My post was an attempt to get BPL to acknowledge the inconsistency and encourage him to explain it away…if he can.

Jan Pompe

said:James #358

I think the issue is that there appears to be data sets about that don’t agree. If there are we need to sort out why they don’t agree and which one is right or the more likely to be right.

Then again I don’t think we can say that there has been a great deal of warming for 10/13ths of the period of the study BPL is pointing to.

Jan Pompe

said:James #358

I think the issue is that there appears to be data sets about that don’t agree. If there are we need to sort out why they don’t agree and which one is right or the more likely to be right.

Then again I don’t think we can say that there has been a great deal of warming for 10/13ths of the period of the study BPL is pointing to.

jae

said:BPL:

??

“We’re radiating at 288 K, which means power going out (Pout equation above) is 1.99 x 10^17 watts. Incoming solar power (Pin equation above) is 1.21 x 10^17 W. Net power out is 7.8 x 10^16 watts and the excess is radiated away in 80 years.

But this is at a temperature of 288 K, and power radiated out goes as the fourth power of temperature, so this is an unfair comparison. Let’s instead use a radiating temperature of 255 K, 1 K above equilibrium. Then Pout = 1.40 x 10^15 watts and it takes 4,487 years for Earth to get down to its radiative equilibrium temperature.”

I think you have a big error in your calcs. Power in = 1.21 e17. OK. The Earth is radiating to space at about Te, 255 K, not at the surface temperature of 288 K. And power out at 255 K is 1.23 e17, not 1.4e15 (check your math, here). Considering the crudeness of the measurements, that’s a pretty good match between power out and power in, eh?

jae

said:BPL:

??

“Weâ€™re radiating at 288 K, which means power going out (Pout equation above) is 1.99 x 10^17 watts. Incoming solar power (Pin equation above) is 1.21 x 10^17 W. Net power out is 7.8 x 10^16 watts and the excess is radiated away in 80 years.

But this is at a temperature of 288 K, and power radiated out goes as the fourth power of temperature, so this is an unfair comparison. Letâ€™s instead use a radiating temperature of 255 K, 1 K above equilibrium. Then Pout = 1.40 x 10^15 watts and it takes 4,487 years for Earth to get down to its radiative equilibrium temperature.”

I think you have a big error in your calcs. Power in = 1.21 e17. OK. The Earth is radiating to space at about Te, 255 K, not at the surface temperature of 288 K. And power out at 255 K is 1.23 e17, not 1.4e15 (check your math, here). Considering the crudeness of the measurements, that’s a pretty good match between power out and power in, eh?