I have converted the draft of the introductory document The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi by Dr. Noor van Andel into a Wiki. The permissions are set for registered users of the Wiki to freely edit it. There are a great deal of areas where it could be improved and added too, and an opportunity to learn more about Wikis.

**Register here to edit.**

**Wiki Syntax is here.**

The synopsis of the document points to the importance of right theory, and does a good job of comparing the new theory with the standard theory in a way that is easy to understand. It also list a great dal of empirical support that Noor finds for the new theory.

The greenhouse effect in a semi-transparent atmosphere with radiation equilibrium at the surface. On the basis of hundreds of measurements of real atmospheric profiles of temperature and humidity, in different seasons en on different latitudes.

Establishing the right theoretical basis for the relationship between greenhouse gas increase and climate change is so important, that we cannot allow ourselves to evade discussion about its physical foundation.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

Well, first, the discussion of the two equations in Sect 4.1 was chopped off. Can someone fill in the missing information?

Well, first, the discussion of the two equations in Sect 4.1 was chopped off. Can someone fill in the missing information?

Nuts, I meant Section 4.1 of the cited paper–the inset text box.

Nuts, I meant Section 4.1 of the cited paper–the inset text box.

The subscripts and greek letters were lost in copying over. For, example in the New Theory Section: The resulting solution is ORL/SU = 2/{1+ ?A+ exp[-?A]} or ORL/SU = 2/[1+ ?A+ TA].

Also, as I mentioned on another thread TA (TsubA–I don’t know how to do subscripts here) is defined in the Cabauw Measurements section as air temperature at 2 meters, but in most of the paper it means something else (transmissivity?).

The subscripts and greek letters were lost in copying over. For, example in the New Theory Section: The resulting solution is ORL/SU = 2/{1+ ?A+ exp[-?A]} or ORL/SU = 2/[1+ ?A+ TA].

Also, as I mentioned on another thread TA (TsubA–I don’t know how to do subscripts here) is defined in the Cabauw Measurements section as air temperature at 2 meters, but in most of the paper it means something else (transmissivity?).

Yes, yes and yes. Why don’t you give the wiki a spin jae and see if it works? Cheers

Yes, yes and yes. Why don’t you give the wiki a spin jae and see if it works? Cheers

Admin: I would like to help. I’m trying to figure out how to get into the system. So far, Wicki won’t let me register; keeps asking me for a password. ??

Admin: I would like to help. I’m trying to figure out how to get into the system. So far, Wicki won’t let me register; keeps asking me for a password. ??

We need a section for Optical Depth for Dummies. How function of density, height, composition, temperature, bats gobbling insects ?

Then equations converting to mean free path; effective photon propagation, compared o light speed

We need a section for Optical Depth for Dummies. How function of density, height, composition, temperature, bats gobbling insects ?

Then equations converting to mean free path; effective photon propagation, compared o light speed

Franco, Yes and LBL models, and HARTCODE could be in that section too.

Franco, Yes and LBL models, and HARTCODE could be in that section too.

“We need a section for Optical Depth for Dummies”;

That would be me for one, so yes thankyou.

“We need a section for Optical Depth for Dummies”;

That would be me for one, so yes thankyou.

Admin: Pushing the link down. Got to get this fixed.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/optd/optd.html

“variable τ the optical depth of the slab. Look carefully at the definition of optical depth — it is exactly the same as “the number of mean free paths through the slab.””

Neither the thickness of the slab, nor anything else, is used to determine Optical Depth

To get mean free path, a distance, is there a square or root involved ?

Admin: Pushing the link down. Got to get this fixed.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/optd/optd.html

“variable Ï„ the optical depth of the slab. Look carefully at the definition of optical depth — it is exactly the same as “the number of mean free paths through the slab.””

Neither the thickness of the slab, nor anything else, is used to determine Optical Depth

To get mean free path, a distance, is there a square or root involved ?

Any chance of linking the diagrams to larger images? I can barely read them.

Any chance of linking the diagrams to larger images? I can barely read them.

Peter,

Yes, I can upload some larger ones. If anyone has any problems registering, just let me know. Cheers

Peter,

Yes, I can upload some larger ones. If anyone has any problems registering, just let me know. Cheers

Under the specific humidity graph at 300 mbar, it says: “But 300 mbar is far up in the stratosphere.”

300 mbar is at 9.2 km altitude, which is well within the troposphere.

Should change “stratosphere” to “troposhere”.

Under the specific humidity graph at 300 mbar, it says: “But 300 mbar is far up in the stratosphere.”

300 mbar is at 9.2 km altitude, which is well within the troposphere.

Should change “stratosphere” to “troposhere”.

One concern I have so far is that M’s relationships don’t hold up very well, when you look at the specific IR plots that are provided on pp. 8 and 9. According to his theory, Su-OLR = Ed-Eu. If you use the values provided for the IR plots (the “IR Flux Radiative Decompositions”) to do those calculations, 223 watts/m-2 = 179 w/m-2 for the warm location (quite far off), and 14 = 16 for the cold location (pretty close). Is this “error” just a statistical issue, or is it important?

One concern I have so far is that M’s relationships don’t hold up very well, when you look at the specific IR plots that are provided on pp. 8 and 9. According to his theory, Su-OLR = Ed-Eu. If you use the values provided for the IR plots (the “IR Flux Radiative Decompositions”) to do those calculations, 223 watts/m-2 = 179 w/m-2 for the warm location (quite far off), and 14 = 16 for the cold location (pretty close). Is this “error” just a statistical issue, or is it important?

I made some rather large changes in paragraph #2 in the conclusions from the greenhouse analysis. Hope the changes are correct….

I made some rather large changes in paragraph #2 in the conclusions from the greenhouse analysis. Hope the changes are correct….

Looks OK, though I have yet to work out how to view a specific passage side-by-side.

Looks OK, though I have yet to work out how to view a specific passage side-by-side.

David: go to the revisions tab, and check the original version and the final version. This will bring up a side-by-side view of the two documents, with all changes highlighted.

David: go to the revisions tab, and check the original version and the final version. This will bring up a side-by-side view of the two documents, with all changes highlighted.

Yes but not the whole document. And I don’t known which section to find revisions.

Yes but not the whole document. And I don’t known which section to find revisions.

David: I think it shows only those parts of the document that have been revised. I haven’t messed with any other sections (yet).

David: I think it shows only those parts of the document that have been revised. I haven’t messed with any other sections (yet).

David and jae

To me it looks like it uses one of the many revision control tools that programmers and document preparers use to track changes in a document or code. Very important in case of F)(*&k ups of which there are usually many in a multi-programmer environment. (It’s those revision numbers you see on software).

It will only show where changes are made permitting back track and/or code patching with updates rather than pushing the whole box and dice around the web.

David and jae

To me it looks like it uses one of the many revision control tools that programmers and document preparers use to track changes in a document or code. Very important in case of F)(*&k ups of which there are usually many in a multi-programmer environment. (It’s those revision numbers you see on software).

It will only show where changes are made permitting back track and/or code patching with updates rather than pushing the whole box and dice around the web.

I’m having trouble in the Section about the Atmospheric Viral Rule. Van Andel suddenly states that the Su/Eu = 2 relationship means that tau = 1.86. ?? I/Io = e^-tau. That means e^-tau = 2. That gives a tau of only 1.44. The slope of the line in the figure is actually only about 1.9, but that doesn’t help much. Where does he get the 1.86??

I’m having trouble in the Section about the Atmospheric Viral Rule. Van Andel suddenly states that the Su/Eu = 2 relationship means that tau = 1.86. ?? I/Io = e^-tau. That means e^-tau = 2. That gives a tau of only 1.44. The slope of the line in the figure is actually only about 1.9, but that doesn’t help much. Where does he get the 1.86??

Forget the above post; my math is wrong. I just don’t see how van Andel can use the relationship to support an average optical depth of 1.87. He needs I/Io, and it seems to me that I has to be average OLR. I don’t know how the ratio of Eu/Su has anything to do with it.

Forget the above post; my math is wrong. I just don’t see how van Andel can use the relationship to support an average optical depth of 1.87. He needs I/Io, and it seems to me that I has to be average OLR. I don’t know how the ratio of Eu/Su has anything to do with it.

Nuts. I don’t mean OLR, I mean the window radiation, St. St/Su.

Nuts. I don’t mean OLR, I mean the window radiation, St. St/Su.

Well, I made some major changes to the document, because I still don’t see why Su = 2 Eu means that tau = 1.87. Someone needs to help me! I’m the only one paying attention to this weird paper! HELP!

Well, I made some major changes to the document, because I still don’t see why Su = 2 Eu means that tau = 1.87. Someone needs to help me! I’m the only one paying attention to this weird paper! HELP!

Thanks jae, from the edits I have looked at the readability has improved a lot. I’ll have another go at it shortly. Cheers

Thanks jae, from the edits I have looked at the readability has improved a lot. I’ll have another go at it shortly. Cheers

Another big change in the viral rule section. Am I wrong? There is so little interest in this garbled paper that I am now wondering if it is worth spending any time on it. Feedback???

Another big change in the viral rule section. Am I wrong? There is so little interest in this garbled paper that I am now wondering if it is worth spending any time on it. Feedback???

jae there is possibly more interest in it than you know I for one am watching your progress.

it’s not so much that Su = 2Eu that means the tau is 1.87.

the tau figure is a solution that maximises the IR heat loss (or close to it) Su = 2Eu I could stand correction but the relation Su = 2Eu and consequentially the 2Su = 3OLR appear to be constant over long term relationships. This suggests tau must also over the long term be constant. This does not mean that the value instantaneously unchanging, it can vary a lot over time as long as the average stays the same i.e. it has a flat trend.

The whole flawed theory currently incumbent supposes that heat systems which naturally want to cool can itself do the work that opposes its natural inclination and reduce the cooling rate.

jae there is possibly more interest in it than you know I for one am watching your progress.

it’s not so much that Su = 2Eu that means the tau is 1.87.

the tau figure is a solution that maximises the IR heat loss (or close to it) Su = 2Eu I could stand correction but the relation Su = 2Eu and consequentially the 2Su = 3OLR appear to be constant over long term relationships. This suggests tau must also over the long term be constant. This does not mean that the value instantaneously unchanging, it can vary a lot over time as long as the average stays the same i.e. it has a flat trend.

The whole flawed theory currently incumbent supposes that heat systems which naturally want to cool can itself do the work that opposes its natural inclination and reduce the cooling rate.

Optical depth is a measure of transparency, and is defined as the negative logarithm of the fraction of radiation (or light) that is scattered or absorbed on a path τ=-ln(T). The T transparency, or transmittance of 1/6 is necessary for simultaneous satisfaction of the 3OLR=2Su and Su=2Eu relationships. Should come to 1.87.

Optical depth is a measure of transparency, and is defined as the negative logarithm of the fraction of radiation (or light) that is scattered or absorbed on a path τ=-ln(T). The T transparency, or transmittance of 1/6 is necessary for simultaneous satisfaction of the 3OLR=2Su and Su=2Eu relationships. Should come to 1.87.

Jan:

“I still don’t see why Su = 2 Eu means that tau = 1.87.”

For an OLR of 10, Sg will be 3/2 * 10 or 15 and Eu will be 1/2 * 15 or 7.5.

Transparency Ta will be (10 – 7.5) / 15 or .1667.

tau = – ln(0 .1667) = 1.79 “which is not too far from our tau_a of 1.87” see M p. 9 which is the result of 228 HARTCODE simulations, see M p. 16.

hth

Jan:

“I still donâ€™t see why Su = 2 Eu means that tau = 1.87.”

For an OLR of 10, Sg will be 3/2 * 10 or 15 and Eu will be 1/2 * 15 or 7.5.

Transparency Ta will be (10 – 7.5) / 15 or .1667.

tau = – ln(0 .1667) = 1.79 “which is not too far from our tau_a of 1.87” see M p. 9 which is the result of 228 HARTCODE simulations, see M p. 16.

hth

Sorry, Jan – I meant jae.

Sorry, Jan – I meant jae.

Dave #27

ln(1/6) = -1.79

It’s close but not exact

ln(1/6.5) = -1.87

There are a number of approximations and Su = 2Ed and Su=3OLR/2 among them. While Ferenc does mention it, it could possibly be made clearer. I’m sure some look for error bars etc. It was the biggest complaint Craig Loehle faced in his proxy temperature series, he still hasn’t lived it down even though he fixed it.

Dave #27

ln(1/6) = -1.79

It’s close but not exact

ln(1/6.5) = -1.87

There are a number of approximations and Su = 2Ed and Su=3OLR/2 among them. While Ferenc does mention it, it could possibly be made clearer. I’m sure some look for error bars etc. It was the biggest complaint Craig Loehle faced in his proxy temperature series, he still hasn’t lived it down even though he fixed it.

Yeah, I derived the 1/6 figure. But it seems to me that you have to mix equations for cloudy conditions with the equation with Ts to do that. See is my last paragraph is wacko.

Yeah, I derived the 1/6 figure. But it seems to me that you have to mix equations for cloudy conditions with the equation with Ts to do that. See is my last paragraph is wacko.

From; http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/MET-ZM_v08c_eng.pdf

So: (9) SU = (3/2)OLR = OLR / f ,

where f = 2/(1 + τA + exp(-τA)) .

The solution of Eq. (9) to τA is:

τA + exp(-τA) – 2 = 0 ,

τA = 1.841 .

Check solution;

http://www.hostsrv.com/webmab/app1/MSP/quickmath/02/pageGenerate?site=quickmath&s1=equations&s2=solve&s3=basic

x=2-exp(-x) x= 1.8414 or x=-1.14619

Does the negative solution have a physical interpretation ?

From; http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/MET-ZM_v08c_eng.pdf

So: (9) SU = (3/2)OLR = OLR / f ,

where f = 2/(1 + Ï„A + exp(-Ï„A)) .

The solution of Eq. (9) to Ï„A is:

Ï„A + exp(-Ï„A) â€“ 2 = 0 ,

Ï„A = 1.841 .

Check solution;

http://www.hostsrv.com/webmab/app1/MSP/quickmath/02/pageGenerate?site=quickmath&s1=equations&s2=solve&s3=basic

x=2-exp(-x) x= 1.8414 or x=-1.14619

Does the negative solution have a physical interpretation ?

jae #31

I just had a look at the diffs for 2008/11/09.

I don’t think that Aa=Ed holds only for cloudy conditions I think it holds every where Aa & Ed aren’t constant and wiggle around each other sometimes the surface layer is a bit warmer sometimes a bit cooler over a day regardless of clouds. If the optical path length for extinction is < 20m clouds or no clouds are not going to make a difference. Su = 2Eu does depend does depend on partial clouds (PM from FM to me at CABB) :

jae #31

I just had a look at the diffs for 2008/11/09.

I don’t think that Aa=Ed holds only for cloudy conditions I think it holds every where Aa & Ed aren’t constant and wiggle around each other sometimes the surface layer is a bit warmer sometimes a bit cooler over a day regardless of clouds. If the optical path length for extinction is < 20m clouds or no clouds are not going to make a difference. Su = 2Eu does depend does depend on partial clouds (PM from FM to me at CABB) :

jan: OK, I’ll get rid of that last paragraph. Thanks.

jan: OK, I’ll get rid of that last paragraph. Thanks.

I replaced it with a better paragraph. 🙂

I replaced it with a better paragraph. 🙂

This whole discussion has descended into numerology.

This whole discussion has descended into numerology.

Dr. Mikolczi’s theory appears to be correct; or at least to be more correct, than the classical theory with its simplifications from a 100 years ago.

Miskolczi correction of Milne eqautiosn is as simple as Einstein’ s correction of the distortions of what Newton said. Sometimes a tiny mathematical change makes all the difference. Newton said that: “Force is proportional to the derivative of Momentum”. Or F= d(mv)/dt. Or F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt, mathematically.

Since mass m is = to a constant –> that vdm/dt =0, since the derivative dm/dt of a constant, is zero. And then Newton’s equation simplifies to F=mdv/dt. It was widely adopted, since in produced (almost) correct answers for 3 centuries.

Then a physicist said F != mdv/dt; Newton said F= d(mv)dt and that is correct. He really says that F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt and the vdm/dt term is not always = 0. Mass sometimes is a variable.

This “simplification correction” is called The Theory of Relativity.

It led to E=MC**2 and changed the World. It was merely a “simplification correction”.

Dr. Mikolczi shows where “simplification” was in error, and he provides a “simplification correction” Thinking about it, in hindsight, the “simplification correction” should be as obvious as Einstein’s correction was. After the fact, of course.

The atmosphere is obviously not infinite, for one thing. Secondly, the atmosphere extends all the way to the Earth’s surface. There is not some “discontinuity”, some piece of vacuum between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, as the “simplification” postulates.

The atmosphere is a gravitationally bound atmosphere that varies in pressure from the surface to the edge of space. Therefore, It can and does support a convection mechanism, and can use convection to move Energy about.

The atmosphere is connected to an effective infinite source of H2O at one end, and the effective infinite Vacuum at the other end.

These were all neglected in the “’simplification” from 1928. I know what kind of atmosphere that the simplification described, but it obviously doesn’t describe the reality of Earth and its atmosphere. It maydescribe a gaseosu srteller atmsopher thant only gets progresively desner as you descned ot the core of the Star. That is ridiculous to use as a model for a planetary atmosphere like the Earth. How did Science ever accept it as the basis for an atmospheric radiation theory?

How could that be even marginally correct?

These changes make all the difference. It allows some continuity equations that allow for ground and near ground temperatures converging and equal, in equilibrium. It allows Convection as an energy mover process due to gravitation. And a constant optical depth via the limitless H20 pool, at least until the Oceans dry up.

Dr. Mikolczi theory is already confirmed by existing measurements. These measurements of existing thermal profiles more correctly agree with Dr. Mikolczi calculations, and is the measured reality. Versus the “as received” warming theory that was first suggested more than a century ago.

Dr. Mikolcziâ€™s theory appears to be correct; or at least to be more correct, than the classical theory with its simplifications from a 100 years ago.

Miskolczi correction of Milne eqautiosn is as simple as Einstein’ s correction of the distortions of what Newton said. Sometimes a tiny mathematical change makes all the difference. Newton said that: â€œForce is proportional to the derivative of Momentumâ€. Or F= d(mv)/dt. Or F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt, mathematically.

Since mass m is = to a constant â€“> that vdm/dt =0, since the derivative dm/dt of a constant, is zero. And then Newtonâ€™s equation simplifies to F=mdv/dt. It was widely adopted, since in produced (almost) correct answers for 3 centuries.

Then a physicist said F != mdv/dt; Newton said F= d(mv)dt and that is correct. He really says that F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt and the vdm/dt term is not always = 0. Mass sometimes is a variable.

This â€œsimplification correctionâ€ is called The Theory of Relativity.

It led to E=MC**2 and changed the World. It was merely a â€œsimplification correctionâ€.

Dr. Mikolczi shows where â€œsimplificationâ€ was in error, and he provides a â€œsimplification correctionâ€ Thinking about it, in hindsight, the â€œsimplification correctionâ€ should be as obvious as Einsteinâ€™s correction was. After the fact, of course.

The atmosphere is obviously not infinite, for one thing. Secondly, the atmosphere extends all the way to the Earthâ€™s surface. There is not some â€œdiscontinuityâ€, some piece of vacuum between the atmosphere and the Earthâ€™s surface, as the â€œsimplificationâ€ postulates.

The atmosphere is a gravitationally bound atmosphere that varies in pressure from the surface to the edge of space. Therefore, It can and does support a convection mechanism, and can use convection to move Energy about.

The atmosphere is connected to an effective infinite source of H2O at one end, and the effective infinite Vacuum at the other end.

These were all neglected in the â€œâ€™simplificationâ€ from 1928. I know what kind of atmosphere that the simplification described, but it obviously doesnâ€™t describe the reality of Earth and its atmosphere. It maydescribe a gaseosu srteller atmsopher thant only gets progresively desner as you descned ot the core of the Star. That is ridiculous to use as a model for a planetary atmosphere like the Earth. How did Science ever accept it as the basis for an atmospheric radiation theory?

How could that be even marginally correct?

These changes make all the difference. It allows some continuity equations that allow for ground and near ground temperatures converging and equal, in equilibrium. It allows Convection as an energy mover process due to gravitation. And a constant optical depth via the limitless H20 pool, at least until the Oceans dry up.

Dr. Mikolczi theory is already confirmed by existing measurements. These measurements of existing thermal profiles more correctly agree with Dr. Mikolczi calculations, and is the measured reality. Versus the â€œas receivedâ€ warming theory that was first suggested more than a century ago.

Sorry for the typos.

Dr. Mikolczi’s theory appears to be correct; or at least to be more correct, than the classical theory with its simplifications from a 100 years ago.

Miskolczi correction of Milne equations is as simple as Einstein’ s correction of the distortions of what Newton said. Sometimes a tiny mathematical change makes all the difference. Newton said that: “Force is proportional to the derivative of Momentum”. Or F= d(mv)/dt. Or F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt, mathematically.

Since mass m is = to a constant –> that vdm/dt =0, since the derivative dm/dt of a constant, is zero. And then Newton’s equation simplifies to F=mdv/dt. It was widely adopted, since in produced (almost) correct answers for 3 centuries.

Then a physicist said F != mdv/dt; Newton said F= d(mv)dt and that is correct. He really says that F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt and the vdm/dt term is not always = 0. Mass sometimes is a variable.

This “simplification correction” is called The Theory of Relativity.

It led to E=MC**2 and changed the World. It was merely a “simplification correction”.

Dr. Mikolczi shows where “simplification” was in error, and he provides a “simplification correction” Thinking about it, in hindsight, the “simplification correction” should be as obvious as Einstein’s correction was. After the fact, of course.

The atmosphere is obviously not infinite, for one thing. Secondly, the atmosphere extends all the way to the Earth’s surface. There is not some “discontinuity”, some piece of vacuum between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, as the “simplification” postulates.

The atmosphere is a gravitationally bound atmosphere that varies in pressure from the surface to the edge of space. Therefore, It can and does support a convection mechanism, and can use convection to move Energy about.

The atmosphere is connected to an effective infinite source of H2O at one end, and the effective infinite Vacuum at the other end.

These were all neglected in the “’simplification” from 1928. I know what kind of atmosphere that the simplification described, but it obviously does not describe the reality of Earth and its atmosphere. It may describe a gaseous stellar atmosphere that only gets progressively denser as you descend ot the core of the Star. That is ridiculous to use as a model for a planetary atmosphere like the Earth. How did Science ever accept it as the basis for an atmospheric radiation theory?

No matter how hard I look, I just can’t find the chunk of Outer Space between my shoe-tops and the soles of my feet on Terra Firma. Yet Milne say it MUST be there to isolate the atmosphere from a essentially ocean of powerful GHGs. It is patently absurd to say that the Temperature differential between the surface of the Earth and an infinitesimal distance above it, is not zero.

How could that be even marginally correct?

These changes make all the difference. It allows some continuity equations that allow for ground and near ground temperatures converging, and equal, in equilibrium. It allows Convection as an energy mover process due to gravitation. And a constant optical depth via the limitless H20 pool, at least until the Oceans dry up.

Dr. Mikolczi theory is already confirmed by existing measurements. Indeed Miskolczi is an empiricist, who evolved his theory to try to reconcile the discrepancies measured in the satellite data with Milne’s theory. These measurements of existing thermal profiles more correctly agree with Dr. Mikolczi calculations, and is the measured reality. Versus the “as received” warming theory that was first suggested more than a century ago, and is patently in error, that no one disputes.

Sorry for the typos.

Dr. Mikolcziâ€™s theory appears to be correct; or at least to be more correct, than the classical theory with its simplifications from a 100 years ago.

Miskolczi correction of Milne equations is as simple as Einsteinâ€™ s correction of the distortions of what Newton said. Sometimes a tiny mathematical change makes all the difference. Newton said that: â€œForce is proportional to the derivative of Momentumâ€. Or F= d(mv)/dt. Or F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt, mathematically.

Since mass m is = to a constant â€“> that vdm/dt =0, since the derivative dm/dt of a constant, is zero. And then Newtonâ€™s equation simplifies to F=mdv/dt. It was widely adopted, since in produced (almost) correct answers for 3 centuries.

This â€œsimplification correctionâ€ is called The Theory of Relativity.

It led to E=MC**2 and changed the World. It was merely a â€œsimplification correctionâ€.

Dr. Mikolczi shows where â€œsimplificationâ€ was in error, and he provides a â€œsimplification correctionâ€ Thinking about it, in hindsight, the â€œsimplification correctionâ€ should be as obvious as Einsteinâ€™s correction was. After the fact, of course.

The atmosphere is obviously not infinite, for one thing. Secondly, the atmosphere extends all the way to the Earthâ€™s surface. There is not some â€œdiscontinuityâ€, some piece of vacuum between the atmosphere and the Earthâ€™s surface, as the â€œsimplificationâ€ postulates.

These were all neglected in the â€œâ€™simplificationâ€ from 1928. I know what kind of atmosphere that the simplification described, but it obviously does not describe the reality of Earth and its atmosphere. It may describe a gaseous stellar atmosphere that only gets progressively denser as you descend ot the core of the Star. That is ridiculous to use as a model for a planetary atmosphere like the Earth. How did Science ever accept it as the basis for an atmospheric radiation theory?

No matter how hard I look, I just can’t find the chunk of Outer Space between my shoe-tops and the soles of my feet on Terra Firma. Yet Milne say it MUST be there to isolate the atmosphere from a essentially ocean of powerful GHGs. It is patently absurd to say that the Temperature differential between the surface of the Earth and an infinitesimal distance above it, is not zero.

How could that be even marginally correct?

These changes make all the difference. It allows some continuity equations that allow for ground and near ground temperatures converging, and equal, in equilibrium. It allows Convection as an energy mover process due to gravitation. And a constant optical depth via the limitless H20 pool, at least until the Oceans dry up.

Dr. Mikolczi theory is already confirmed by existing measurements. Indeed Miskolczi is an empiricist, who evolved his theory to try to reconcile the discrepancies measured in the satellite data with Milne’s theory. These measurements of existing thermal profiles more correctly agree with Dr. Mikolczi calculations, and is the measured reality. Versus the â€œas receivedâ€ warming theory that was first suggested more than a century ago, and is patently in error, that no one disputes.

Alas: some new blood! Welcome, stas peterson!

Alas: some new blood! Welcome, stas peterson!

#37, Stas Peterson:

Do you happen to have a reference or any more information on precisely what happened in 1928? I have been researching a little into the history of ideas and I have found that the temperature discontinuity between a surface & atmosphere in radiative equilibrium was predicted at least as early as 1913 in a seminal paper by R. Emden, who happened, perhaps coincidentally, to be married to K. Schwarzschild’s sister. The paper unfortunately hasn’t been translated into English, but Emden’s temperature discontinuity is mentioned in a number of secondary sources, e.g. Bateman 1916:

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/044/mwr-044-08-0450.pdf

Bateman: “Emden also calculates from equations (4) and (5) that the temperature of the lowest atmospheric layer is 15.8°C and that the temperature of the ground is 36°C. The discontinuity in temperature of 20 degrees is in reality greatly diminished by conduction of heat and evaporation.”

Emden, R 1913: Uber Strahlungsgleichgewicht und atmosphrische Strahlung. Sitz. d. Bayerische Akad. d. Wiss., Math. Phys. Klass, 55.

If anyone has a copy of the Emden 1913 I’d be very grateful to see it. It would to know where & why the idea of this temperature discontinuity really came into existence.

#37, Stas Peterson:

Do you happen to have a reference or any more information on precisely what happened in 1928? I have been researching a little into the history of ideas and I have found that the temperature discontinuity between a surface & atmosphere in radiative equilibrium was predicted at least as early as 1913 in a seminal paper by R. Emden, who happened, perhaps coincidentally, to be married to K. Schwarzschild’s sister. The paper unfortunately hasn’t been translated into English, but Emden’s temperature discontinuity is mentioned in a number of secondary sources, e.g. Bateman 1916:

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/044/mwr-044-08-0450.pdf

Bateman: “Emden also calculates from equations (4) and (5) that the temperature of the lowest atmospheric layer is 15.8Â°C and that the temperature of the ground is 36Â°C. The discontinuity in temperature of 20 degrees is in reality greatly diminished by conduction of heat and evaporation.”

Emden, R 1913: Uber Strahlungsgleichgewicht und atmosphrische Strahlung. Sitz. d. Bayerische Akad. d. Wiss., Math. Phys. Klass, 55.

If anyone has a copy of the Emden 1913 I’d be very grateful to see it. It would to know where & why the idea of this temperature discontinuity really came into existence.

jae #39

New blood? You gotta be kidding, surely!

New blood only as in Frankenstein! How many times do we want to resurrect this corpse?

Strongly suggest y’all re-read:

Nick Stokes Simple Greenhouse Proofs #128

“As we’ve discussed before, M12 is a first order linear de (a very simple one), and you can only apply one boundary condition (BC). Usually, this is done at TOA, and M15 is the result. There’s good reason for that – TOA is where the assumption of radiative equilibrium really works, and you do know the OLR that has to be matched. The result is a solution of M12 that is valid going downwards, but might not satisfy the BC when you encounter a surface.

The purpose of App B is to instead use the radiative transfer equations to apply the right BC at the ground. You can do that, but it won’t be right at TOA. That’s serious – you don’t get the right exiting OLR, and there is a global energy imbalance. I think the TOA version, which goes back to Schwarzschild, is much preferable. The ground (and nearby) is exactly where radiative equilibrium is known not to apply, because of large convection and latent heat fluxes. H was assumed constant in both M12-15 and App B because the energy flux must be constant, but the upward energy flux is actually H+K.

That’s what is wrong with this whole approach. K is small in the upper atmosphere, so M12 works there, and the BC used is correct. Worrying about a discontinuity at the ground is illogical, because by then K matters, and M12 is no longer a good approx. Trying to apply M12 with a ground BC only makes this worse.”

Until someone can display the mathematical cojones to refute that argument (and it certainly doesn’t look like Stas comes within a bulls roar) AND can explain the gross inconsistencies between M&M04 and M07 and the KT&F08 review then this subject is still (sigh) going absolutely nowhere.

jae #39

New blood? You gotta be kidding, surely!

New blood only as in Frankenstein! How many times do we want to resurrect this corpse?

Strongly suggest y’all re-read:

Nick Stokes Simple Greenhouse Proofs #128

“As weâ€™ve discussed before, M12 is a first order linear de (a very simple one), and you can only apply one boundary condition (BC). Usually, this is done at TOA, and M15 is the result. Thereâ€™s good reason for that – TOA is where the assumption of radiative equilibrium really works, and you do know the OLR that has to be matched. The result is a solution of M12 that is valid going downwards, but might not satisfy the BC when you encounter a surface.

The purpose of App B is to instead use the radiative transfer equations to apply the right BC at the ground. You can do that, but it wonâ€™t be right at TOA. Thatâ€™s serious – you donâ€™t get the right exiting OLR, and there is a global energy imbalance. I think the TOA version, which goes back to Schwarzschild, is much preferable. The ground (and nearby) is exactly where radiative equilibrium is known not to apply, because of large convection and latent heat fluxes. H was assumed constant in both M12-15 and App B because the energy flux must be constant, but the upward energy flux is actually H+K.

Thatâ€™s what is wrong with this whole approach. K is small in the upper atmosphere, so M12 works there, and the BC used is correct. Worrying about a discontinuity at the ground is illogical, because by then K matters, and M12 is no longer a good approx. Trying to apply M12 with a ground BC only makes this worse.”

Until someone can display the mathematical cojones to refute that argument (and it certainly doesn’t look like Stas comes within a bulls roar) AND can explain the gross inconsistencies between M&M04 and M07 and the KT&F08 review then this subject is still (sigh) going absolutely nowhere.

Steve: This new paper from Shaviv might interest you.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N8/EDIT.php

In pursuing this path, Shaviv demonstrates “there are large variations in the oceanic heat content together with the 11-year solar cycle.” In addition, he reports that the three independent data sets “consistently show that the oceans absorb and emit an order of magnitude more heat [our italics] than could be expected from just the variations in the total solar irradiance,” thus “implying,” as he describes it, “the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.”

Steve: This new paper from Shaviv might interest you.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N8/EDIT.php

In pursuing this path, Shaviv demonstrates “there are large variations in the oceanic heat content together with the 11-year solar cycle.” In addition, he reports that the three independent data sets “consistently show that the oceans absorb and emit an order of magnitude more heat [our italics] than could be expected from just the variations in the total solar irradiance,” thus “implying,” as he describes it, “the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.”

I like the argument about Einstein/Newton. It’s correct to say that Newton wasn’t wrong, his theory was just over-simplified. I’ve heard the same about Maxwells equations too, and indeed there’s the competing theories of flight which I mentioned before and which other people chipped in about. Nasa has a site going over the controversy here, and it’s a good read:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

“Bernoulli or Newton

Lift is the force that holds an aircraft in the air. How is lift generated? There are many explanations for the generation of lift found in encyclopedias, in basic physics textbooks, and on Web sites. Unfortunately, many of the explanations are misleading and incorrect. Theories on the generation of lift have become a source of great controversy and a topic for heated arguments for many years.

The proponents of the arguments usually fall into two camps: (1) those who support the “Bernoulli” position that lift is generated by a pressure difference across the wing, and (2) those who support the “Newton” position that lift is the reaction force on a body caused by deflecting a flow of gas.”

…..both “Bernoulli” and “Newton” are correct. Integrating the effects of either the pressure or the velocity determines the aerodynamic force on an object. We can use equations developed by each of them to determine the magnitude and direction of the aerodynamic force….Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton’s equations and because they over-simplify the description of the problem of aerodynamic lift.

The real details of how an object generates lift are very complex and do not lend themselves to simplification. For a gas, we have to simultaneously conserve the mass, momentum, and energy in the flow. Newton’s laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum. Bernoulli’s equation is derived by considering conservation of energy. So both of these equations are satisfied in the generation of lift; both are correct…..The conservation of mass introduces a lot of complexity into the analysis and understanding of aerodynamic problems…..To truly understand the details of the generation of lift, one has to have a good working knowledge of the Euler Equations.”

Oddly having got that part right, NASA then fall over their own foot by using the Bernoulli explanation here:

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/all_about_flight.html

The point I make in this digression is that of course most textbooks use either one or other of the wrong theories. Thus we know that textbooks are unreliable and so a traditional (inadequate) explanation shouldn’t really hold more weight just because it’s in a textbook (as BPL seemed to be arguing). And similarly what we have here is two competing over-simplications about the greenhouse effect. While it’s a nice idea to think that one set of maths is more correct than the other, neither is likely to be fully correct because both are too simplistic. So one might then settle it just by saying that the one that agrees with empirical measurements, while imperfect, is better.

I like the argument about Einstein/Newton. It’s correct to say that Newton wasn’t wrong, his theory was just over-simplified. I’ve heard the same about Maxwells equations too, and indeed there’s the competing theories of flight which I mentioned before and which other people chipped in about. Nasa has a site going over the controversy here, and it’s a good read:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

“Bernoulli or Newton

Lift is the force that holds an aircraft in the air. How is lift generated? There are many explanations for the generation of lift found in encyclopedias, in basic physics textbooks, and on Web sites. Unfortunately, many of the explanations are misleading and incorrect. Theories on the generation of lift have become a source of great controversy and a topic for heated arguments for many years.

The proponents of the arguments usually fall into two camps: (1) those who support the “Bernoulli” position that lift is generated by a pressure difference across the wing, and (2) those who support the “Newton” position that lift is the reaction force on a body caused by deflecting a flow of gas.”

…..both “Bernoulli” and “Newton” are correct. Integrating the effects of either the pressure or the velocity determines the aerodynamic force on an object. We can use equations developed by each of them to determine the magnitude and direction of the aerodynamic force….Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton’s equations and because they over-simplify the description of the problem of aerodynamic lift.

The real details of how an object generates lift are very complex and do not lend themselves to simplification. For a gas, we have to simultaneously conserve the mass, momentum, and energy in the flow. Newton’s laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum. Bernoulli’s equation is derived by considering conservation of energy. So both of these equations are satisfied in the generation of lift; both are correct…..The conservation of mass introduces a lot of complexity into the analysis and understanding of aerodynamic problems…..To truly understand the details of the generation of lift, one has to have a good working knowledge of the Euler Equations.”

Oddly having got that part right, NASA then fall over their own foot by using the Bernoulli explanation here:

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/all_about_flight.html

The point I make in this digression is that of course most textbooks use either one or other of the wrong theories. Thus we know that textbooks are unreliable and so a traditional (inadequate) explanation shouldn’t really hold more weight just because it’s in a textbook (as BPL seemed to be arguing). And similarly what we have here is two competing over-simplications about the greenhouse effect. While it’s a nice idea to think that one set of maths is more correct than the other, neither is likely to be fully correct because both are too simplistic. So one might then settle it just by saying that the one that agrees with empirical measurements, while imperfect, is better.

Funny URL landshape.org

Proud to tell you, the Safe Dating Personals Site URL

absolutely freeusefull

website. Make a note

GreenRomance organic dating website – http://www.greenromance.com

is there for free.

Pingback: coupon site

Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodów dostawczych

Pingback: buy legal steroids

Pingback: phytoceramide

Pingback: look there

Pingback: how to fuck a girl

Pingback: zobacz oferte

Pingback: click this link

Pingback: gifts that give back

Pingback: goede voornemens nieuwe jaar

Pingback: sell your bitcoin

Pingback: katalogi stron

Pingback: see this website

Pingback: link do strony