Miskolczi's Viral Video

Just in…

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Miskolczi's Viral Video

  1. The recent cooling, the climate models with there falsified prediction of a tropical hotspot, Svensmark’s theory of solar modulated cosmic rays and cloud formation, and Miskolszi’s theory being confirmed by the drop in humidity at 300 mbars; all are building an enormous amount of evidence against AGW. Miskolczi’s theory indicates that a little water will rain out of the atmosphere as CO2 rises to maintain a constant optical depth.

    I have a hunch that the sun’s variability has a second effect on temperatures through the large changes in uv and x-rays. The atmosphere has contracted significantly because of the drop in uv. Is there a good reference for radiation transport though the upper atmosphere?

  2. The recent cooling, the climate models with there falsified prediction of a tropical hotspot, Svensmark's theory of solar modulated cosmic rays and cloud formation, and Miskolszi's theory being confirmed by the drop in humidity at 300 mbars; all are building an enormous amount of evidence against AGW. Miskolczi's theory indicates that a little water will rain out of the atmosphere as CO2 rises to maintain a constant optical depth.I have a hunch that the sun's variability has a second effect on temperatures through the large changes in uv and x-rays. The atmosphere has contracted significantly because of the drop in uv. Is there a good reference for radiation transport though the upper atmosphere?

  3. The Kirchhoff radiative emissivity-absorptivity law is not strictly exactly to the point here. We are talking near it, but not strictly exactly on it.

    But let us note the Kirchhoff law anyway, just for interest. It is often cavalierly taken without meticulous regard to its precise range of applicability. Originally Kirchhoff’s Law was stated for the condition that the energy supply maintains thermodynamic equilibrium. But it is now known that the law applies more widely. But just how much more widely?

    The absorptivity and emissivity of a medium are determined by its chemical constitution, by the physical geometrical arrangement of the chemical constituents, and by the way that energy is supplied to the medium to support the emission and govern the absorption. The physical geometrical arrangement of the chemical constituents matters because it affects how the supplied energy is transported and distributed within the medium, and how the chemical constituents are exposed to the contiguous medium. Thus the difference between a powdery or spicule-textured surface and a polished one.

    Einstein 1917 originated the idea that the absorptivity is the sum of an obvious kind of absorptivity in which a chemical species is simply lifted to a higher energy level, and a very non-obvious kind of absorptivity, indeed negative absorptivity, in which an incoming ‘photon’ triggers the release of identical copy of itself in the same direction. This is sometimes called stimulated emission and Einstein needed it to make sense of the Planck law. It is governed not by the availability of the low energy form of the relevant molecules, but by the availability of their high energy form. On the other hand, empirically detectable, or spontaneous, emissivity is governed only by the availability of the high energy form of the relevant molecules. The absorptivity and emissivity are therefore governed by different dynamics and can thus be expected to behave differently depending on how the energy is supplied and distributed to the medium.

    The full meaning of this was not really widely and fully understood until conditions of energy supply to a medium were varied experimentally, and the negative kind of absorption was demonstrated in the laser. Under the conditions of energy supply that support lasing, the absorptivity is negative. The emissivity is always positive, and so we have a clear example in which Kirchhoff’s law does not apply because of the conditions of supply and distribution of energy to the medium. Kirchhoff (1858, 1860 in English) himself, in stating the conditions for his law to hold, was careful to exclude phosphorescence and fluorescence, but I feel sure he would have excluded lasing as well if he had known about it. But when we use his law we have the duty to specify the conditions of energy supply and distribution, to help justify our use of the law.

    Of course, many conditions of energy supply and distribution are near enough to those of thermodynamic equilibrium. This happens so often that people forget that they need to be specified, and that outside them, the law can be very far from applicability. People often implicitly assume that the thermodynamic equilibrium condition is sufficiently mimicked that they do not need to put on notice that it is being used. This is carefully explained in Mihalas and Mihalas 1984 at section 84 starting on page 386. Also Hottel and Sarofim 1967 gives a slight account of it. The Einstein A and B coefficient theory is set out for example in section 1.5 et seq. of R. Loudon 2000 ‘The Quantum Theory of Light’ 3rd edition, Oxford University Press.

    There are two things to think about in our present concern. One is the empirical data equality, Aa = Ed, regardless of how we might or might not explain it by some theory. The other is Miskolczi’s rather cavalier citation of the Kirchhoff law.

    I think that the empirical data equality deserves to be examined in its own right, without regard to any putative theoretical explanation. That is not the subject of this post.

    But here I would like to think a bit about the relevant physical theory. I will not directly focus on Kirchhoff’s Law, because I just want to focus on the presently relevant physics. The Aa = Ed formula is in question. It refers to non-window wavenumbers. This means that for the relevant wavenumbers, the atmosphere is entirely opaque. An opaque object has an emissivity, and for the atmosphere for these wavenumbers, the emissivity is very little less than 1, say for argumentative definiteness without prejudice, 0.98 if you like. The land-sea surface also at these wavenumbers has an emissivity not too far from 0.98. (The situation is of course entirely different for the window wavenumbers, for which the atmosphere is transparent, and the emissivity will be far far less than 1, indeed nearly zero. But that is not immediately here relevant to the non-window wavenumbers that presently concern us.)

    Then we have two opaque media in contact, the land-sea surface and the atmosphere. If they are at the same temperatures at the contact interface (recalling that they have the same emissivity), then they will exchange thermal radiation with a net radiative flux density vector of zero at the contact interface; there may be a temperature gradient that crosses the interface with no discontinuity, and then there can still be heat transfer by conduction according to the Fourier heat diffusion law. The Fourier heat diffusion law admits that the conduction of heat cannot be measured with exclusion of the intrinsic thermal radiation of the conductive media, meaning that there is a fully Stefan’s-law thermal level of radiative specific intensity throughout the opaque media, but the radiative heat transport vector, found by integrating that radiative intensity over the sphere, is zero, and the heat is transferred only by diffusion according to the Fourier law that depends on the temperature gradient, a quantity not given by the radiant intensity at a point, but requiring a spatial interval for its definition.

    The argument can then be put that the atmosphere in contact with and near the land-sea surface is in various states of motion. So, for that matter, is the sea, on the condensed medium side of the interface. According to the above physics, this will affect the emissivity and absorptivity: they are governed by the conditions of supply and distribution of energy to the media as noted above. Will these various states of motion be enough to take us away from the operation of the Kirchhoff law? Perhaps the atmosphere is acting like a laser? I think not. We have indeed already accepted that the emissivity is close to 0.98 on each side of the interface.

    What is really at stake here is the notion that the temperatures on either side of the interface are equal in the geometrically relevant ways. Mostly I think this is so because of the effects of strong convection in the lowest atmosphere and the presence of evaporation and condensation. The idea of coarse-graining is sometime invoked. Presumably there may be some small departures occasionally when the conditions of supply and distribution of energy are so extreme that Kirchhoff’s law does not apply locally on those occasions. Even less often perhaps the conditions of supply and distribution of heat will be extreme enough to lead to large temperature discontinuities at the interface; but I think such occasions will be rare, and will likely very often be averaged away in the climate space-time scale of description. Very largely, the temperature continuity and adequate conduction-evaporation-condensation-convection condition will be satisfied and the practically-thermal condition of energy supply and distribution will apply and, for the relevant wavenumbers, the Kirchhoff law will apply.

    We do not actually need that Law in full generality. All we need is (a) temperature near-continuity and (b) emissivity near 0.98 in both media for the non-window wavenumbers.

    For window wavenumbers in clear skies, the opacity condition is not fulfilled and the situation is entirely different, but that is not immediately directly relevant to the question of explaining why Aa = Ed in clear skies.

    Downward values of the specific radiant intensity function for window wavenumbers will be very different between cloudy and clear skies, because opaque clouds radiate strongly also in the window wavenumbers, quite in contrast to the clear sky atmosphere. Under opaque 1.8 km clouds, there will be something like Kirchhoff’s hohlraum condition, and Aa = Ed will prevail. The opaque 1.8 km clouds will radiate upwards at window wavenumbers. Their temperature of upwards emission will be much lower than the land-sea surface temperature, but they are radiating upwards into a medium of much less optical density because the water vapour content of the air above them is low. The temperature and opacity reduction effects nearly cancel, but Miskolczi’s HARTCODE calculations indicate that the effective St will in the event actually be slightly greater from the cloud tops than it would be from the land-sea surface. In effect, it turns out that the St has as it were simply been translated nearly unchanged upwards from the land-sea surface to the tops of the clouds.

    This is the explanation of the maintenance of the St at a bit more than 60 W m^-2 in all sky conditions. And the explanation of why Aa = Ed overall for Miskolczi’s TIGR data sample.

  4. The Kirchhoff radiative emissivity-absorptivity law is not strictly exactly to the point here. We are talking near it, but not strictly exactly on it.But let us note the Kirchhoff law anyway, just for interest. It is often cavalierly taken without meticulous regard to its precise range of applicability. Originally Kirchhoff's Law was stated for the condition that the energy supply maintains thermodynamic equilibrium. But it is now known that the law applies more widely. But just how much more widely?The absorptivity and emissivity of a medium are determined by its chemical constitution, by the physical geometrical arrangement of the chemical constituents, and by the way that energy is supplied to the medium to support the emission and govern the absorption. The physical geometrical arrangement of the chemical constituents matters because it affects how the supplied energy is transported and distributed within the medium, and how the chemical constituents are exposed to the contiguous medium. Thus the difference between a powdery or spicule-textured surface and a polished one.Einstein 1917 originated the idea that the absorptivity is the sum of an obvious kind of absorptivity in which a chemical species is simply lifted to a higher energy level, and a very non-obvious kind of absorptivity, indeed negative absorptivity, in which an incoming 'photon' triggers the release of identical copy of itself in the same direction. This is sometimes called stimulated emission and Einstein needed it to make sense of the Planck law. It is governed not by the availability of the low energy form of the relevant molecules, but by the availability of their high energy form. On the other hand, empirically detectable, or spontaneous, emissivity is governed only by the availability of the high energy form of the relevant molecules. The absorptivity and emissivity are therefore governed by different dynamics and can thus be expected to behave differently depending on how the energy is supplied and distributed to the medium.The full meaning of this was not really widely and fully understood until conditions of energy supply to a medium were varied experimentally, and the negative kind of absorption was demonstrated in the laser. Under the conditions of energy supply that support lasing, the absorptivity is negative. The emissivity is always positive, and so we have a clear example in which Kirchhoff's law does not apply because of the conditions of supply and distribution of energy to the medium. Kirchhoff (1858, 1860 in English) himself, in stating the conditions for his law to hold, was careful to exclude phosphorescence and fluorescence, but I feel sure he would have excluded lasing as well if he had known about it. But when we use his law we have the duty to specify the conditions of energy supply and distribution, to help justify our use of the law.Of course, many conditions of energy supply and distribution are near enough to those of thermodynamic equilibrium. This happens so often that people forget that they need to be specified, and that outside them, the law can be very far from applicability. People often implicitly assume that the thermodynamic equilibrium condition is sufficiently mimicked that they do not need to put on notice that it is being used. This is carefully explained in Mihalas and Mihalas 1984 at section 84 starting on page 386. Also Hottel and Sarofim 1967 gives a slight account of it. The Einstein A and B coefficient theory is set out for example in section 1.5 et seq. of R. Loudon 2000 'The Quantum Theory of Light' 3rd edition, Oxford University Press.There are two things to think about in our present concern. One is the empirical data equality, Aa = Ed, regardless of how we might or might not explain it by some theory. The other is Miskolczi's rather cavalier citation of the Kirchhoff law.I think that the empirical data equality deserves to be examined in its own right, without regard to any putative theoretical explanation. That is not the subject of this post.But here I would like to think a bit about the relevant physical theory. I will not directly focus on Kirchhoff's Law, because I just want to focus on the presently relevant physics. The Aa = Ed formula is in question. It refers to non-window wavenumbers. This means that for the relevant wavenumbers, the atmosphere is entirely opaque. An opaque object has an emissivity, and for the atmosphere for these wavenumbers, the emissivity is very little less than 1, say for argumentative definiteness without prejudice, 0.98 if you like. The land-sea surface also at these wavenumbers has an emissivity not too far from 0.98. (The situation is of course entirely different for the window wavenumbers, for which the atmosphere is transparent, and the emissivity will be far far less than 1, indeed nearly zero. But that is not immediately here relevant to the non-window wavenumbers that presently concern us.)Then we have two opaque media in contact, the land-sea surface and the atmosphere. If they are at the same temperatures at the contact interface (recalling that they have the same emissivity), then they will exchange thermal radiation with a net radiative flux density vector of zero at the contact interface; there may be a temperature gradient that crosses the interface with no discontinuity, and then there can still be heat transfer by conduction according to the Fourier heat diffusion law. The Fourier heat diffusion law admits that the conduction of heat cannot be measured with exclusion of the intrinsic thermal radiation of the conductive media, meaning that there is a fully Stefan's-law thermal level of radiative specific intensity throughout the opaque media, but the radiative heat transport vector, found by integrating that radiative intensity over the sphere, is zero, and the heat is transferred only by diffusion according to the Fourier law that depends on the temperature gradient, a quantity not given by the radiant intensity at a point, but requiring a spatial interval for its definition.The argument can then be put that the atmosphere in contact with and near the land-sea surface is in various states of motion. So, for that matter, is the sea, on the condensed medium side of the interface. According to the above physics, this will affect the emissivity and absorptivity: they are governed by the conditions of supply and distribution of energy to the media as noted above. Will these various states of motion be enough to take us away from the operation of the Kirchhoff law? Perhaps the atmosphere is acting like a laser? I think not. We have indeed already accepted that the emissivity is close to 0.98 on each side of the interface.What is really at stake here is the notion that the temperatures on either side of the interface are equal in the geometrically relevant ways. Mostly I think this is so because of the effects of strong convection in the lowest atmosphere and the presence of evaporation and condensation. The idea of coarse-graining is sometime invoked. Presumably there may be some small departures occasionally when the conditions of supply and distribution of energy are so extreme that Kirchhoff's law does not apply locally on those occasions. Even less often perhaps the conditions of supply and distribution of heat will be extreme enough to lead to large temperature discontinuities at the interface; but I think such occasions will be rare, and will likely very often be averaged away in the climate space-time scale of description. Very largely, the temperature continuity and adequate conduction-evaporation-condensation-convection condition will be satisfied and the practically-thermal condition of energy supply and distribution will apply and, for the relevant wavenumbers, the Kirchhoff law will apply.We do not actually need that Law in full generality. All we need is (a) temperature near-continuity and (b) emissivity near 0.98 in both media for the non-window wavenumbers.For window wavenumbers in
    clear skies, the opacity condition is not fulfilled and the situation is entirely different, but that is not immediately directly relevant to the question of explaining why Aa = Ed in clear skies.Downward values of the specific radiant intensity function for window wavenumbers will be very different between cloudy and clear skies, because opaque clouds radiate strongly also in the window wavenumbers, quite in contrast to the clear sky atmosphere. Under opaque 1.8 km clouds, there will be something like Kirchhoff's hohlraum condition, and Aa = Ed will prevail. The opaque 1.8 km clouds will radiate upwards at window wavenumbers. Their temperature of upwards emission will be much lower than the land-sea surface temperature, but they are radiating upwards into a medium of much less optical density because the water vapour content of the air above them is low. The temperature and opacity reduction effects nearly cancel, but Miskolczi's HARTCODE calculations indicate that the effective St will in the event actually be slightly greater from the cloud tops than it would be from the land-sea surface. In effect, it turns out that the St has as it were simply been translated nearly unchanged upwards from the land-sea surface to the tops of the clouds.This is the explanation of the maintenance of the St at a bit more than 60 W m^-2 in all sky conditions. And the explanation of why Aa = Ed overall for Miskolczi's TIGR data sample.

  5. Pingback: wypozyczalnia busow

  6. Pingback: polecam link

  7. Pingback: witryna www

  8. Pingback: zobacz oferte

  9. Pingback: najdoskonalsza kuchnia polska

  10. Pingback: opieka informatyczna zabrze

  11. Pingback: oszczednosc24.bcz.com

  12. Pingback: wideofilmowanie Lublin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s