On the Use of the Virial Theorem by Miskolczi

Virial Paper 6_12_2010 submitted by Adolf J. Giger.

Allow me to make some more comments on the Virial Theorem (VT) as used by Ferenc Miskolczi (FM) for the atmosphere.

As I said on this blog back in February, a very fundamental derivation of the VT was made by H. Goldstein in Section 3-4 of “Classical Mechanics”, 1980, Ref.[1] : PE= 2*KE (potential energy=2 x kinetic energy). Then, he also derives the Ideal Gas Law (IGL), P*V = N*k*T as a consequence of the VT, and shows that PE=3*P*V and KE=(3/2)*N*k*T. The two laws, IGL and VT, therefore are two ways to describe the same physical phenomenon. Despite its seemingly restrictive name, we know that the IGL is a good approximation for many gases, monatomic, biatomic, polyatomic and even water vapor, as long as they remain very dilute. Goldstein’s derivations are made for an enclosure of volume V with constant gas pressure P and temperature T in a central force field like the Earth’s gravitational field. They also hold for an open volume V anywhere in the atmosphere. As to FM, he points out that the VT reflects the fact that the atmosphere is gravitationally bounded.

Ferenc Miskolczi in his papers [2,3] relates the total potential energy of the atmosphere, PEtot, to the total IR upward radiation Su at the surface. This relationship has to be considered a proportionality rather than an exact equality, or Su=const* PEtot. We see that this linkage makes sense since Su determines the surface temperature Ts through the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Su = (5.6703/10^8)*Ts^4 , and finally the IGL ties together Ts, P(z=0) and PEtot.

FM then assigns the kinetic IR energy KE (temperature) in the atmosphere to the upward atmospheric IR emittance Eu, or Eu=const*KE. The flux Eu is made up of two terms F + K , where F is due to thermalized absorption of short wave solar radiation in atmospheric water vapor, and K due to heat transfers from the Earth’s surface to air masses and clouds through evaporation and convection. Neither F or K are directly radiated from the Earth’s surface. They represent radiation from the atmosphere itself. There is an obvious limitation for such an assignment mainly because for the VT , or the IGL in general, the temperature (the KE) has to be measured with a thermometer, whereas Eu represents the radiative temperature (flux) that has to be measured with a radiometer, and these two measurements can give vastly different results as we see for the two following extreme cases:

In between these two extremes we have the Earth where FM’s version of the VT , Su = 2 * Eu applies reasonably well. We will see next in a discussion of FM’s exact solution how close, and for what types of atmospheres FM’s VT ( Eu/Su=0.5) holds, but we can say already that no physical principle is violated if it doesn’t. The VT that always holds for gases is not being violated, it is simply not fully recognized by FM’s fluxes that have to be measured by radiometers. This may be an indication that the VT is less important for FM’s theory than normally assumed.

On the other hand, the IPCC assumes a positive water vapor feedback and arrives at very imprecise predictions for the Climate Sensitivity ranging from 1.5 to 5K (and even more). It is clear that this wide range of numbers is caused by the assumed positive feedback system, which apparently is close to instability (or singing, as the electrical engineer would call it in an unstable microphone-loudspeaker system). With such large uncertainties in their outputs true scientists should be reluctant to publish their results.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “On the Use of the Virial Theorem by Miskolczi

  1. Before another round of ill-explained VT stuff, why doesn’t someone try to explain (for the first time ever) what is the connection between PE, KE (of what, and however related) and the IR fluxes. A glaring absence in FM’s paper.

  2. I have pulled out some relevant paras into the post, but its a very terse exposition, so you might as well read the original. I like the graph.

    • It’s pure arm-waving. He takes a textbook derivation of the IGL in which PE is elastic PE of a volume of gas, and claims that because this relates to temperature in that case, so can the gravitational PE of the whiole atmosphere be related to Su. There’s just no connection. An explanation needs to say, about PE, what’s body’s PE we’re talking about, and relative to what state.

      On KE it’s even worse. It just says that because the proposition is wrong in two extreme cases, somehow it must be right in the middle.

      The graphs are arm-waving with a pencil.

      • Richard Alley also has a hypothesis about a climate system thermostat – rock weathering. The hypothesis doesn’t even have any numbers, nor any attempt at explanations of the abruptness of the effect. Yet everyone falls over him for this arm-waving; except that they don’t call it arm-waving when you are in with the in crowd. In fact, as long as you predict certain disaster then half a theory is always good enough it seems.

        Yet if a thermostat to the system is required to explain things, then surely water, in its 3 phases and 4 states and capable of amplifying cooling or warming, is the more natural choice. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • The hypothesis you refer to is not Alley’s originally, and it’s foundation in evidence, if not necessarily a clear quantification, is better than you make it sound. The idea dates to at least the early 80’s

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1981/JC086iC10p09776.shtml

        It’s based upon chemistry, so the idea is pretty sound physically speaking. However this process is so slow that it’s relevance to the forseeable future is dubious at best.

  3. Gee Nick, you’re getting crusty in your old age; what part of M’s new theory and Adolf’s paper is not based on actual measurements or reasonable deductions/derivations from actual measurments; I especially like Adolf’s explanation of Tau.

    Maybe all M needs is a suitably qualified PR man, suitably disinterested, to explain things; I nominate you.

  4. Before another round of ill-explained VT stuff, why doesn't someone try to explain (for the first time ever) what is the connection between PE, KE (of what, and however related) and the IR fluxes. A glaring absence in FM's paper.

  5. I have pulled out some relevant paras into the post, but its a very terse exposition, so you might as well read the original. I like the graph.

  6. Gee Nick, you're getting crusty in your old age; what part of M's new theory and Adolf's paper is not based on actual measurements or reasonable deductions/derivations from actual measurments; I especially like Adolf's explanation of Tau. Maybe all M needs is a suitably qualified PR man, suitably disinterested, to explain things; I nominate you.

  7. It's pure arm-waving. He takes a textbook derivation of the IGL in which PE is elastic PE of a volume of gas, and claims that because this relates to temperature in that case, so can the gravitational PE of the whiole atmosphere be related to Su. There's just no connection. An explanation needs to say, about PE, what's body's PE we're talking about, and relative to what state.On KE it's even worse. It just says that because the proposition is wrong in two extreme cases, somehow it must be right in the middle.The graphs are arm-waving with a pencil.

  8. Nick
    See Energy and Environment, Multi Science Publishing, ISSN 0958-305X (when its published).

    Miskolczi has taken the full 61 years of available radiosonde data and shown a negligible trend in total atmospheric absorption or “optical depth”, assuming clouds and convection etc are constant. Thus CO2 and positive H2O feedback cannot be the cause of the observed global warming. Consequently other factors must be the cause.

    Miskolczi’s detailed quantification supports his earlier theory.

  9. NickSee Energy and Environment, Multi Science Publishing, ISSN 0958-305X (when its published).Miskolczi has taken the full 61 years of available radiosonde data and shown a negligible trend in total atmospheric absorption or “optical depth”, assuming clouds and convection etc are constant. Thus CO2 and positive H2O feedback cannot be the cause of the observed global warming. Consequently other factors must be the cause.Miskolczi's detailed quantification supports his earlier theory.

  10. Richard Alley also has a hypothesis about a climate system thermostat – rock weathering. The hypothesis doesn't even have any numbers, nor any attempt at explanations of the abruptness of the effect. Yet everyone falls over him for this arm-waving; except that they don't call it arm-waving when you are in with the in crowd. In fact, as long as you predict certain disaster then half a theory is always good enough it seems. Yet if a thermostat to the system is required to explain things, then surely water, in its 3 phases and 4 states and capable of amplifying cooling or warming, is the more natural choice. Wouldn't you agree?

  11. The hypothesis you refer to is not Alley's originally, and it's foundation in evidence, if not necessarily a clear quantification, is better than you make it sound. The idea dates to at least the early 80'shttp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1981/JC086iC10…It's based upon chemistry, so the idea is pretty sound physically speaking. However this process is so slow that it's relevance to the forseeable future is dubious at best.

  12. Pingback: startups

  13. Pingback: news

  14. Pingback: bateria do laptopa acer

  15. Pingback: my website

  16. Pingback: wynajem samochodow

  17. Pingback: blog

  18. Pingback: how to build muscle fast

  19. Pingback: domain

  20. Pingback: news

  21. Pingback: see latest news

  22. Pingback: massage erotique paris 18

  23. Pingback: Dating advice for men

  24. Pingback: Wonmen's Health Center

  25. Pingback: health

  26. Pingback: law

  27. Pingback: kliknij link

  28. Pingback: kliknij link

  29. Pingback: oferta

  30. Pingback: click here

  31. Pingback: masaze serwis

  32. Pingback: witryna

  33. Pingback: click here

  34. Pingback: click for more details

  35. Pingback: click for more details

  36. Pingback: Best Movies On Netflix

  37. Pingback: Business and Careers Resource

  38. Pingback: Business and Careers Resource

  39. Pingback: Small Business

  40. Pingback: Healthy Living Advice

  41. Pingback: Health and Medical News

  42. Pingback: uk pua

  43. Pingback: pit 2015 - pity2015program.pl

  44. Pingback: Luxury Bathroom Design

  45. Pingback: Home Interior Design

  46. Pingback: Homebuilding & Renovating

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