# Greenhouse Heat Engine

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

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

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?

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.

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.

RealClimate spoiler…

….I read this paper, not because there is anything worthwhile in it,
but because it had been cropping up in the “skeptics” press. It’s
peer-reviewed, but just barely, since it appeared in an obscure
Hungarian weather journal. It never would have passed peer review
in a serious journal. The paper is total nonsense. He makes two fatal
errors early on. First, he mis-applies the Virial theorem. The virial
theorem applies to kinetic vs. potential energy, and it can be shown
that for an atmosphere in equilibrium it is trivially satisfied by
any hydrostically balanced atmosphere. The second error is that he
misapplies Kirchoff’s laws –in fact the so-called application of
these laws bears no relation to the actual statement of the laws.
Both of these errors are in the first 9 pages. 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, and his result is
just a fiction. This paper is such nonsense nobody so far has done
a real commentary on it. There are bits that have appeared on Eli
Rabett’s blog, Rabett Run, but he doesn’t state the flaws as clearly
as he should. I used the paper as a teaching tool during some lectures
had no problem at all spotting the flaws. My plan is to leave it to
this class to write a guest article for RealClimate.org exposing
the errors in the paper, along the lines of what I outlined above.
It will be a learning experience for them, so I want to let them
do it on their own as much as possible, even if it delays things
somewhat. There are any number of direct verifications of the
greenhouse effect, which verify that there is nothing wrong with
on Earth and Mars can be computed, and matches the observations. If
there were something wrong with this, we would see it in observations.
This same radiative transfer verifies that you get more greenhouse
effect when you increase CO2. Of all the things one can question about
climate modelling, radiative transfer is not one of them. For that
matter, not even infrared weather satellites would work if there were
something wrong with our radiative transfer. Hope that helps,….

RealClimate spoiler…

….I read this paper, not because there is anything worthwhile in it,
but because it had been cropping up in the “skeptics” press. It’s
peer-reviewed, but just barely, since it appeared in an obscure
Hungarian weather journal. It never would have passed peer review
in a serious journal. The paper is total nonsense. He makes two fatal
errors early on. First, he mis-applies the Virial theorem. The virial
theorem applies to kinetic vs. potential energy, and it can be shown
that for an atmosphere in equilibrium it is trivially satisfied by
any hydrostically balanced atmosphere. The second error is that he
misapplies Kirchoff’s laws –in fact the so-called application of
these laws bears no relation to the actual statement of the laws.
Both of these errors are in the first 9 pages. 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, and his result is
just a fiction. This paper is such nonsense nobody so far has done
a real commentary on it. There are bits that have appeared on Eli
Rabett’s blog, Rabett Run, but he doesn’t state the flaws as clearly
as he should. I used the paper as a teaching tool during some lectures
had no problem at all spotting the flaws. My plan is to leave it to
this class to write a guest article for RealClimate.org exposing
the errors in the paper, along the lines of what I outlined above.
It will be a learning experience for them, so I want to let them
do it on their own as much as possible, even if it delays things
somewhat. There are any number of direct verifications of the
greenhouse effect, which verify that there is nothing wrong with
on Earth and Mars can be computed, and matches the observations. If
there were something wrong with this, we would see it in observations.
This same radiative transfer verifies that you get more greenhouse
effect when you increase CO2. Of all the things one can question about
climate modelling, radiative transfer is not one of them. For that
matter, not even infrared weather satellites would work if there were
something wrong with our radiative transfer. Hope that helps,….

• Jan Pompe

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

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.

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

Regarding the origin, Ue 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 Ue as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the equation must hold. Ue can also be related to Gn through the equation.

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

Regarding the origin, Ue 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 Ue as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the equation must hold. Ue can also be related to Gn through the equation.

• jae

“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

“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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

• Nick Stokes

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

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

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

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

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

• Nick Stokes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

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

• Neal J. King

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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…)

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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

#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

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko,

Is there something factually incorrect in anything I said?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko,

Is there something factually incorrect in anything I said?

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

#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

#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

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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 .

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Ferencz M. writes:

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Ferencz M. writes:

I am more interested to the oppinion of those â€˜distinguishedâ€™ scientists who are able to compute the correct IR optical thickness of the atmosphere and verify (or falsify) my results

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.”

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.”

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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:

According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange
energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts…

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

“…there is a very simple relationship between emissivity (ελ) and absorptance (αlambda;)

ελ = αlambda;

This is known as Kirchhoff’s Law and indicates that, at the same wavelength, good emitters are equally good absorbers.

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

Within any given band of wavelengths, a good absorber is also a good emitter. This fact is embodied in Kirchhoff’s Law.

And again, on another page:

“…the relationship between α and emissivity ε is embodied succinctly in Kirchhoff’s Law, which states that

ελ(θφ) = αlambda;(θφ). (6.12)

Does it look to anyone like H&R86’s definition and Pe06’s definition are almost identical, whereas FM07 is saying something else?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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:

According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange
energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts…

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

“…there is a very simple relationship between emissivity (ε\λ) and absorptance (α\lambda;)

ε\λ = α\lambda;

This is known as Kirchhoff’s Law and indicates that, at the same wavelength, good emitters are equally good absorbers.

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

Within any given band of wavelengths, a good absorber is also a good emitter. This fact is embodied in Kirchhoff’s Law.

And again, on another page:

“…the relationship between α and emissivity ε is embodied succinctly in Kirchhoff’s Law, which states that

ε\λ(θφ) = α\lambda;(θφ). (6.12)

Does it look to anyone like H&R86’s definition and Pe06’s definition are almost identical, whereas FM07 is saying something else?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

$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$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

Levenson

A_A = E_D

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

Levenson

A_A = E_D

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

BPL

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

• Jan Pompe

BPL

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

• Nick Stokes

#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

#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

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 of a body must sum to zero.

• Jan Pompe

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 of a body must sum to zero.

• Anonymous

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

• http://landshape.org/enm davids

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

• Nick Stokes

#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

#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

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.)

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.)

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

• Jan Pompe

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

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

#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

#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

#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

#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

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

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

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

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

#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

#53 Jan Pompe

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

• Jan Pompe

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

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.

“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.

“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

#52 Ferenc M. Miskolczi

• Alex Harvey

#52 Ferenc M. Miskolczi

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

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

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Ferencz Miskolczi writes:

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Ferencz Miskolczi writes:

It also seems to be a problem, that you do not understand what â€˜grayâ€™ model means.

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

#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

#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.

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?

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?

Blogs are where its all happenin’ man 8)

Blogs are where its all happenin’ man 8)

• http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

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)

• http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

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)

• http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

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.

• http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

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

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

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

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

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.

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

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.

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

To my mind, the biggest problem with the GCMs upon which the orthodox AGW is based is that

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).

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

To my mind, the biggest problem with the GCMs upon which the orthodox AGW is based is that

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

#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

#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

#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

#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

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

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

#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’.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

#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

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

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

Nick #77

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

• Jan Pompe

Nick #77

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

• Jan Pompe

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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

#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

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

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe, still not getting it, posts:

I will tell you again LBL integration gives you a single number output.

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe, still not getting it, posts:

I will tell you again LBL integration gives you a single number output.

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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

#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…

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

FM,

see above

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

FM,

see above

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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.

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

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

#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.

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

• Jan Pompe

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 result not what he was working with. What he was working with was the TIGR atmospheric profiles, spectral data and HARTCODE.

• Jan Pompe

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 result not what he was working with. What he was working with was the TIGR atmospheric profiles, spectral data and HARTCODE.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

FM writes:

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 ….

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.

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.

No it isn’t.

Jan Pompe writes:

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

because it’s the result not what he was working with. What he was working with was the TIGR atmospheric profiles, spectral data and HARTCODE.

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.

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

FM writes:

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 â€˜ad hocâ€™ method â€¦.

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.

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.

No it isn’t.

Jan Pompe writes:

â€œItâ€™s the OUTPUT that determines what youâ€™re working with.â€

because itâ€™s the result not what he was working with. What he was working with was the TIGR atmospheric profiles, spectral data and HARTCODE.

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.

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

BPL # 91:

“No it isn’t.”

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

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

BPL # 91:

“No it isn’t.”

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

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

BPL #91

Try explaining colour to the colour blind.

that’s what I’m doing.

• Jan Pompe

BPL #91

Try explaining colour to the colour blind.

that’s what I’m doing.

• Nick Stokes

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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.

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…

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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

Nick #101

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

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

Nick #101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Alex Harvey writes:

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Alex Harvey writes:

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

FM writes:

I am not angry with you, just have no more time for this nonsense.

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 extremely angry.

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

FM writes:

I am not angry with you, just have no more time for this nonsense.

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 extremely angry.

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.

“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?

“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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nick Stokes

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

• Jan Pompe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…

Fair enough…

Fair enough…

• Neal J. King

Ference,

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

– 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

Ference,

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

– 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

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

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

janp,

I’m interested in Ferenc’s response.

Not your’s.

Sorry.

• Neal J. King

janp,

I’m interested in Ferenc’s response.

Not your’s.

Sorry.

• Jan Pompe

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

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

#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…

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

#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…

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

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

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

# 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

# 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

“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

“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

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

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

• Jan Pompe

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

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

• Neal J. King

#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.

– 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

#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.

– 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

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

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

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

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

Ferenc,

The upshot of any way of applying the VT is that the atmosphere will never satisfy:
{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

Ferenc,

The upshot of any way of applying the VT is that the atmosphere will never satisfy:
{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

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

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

#132, Ferenc:

– 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 flux
S_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 = S_U/2
equation must hold
. E_U can also be related to G_N through the
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)PE

• Neal J. King

#132, Ferenc:

– 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 flux
S_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 = S_U/2
equation must hold
. E_U can also be related to G_N through the
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)PE

• Jan Pompe

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

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

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 work lifting the parcel of air from the surface.

• Jan Pompe

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 work lifting the parcel of air from the surface.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

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 work lifting the parcel of air from the surface.

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

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 work lifting the parcel of air from the surface.

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

BPL #136

You don’t really understand the virial theorem. It has everything to do with how KE and PE change as particles or or parcels move through a power (in this case gravity) field.

• Jan Pompe

BPL #136

You don’t really understand the virial theorem. It has everything to do with how KE and PE change as particles or or parcels move through a power (in this case gravity) field.

• Franko

“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

“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

#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 using
U_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

#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 using
U_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

#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

#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

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

# 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

# 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

#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 represented by 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 not in 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

#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 represented by 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 not in 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

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 representative of 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

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 representative of 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

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

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

#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 average altitude 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:

• Neal J. King

#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 average altitude 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:

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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

#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

#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/e23
10 -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

#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/e23
10 -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

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

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 ?

• http://www.econegineers.com Steve Short

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)?

• http://www.econegineers.com Steve Short

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

From Wikipedia: NRLMSISE-00 __ standard atmosphere chart plots density and temperature against altitude. Best empirical KE/PE derived from this source ?

• Franko

From Wikipedia: NRLMSISE-00 __ standard atmosphere chart plots density and temperature against altitude. Best empirical KE/PE derived from this source ?

• Neal J. King

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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
• http://landshape.org/enm davids
• Neal J. King

#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 actual Earth, 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

#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 actual Earth, 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

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

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

#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

#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

“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

“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

“factor of 2″ for a gravity system.
Other virial systems , without the constant G, other constant fudged to 2

• Franko

“factor of 2″ for a gravity system.
Other virial systems , without the constant G, other constant fudged to 2

• Neal J. King

#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.

• Neal J. King

#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.

• Franko

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Molecule, photon, temperature radiating, twice momentum recoil against surface than to space. — However, energy, via photon escape recoil, boils off to space

• Franko

Molecule, photon, temperature radiating, twice momentum recoil against surface than to space. — However, energy, via photon escape recoil, boils off to space

• Jan Pompe

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

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

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

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

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

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

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

f 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.

I don’t think there’s much convection in the stratosphere.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

f you have radiation due to kinetic energy at the top air will sink until new balance is achieved warmer parcel rises to take itâ€™s place.

I don’t think there’s much convection in the stratosphere.

• Jan Pompe

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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

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 effectively collocated 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

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 effectively collocated 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

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

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

#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

#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

Franko #186

I like the explanation of John Baez where he says

assumption 2 is usually not quite true! … Then we’ll approximately get {T} = -{V}/2.

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

Franko #186

I like the explanation of John Baez where he says

assumption 2 is usually not quite true! … Then we’ll approximately get {T} = -{V}/2.

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

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

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

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

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

Neal #190

What is your problem with this?

• Jan Pompe

Neal #190

What is your problem with this?

• Franko

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

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 ?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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.”

?????

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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

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

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

#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

#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…

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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

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?

• http://landshape.org/enm davids

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

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

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

# 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

# 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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Hi Ferenc

Thank you (and to Jan). Very interesting!

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Hi Ferenc

Thank you (and to Jan). Very interesting!

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

It does in star interiors where radiation pressure prevents further collapse

Hydrodynamic pressure. Radiation pressure is secondary at best. Check A.C. Phillips “The Physics of Stars” (1994) or a similar work.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

It does in star interiors where radiation pressure prevents further collapse

Hydrodynamic pressure. Radiation pressure is secondary at best. Check A.C. Phillips “The Physics of Stars” (1994) or a similar work.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short posts:

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.

Steve, did you actually read the paper? The deep convection in question is not taking place in the stratosphere.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short posts:

Regarding the stratosphere, convection and the true PE/KE ratio :

â€œRecent observations reported in the literature have provoked renewed interest in the effects of deep convection on the water content of the stratosphere.

Steve, did you actually read the paper? The deep convection in question is not taking place in the stratosphere.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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
• Jan Pompe
• Jan Pompe

Correction to 204

Someone else disagrees with you for stars near Eddington luminosity.

• Jan Pompe

Correction to 204

Someone else disagrees with you for stars near Eddington luminosity.

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

# 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

# 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

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

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

#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 near 2.

• Neal J. King

#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 near 2.

• Jan Pompe

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 yourself why the way you have done things doesn’t .

• Jan Pompe

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 yourself why the way you have done things doesn’t .

• Jan Pompe

Ferenc #206

A couple of quetions re:

Even 1.5 m altitude makes a lot of difference in tau(z). … Jan measurements will probably give us the details of these profiles.

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

Ferenc #206

A couple of quetions re:

Even 1.5 m altitude makes a lot of difference in tau(z). … Jan measurements will probably give us the details of these profiles.

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

Someone else disagrees with you for stars near Eddington luminosity.

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

Someone else disagrees with you for stars near Eddington luminosity.

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

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.

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

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.

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

# 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

# 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

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

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

Ferenc #213

Thanks.

• Jan Pompe

Ferenc #213

Thanks.

• Jan Pompe

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

“been going up at about 0.9 mm/year,”
Apparently not in the mid to upper troposphere

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

â€œbeen going up at about 0.9 mm/year,â€
Apparently not in the mid to upper troposphere

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

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

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

(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

(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

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

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

#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

#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

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

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

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

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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

#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 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.

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

#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 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.

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

#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

#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

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.”

Ferenc gave it the coup de grace in 123, 125 and 132.

• Jan Pompe

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.”

Ferenc gave it the coup de grace in 123, 125 and 132.

• Franko

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

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

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

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

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

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 “

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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).

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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).

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Sorry: that was ‘ON’ sulfuric acid aerosols.

Better watch out for lurking chemists before rushing to the keyboard…

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Sorry: that was ‘ON’ sulfuric acid aerosols.

Better watch out for lurking chemists before rushing to the keyboard…

• Neal J. King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#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

#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

Some want to “terraform” Mars by adding “super” greenhouse SF6 gas.
Any guesses to the effects ?

• Franko

Some want to “terraform” Mars by adding “super” greenhouse SF6 gas.
Any guesses to the effects ?

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

# 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

# 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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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

#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….

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

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

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

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

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

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. .

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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

#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

#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

#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

If we add same number of SF6 molecules, as the CO2 number.
What final CO2 % remains, increase in surface T ?

• Franko

If we add same number of SF6 molecules, as the CO2 number.
What final CO2 % remains, increase in surface T ?

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

# 256 Franko

Tis may be computed from the
Fo=OLR, Su=3OLR/(2+Ta), and Su=3Eu/(2*(1-Ta)) equations…

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

# 256 Franko

Tis may be computed from the
Fo=OLR, Su=3OLR/(2+Ta), and Su=3Eu/(2*(1-Ta)) equations…

• Franko

Mars minimum = -140° C
SF6 Melting point = −64 °C
CO2 Melting point= −56.6°C

No luck for the Terraformers.
Bouncing slowly, seasonnlly, one pole to another ?

• Franko

Mars minimum = -140Â° C
SF6 Melting point = âˆ’64 Â°C
CO2 Melting point= âˆ’56.6Â°C

No luck for the Terraformers.
Bouncing slowly, seasonnlly, one pole to another ?

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

If we add same number of SF6 molecules, as the CO2 number.
What final CO2 % remains, increase in surface T ?

All of it, unless you know of some mechanism by which sulfur hexafluoride can displace carbon dioxide.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

If we add same number of SF6 molecules, as the CO2 number.
What final CO2 % remains, increase in surface T ?

All of it, unless you know of some mechanism by which sulfur hexafluoride can displace carbon dioxide.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

And you might want to google “Faint Young Sun problem.”

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://members.aol.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

And you might want to google “Faint Young Sun problem.”

• Franko

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

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

– 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

– 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.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“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.”

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

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.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

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.

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

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

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

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

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 ?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short
• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short
• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

#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

#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# 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

# 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

For the PE/KE integral, is the zero PE set at the surface ?
Where a completely dead atmosphere would rest ?

• Franko

For the PE/KE integral, is the zero PE set at the surface ?
Where a completely dead atmosphere would rest ?

• Franko

For the Kirchoff Law;
Color version absorbing and Black and White version radiating,
to discount the color change during thermalization ?

• Franko

For the Kirchoff Law;
Color version absorbing and Black and White version radiating,
to discount the color change during thermalization ?

• pochas

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

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

#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

#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

Ferenc, #281

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.

So are we all :- it has given some of us new insights and all of us something to exercise our minds:)

• Jan Pompe

Ferenc, #281

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.

So are we all :- it has given some of us new insights and all of us something to exercise our minds:)

• pochas

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

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

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

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

Something that I posted on the CA Message Board that might have some relevance here:

• jae

Something that I posted on the CA Message Board that might have some relevance here:

• Franko

#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

#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

#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

#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)….

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae posts:

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. “

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae posts:

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. â€œ

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

# 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

# 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

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

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

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

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 ?

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

Surface can only cool by non-radiative processes…..

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

Surface can only cool by non-radiative processesâ€¦..

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

#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

#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

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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

#295 Alex Harvey;
The purpose here is to learn.
Not to stop the reasioning process by the logical fallacy of appeal to authority

• Franko

#295 Alex Harvey;
The purpose here is to learn.
Not to stop the reasioning process by the logical fallacy of appeal to authority

• Anonymous

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.

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

“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

“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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

I am curios about the 10 micron window. If we plugged it with SF6; could we stop the next Ice Age ?

We have already stopped the next ice age.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

I am curios about the 10 micron window. If we plugged it with SF6; could we stop the next Ice Age ?

We have already stopped the next ice age.

• Franko

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

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

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

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

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

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

#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

#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

Franko # 304:

Thanks; you’re preaching to the choir here.

• Alex Harvey

Franko # 304:

Thanks; you’re preaching to the choir here.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

Then you don’t believe (or understand) my 285, eh?

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

Then you donâ€™t believe (or understand) my 285, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

Miskolczi needs a slogan;

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

Miskolczi needs a slogan;

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

#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

#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

#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

#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

Ferenc: You should put up a website with a “tip jar,” like Steve Mc did. I would gladly contribute.

• jae

Ferenc: You should put up a website with a “tip jar,” like Steve Mc did. I would gladly contribute.

• Jan Pompe

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

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

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.

• http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

The problem is similar to force more co2 into the Martian atmosphere – while it likes the amount it has now….

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

The problem is similar to force more co2 into the Martian atmosphere – while it likes the amount it has nowâ€¦.

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

#315 BPL

We are talking about long time global averages….

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#315 BPL

We are talking about long time global averages….

• Jan Pompe

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

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.”

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.”

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

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

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.

• http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

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.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg

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.

• http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

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.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg

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

“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 “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

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

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

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

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

“Congratulations Ferenec.”
High personal price, we can all surmise.
When is NASA going to admit wrong ?
Re-instate Miskolczi’s passwords and priviledges ?

• Franko

“Congratulations Ferenec.”
High personal price, we can all surmise.
When is NASA going to admit wrong ?
Re-instate Miskolczi’s passwords and priviledges ?

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Ken Gregory writes:

as CO2 increases, water vapour decreases.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Ken Gregory writes:

as CO2 increases, water vapour decreases.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

eilert writes:

We should all congratulate Ferenc Miskolczi’s for the DISCOVERY of the “Greenhouse Warming Equilibrium” through empirical observation and his attempt to explain it.

Why congratulate him for a “DISCOVERY” of something that doesn’t really exist?

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.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

eilert writes:

We should all congratulate Ferenc Miskolcziâ€™s for the DISCOVERY of the â€œGreenhouse Warming Equilibriumâ€ through empirical observation and his attempt to explain it.

Why congratulate him for a “DISCOVERY” of something that doesn’t really exist?

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.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

eilert writes:

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),

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.

so that living beings can actually survey on this planet. It is actually very stable at that level, despite some fluctuations.

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.

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.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

eilert writes:

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),

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.

so that living beings can actually survey on this planet. It is actually very stable at that level, despite some fluctuations.

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.

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.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

When is NASA going to admit wrong ?
Re-instate Miskolczi’s passwords and priviledges ?

How about “never?” Does “never” work for you?

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

When is NASA going to admit wrong ?
Re-instate Miskolcziâ€™s passwords and priviledges ?

How about “never?” Does “never” work for you?

• Franko

#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

#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

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

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

#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

#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

#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

#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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

jae #336

That 255 K calculation is just plain silly. It treats the earth as it would the moon, with no atmosphere or water.

more precisely it’s just an inconsistent model: it includes opposition (albedo) to incoming to no opposition (nonsense) for outgoing.

• Jan Pompe

jae #336

That 255 K calculation is just plain silly. It treats the earth as it would the moon, with no atmosphere or water.

more precisely it’s just an inconsistent model: it includes opposition (albedo) to incoming to no opposition (nonsense) for outgoing.

• Alex Harvey

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

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

“â€¦ scientific consensus ” — stories of accidents, tales of horror, even happy events — near the end of our attention horizon , morph into jokes.

• Franko

“… scientific consensus ” — stories of accidents, tales of horror, even happy events — near the end of our attention horizon , morph into jokes.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

James writes:

Since radiative effects are mostly irrelevant for lower troposphere, the SH increase there is also irrelevant.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

James writes:

Since radiative effects are mostly irrelevant for lower troposphere, the SH increase there is also irrelevant.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

Optical depth is a function of various fluctuating things. But they all add up as w/m^2 flux, a proxy for solar radiation.

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).

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

Optical depth is a function of various fluctuating things. But they all add up as w/m^2 flux, a proxy for solar radiation.

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).

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

That 255 K calculation is just plain silly. It treats the earth as it would the moon, with no atmosphere or water.

It’s not silly at all. It’s the temperature a satellite would actually measure at some distance from the Earth.

The atmosphere and water store a lot of heat, which can easily explain the 288 K.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

That 255 K calculation is just plain silly. It treats the earth as it would the moon, with no atmosphere or water.

It’s not silly at all. It’s the temperature a satellite would actually measure at some distance from the Earth.

The atmosphere and water store a lot of heat, which can easily explain the 288 K.

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

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

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

“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

“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

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

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

Franko #346

We have an optical depth at the bottom, and another optical depth at the top. The two have different composition, density, and temperature.

Semi-infinite hypothesis is that its infinite at the bottom zero (not finite) at the top. The effective truth must be somewhere between.

• Jan Pompe

Franko #346

We have an optical depth at the bottom, and another optical depth at the top. The two have different composition, density, and temperature.

Semi-infinite hypothesis is that its infinite at the bottom zero (not finite) at the top. The effective truth must be somewhere between.

• Jan Pompe

oops

• Jan Pompe

oops

• James

#341

Since radiative effects are mostly irrelevant for lower troposphere, the SH increase there is also irrelevant.

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.

Agree.

But isn’t the crux issue what altitude photons are emitted to space, not where they are first absorbed?

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

#341

Since radiative effects are mostly irrelevant for lower troposphere, the SH increase there is also irrelevant.

Irrelevant for the lower troposphere??? You have to be kidding. Thatâ€™s where most absorption of 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 emitted to space, not where they are first absorbed?

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

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

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

#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

#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…

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

We have an optical depth at the bottom, and another optical depth at the top. The two have different composition, density, and temperature.

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

We have an optical depth at the bottom, and another optical depth at the top. The two have different composition, density, and temperature.

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

#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/

#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/

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

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

Ocean levels, water vapor, glaciers, CO2, temperatures, barometers. How accurately can the interactions be modeled ? Anyone run a multiple correlation ?

• Franko

Ocean levels, water vapor, glaciers, CO2, temperatures, barometers. How accurately can the interactions be modeled ? Anyone run a multiple correlation ?

• James

#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

#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

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

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

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

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?

• jae

BPL:
“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”

No, I’m not confusing energy with power. You can easily convert between them. The surface and the atmosphere, indeed, radiate. But they radiate, on average, the same as they receive. That’s the equilibrium. The temperature drops at night, but it goes back up in the day. You are not saying anything about how much heat is stored in the system. If stored energy goes away very quickly, then the atmosphere would be lying on the ground and the oceans would be solid ice (i.e., there would be no kinetic and potential energy in the system).

• jae

BPL:
“jae, youâ€™re still confusing energy with power. Earthâ€™s surface is 288 K compared to 254 K for the r.e. temperature because of the greenhouse effect, not because of â€œstored energy.â€ Stored energy would go away very quickly. Thatâ€™s why the temperature drops at night. The surface and the atmosphere radiate”

No, I’m not confusing energy with power. You can easily convert between them. The surface and the atmosphere, indeed, radiate. But they radiate, on average, the same as they receive. That’s the equilibrium. The temperature drops at night, but it goes back up in the day. You are not saying anything about how much heat is stored in the system. If stored energy goes away very quickly, then the atmosphere would be lying on the ground and the oceans would be solid ice (i.e., there would be no kinetic and potential energy in the system).

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae, still not getting it, writes:

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?

Of course it is. But my point was that, if the surface temperature was due merely to stored energy, it would not be. Without greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth, given the same albedo, would be 255 K, not 288 K, and “stored energy” has nothing to do with it.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae, still not getting it, writes:

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, thatâ€™s a pretty good match between power out and power in, eh?

Of course it is. But my point was that, if the surface temperature was due merely to stored energy, it would not be. Without greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth, given the same albedo, would be 255 K, not 288 K, and “stored energy” has nothing to do with it.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae, STILL not getting it, writes:

No, I’m not confusing energy with power. You can easily convert between them. The surface and the atmosphere, indeed, radiate. But they radiate, on average, the same as they receive. That’s the equilibrium. The temperature drops at night, but it goes back up in the day.

My point was that stored energy leaves the system quickly.

You are not saying anything about how much heat is stored in the system. If stored energy goes away very quickly, then the atmosphere would be lying on the ground and the oceans would be solid ice (i.e., there would be no kinetic and potential energy in the system).

No, you’re still not getting it. It isn’t stored energy that keeps the Earth’s surface warm, it’s the greenhouse effect. The Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is only 255 K. With the albedo of the Moon (0.11 according to Bonnie Buratti and her team) it would be 271 K — still below freezing.

Why do you think the Moon’s temperature is exactly its radiative equilibrium temperature? (Hint — think about the Moon’s atmosphere.)

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae, STILL not getting it, writes:

No, Iâ€™m not confusing energy with power. You can easily convert between them. The surface and the atmosphere, indeed, radiate. But they radiate, on average, the same as they receive. Thatâ€™s the equilibrium. The temperature drops at night, but it goes back up in the day.

My point was that stored energy leaves the system quickly.

You are not saying anything about how much heat is stored in the system. If stored energy goes away very quickly, then the atmosphere would be lying on the ground and the oceans would be solid ice (i.e., there would be no kinetic and potential energy in the system).

No, you’re still not getting it. It isn’t stored energy that keeps the Earth’s surface warm, it’s the greenhouse effect. The Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is only 255 K. With the albedo of the Moon (0.11 according to Bonnie Buratti and her team) it would be 271 K — still below freezing.

Why do you think the Moon’s temperature is exactly its radiative equilibrium temperature? (Hint — think about the Moon’s atmosphere.)

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

By the way, did anyone notice that if jae’s theory is correct, Miskolczi’s must be wrong, since FM at least acknowledges that there is a greenhouse effect and tries to model it. But neither Alex nor Jan nor FM has spoken up to point this out. Hmm… it’s almost as if they didn’t understand what the thread was about. Or maybe they’re just determined not to say anything disagreeing with a fellow AGW skeptic. “No enemies on the Left.”

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

By the way, did anyone notice that if jae’s theory is correct, Miskolczi’s must be wrong, since FM at least acknowledges that there is a greenhouse effect and tries to model it. But neither Alex nor Jan nor FM has spoken up to point this out. Hmm… it’s almost as if they didn’t understand what the thread was about. Or maybe they’re just determined not to say anything disagreeing with a fellow AGW skeptic. “No enemies on the Left.”

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan — maybe the discrepancy comes about because you’re looking at one layer of the atmosphere and I’m looking at the whole atmosphere? Water vapor is up, not down. Deal with it.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan — maybe the discrepancy comes about because you’re looking at one layer of the atmosphere and I’m looking at the whole atmosphere? Water vapor is up, not down. Deal with it.

• Alex Harvey

BPL # 365:

I would be very interested indeed to see your plots of the humidity anomaly, or the flux optical depth anomaly, using transparent calculations, a radiative transfer code of your own choosing, and the data Ken Gregory compiled from the NOAA archive. Or perhaps you’d like to make a case for why we shouldn’t be using this data. Pochas made an interesting post above supporting the virial & Kirchhoff laws, and you have ignored that. I’m still puzzled as to why you’re claiming that H2O has risen for the “past several decades,” apparently on the basis of the 13 years of data from the Brown et al. (2007) study that you keep citing. I asked once before why you regard Kiehl & Trenberth’s 1997 energy budget so highly, given that they reduced the measured H2O amount by 12%. Unfortunately, you’ve refused to comment on all of this. As for your fight with jae, I haven’t been following it. Is this the right thread?

• Alex Harvey

BPL # 365:

I would be very interested indeed to see your plots of the humidity anomaly, or the flux optical depth anomaly, using transparent calculations, a radiative transfer code of your own choosing, and the data Ken Gregory compiled from the NOAA archive. Or perhaps you’d like to make a case for why we shouldn’t be using this data. Pochas made an interesting post above supporting the virial & Kirchhoff laws, and you have ignored that. I’m still puzzled as to why you’re claiming that H2O has risen for the “past several decades,” apparently on the basis of the 13 years of data from the Brown et al. (2007) study that you keep citing. I asked once before why you regard Kiehl & Trenberth’s 1997 energy budget so highly, given that they reduced the measured H2O amount by 12%. Unfortunately, you’ve refused to comment on all of this. As for your fight with jae, I haven’t been following it. Is this the right thread?

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#365 BPL

I am still here, but not much to comment on simple facts…I never measured the global average h2o column amount. NOAA has the resources to re-evalute the global radiosonde network data for the last 60 years and come up with reasonable annual global mean values….

Somehow I trust more in the radiosonde observations of the tropospheric h2o. At NASA we used to validate satellite measurements with radiosonde observations….

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#365 BPL

I am still here, but not much to comment on simple facts…I never measured the global average h2o column amount. NOAA has the resources to re-evalute the global radiosonde network data for the last 60 years and come up with reasonable annual global mean values….

Somehow I trust more in the radiosonde observations of the tropospheric h2o. At NASA we used to validate satellite measurements with radiosonde observations….

• jae

BPL: I think it is you who doesn’t “get it,” but oh, well. I won’t interrupt this great discussion with my “craziness” anymore. BTW, somehow, I think my ideas are completely compatible with Miscolczi’s. The radiation measurements have to indicate what is going on; I just wonder about cause/effect.

• jae

BPL: I think it is you who doesn’t “get it,” but oh, well. I won’t interrupt this great discussion with my “craziness” anymore. BTW, somehow, I think my ideas are completely compatible with Miscolczi’s. The radiation measurements have to indicate what is going on; I just wonder about cause/effect.

• Jan Pompe

BPL #366

NOAA radiosonde data covers the whole atmospheric profile.

I’m still wondering how you get several decades out of 13 years.

As for jae & BPL I think they are at cross purposes, I’m not at all sure they are each talking about the same thing.

Jae “I just wonder about cause/effect.” most of us do I don’t think that is entirely settled at all but for the popular media.

• Jan Pompe

BPL #366

NOAA radiosonde data covers the whole atmospheric profile.

I’m still wondering how you get several decades out of 13 years.

As for jae & BPL I think they are at cross purposes, I’m not at all sure they are each talking about the same thing.

Jae “I just wonder about cause/effect.” most of us do I don’t think that is entirely settled at all but for the popular media.

• Franko

We need a Barton Paul Levenson section — he is quite good at looking things up. Does not miss much. No stone left unturned.

Barton, how do you convert, back and forth, mean free path and optical depth ? Variables like density, temperature, gravity, etc.. I am trying to figure out how to stuff a photon into kinematic theory.

• Franko

We need a Barton Paul Levenson section — he is quite good at looking things up. Does not miss much. No stone left unturned.

Barton, how do you convert, back and forth, mean free path and optical depth ? Variables like density, temperature, gravity, etc.. I am trying to figure out how to stuff a photon into kinematic theory.

• jae

Franko: here’s a good discussion of the relationships: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/optd/optd.html

• jae

Franko: here’s a good discussion of the relationships: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/optd/optd.html

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

The discussion herein concerning SH and RH in the atmosphere is symptomatic of the general confusion that reigns in science regarding the so-called effects of increasing CO2 on the hydrologial cycle and hence on the average optical depth of the atmosphere. And this is not to even consider the contrasts between the various drivers on the atmosphere over continents versus those over the oceans!

The following (presented late 2004 at the workshop in Canberra for which I have previously posted the entire .pdf web reference) reflects how confused the AGW orthodoxy is also about the effect of increased CO2 on the the optical depth of the atmosphere (and everything which flows from that):

‘Discussion

As in numerous greenhouse gas model-experiments, tropospheric temperatures increase everywhere in these simulations. The strongest warming is found in the upper tropical troposphere, extending into the Southern Hemisphere, and also at high latitudes. The specific humidity follows the general temperature increase as implied by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. The temperature increase is somewhat reduced at the surface where the direct aerosol effect and the cloud feedback is largest. Evaporation is reduced in these areas as well. While the second indirect effect suppresses drizzle formation and reduces precipitation efficiency. An increase in liquid water content of clouds is associated with the enhanced atmospheric moisture and the second indirect aerosol effect. The cloud coverage itself stays constant but the clouds hold more water. These clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. In summary, all these processes increase the atmospheric moisture storage while reducing the moisture fluxes into and out of the atmosphere. It is worth emphasising that the increase in moisture storage is a result of the increased holding capacity of the atmosphere and not a result of the increased fluxes from and to the storage. Douville et al. (12) defines the water vapour residence time (total water vapour content divided by precipitation rate) as a measure for the turnover time of the hydrological cycle. This time increases from 10 to 10.5 days in our experiment. Most greenhouse gas simulations produce an increase in the atmospheric storage and slightly longer residence times of water vapour but with an intensification of the hydrological cycle (higher precipitation and evaporation rates). Although, as shown by Roeckner et al. (5) already, the introduction of the first indirect aerosol effect (cloud albedo effect) can flip the changes in the hydrological cycle from intensifying to dampening.

Summary

Surface observations show puzzling evidence of reduced surface solar radiation, reduced potential evaporation and global temperature rise in the decades between 1950 and 1990. In principle, global warming acts on the entire troposphere whereas the hydrological cycle is governed by near-surface processes. Based on climate simulations with the general circulation model of the Max-Planck Institute in Hamburg it is suggested that the interaction of greenhouse gas forcing and aerosol effects on clouds can explain this paradox. Greenhouse gases warm the troposphere and lead to an increase in the holding capacity of moisture in the atmosphere. The residence time of water vapour increases by half a day, whereas the associated cloud and water vapour feedbacks plus the aerosol effects reduce the solar radiation at the surface so effectively that the greenhouse effect at the surface is overcompensated. Hence the net surface energy budget is balanced at a higher surface temperature but at the cost of reduced sensible and latent heat fluxes. Consequently evaporation and precipitation (also due to second indirect aerosol effect) is reduced and the water cycle is dampened in a warmer and moister world.

References

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Scientific Basis, 105pp. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 105 (2001) 2. B. Liepert, Observed reductions in surface solar radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, (2002). 3. G. Stanhill, S. Cohen, Global dimming a review of the evidence for a widespread nd significant reduction in global radiation with disscussion of the probable causes and possible agricultural consequences. Agric. For. Meteorol. 107 (2001). 4. H. Gilgen, M. Wild, A. Ohmura, Means and trends of shortwave irradiance at the surface estimated from global energy balance archive data. J. Climate 11, 2042 (1998). 5. E. Roeckner, L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, H. Rodhe, Transient climate simulations with coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle. J. Climate 12, 3004 (1999). 6. M. L. Roderick, D. Farquhar, The cause of decreased pan evaporation over the past 50 years. Science 298, 1410 (2002). 7. A. Robock et al., The global soil moisture data bank. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 81, 1281 (2000). 8. G. M. Abakumova, E. M. Feigelson, V. Russak, V. V. Stadnik, Evaluation of longterm changes in radiation, cloudiness, and surface temperature on the territory of the former Soviet Union. J. Climate 9, 1319 (1996). 9. D. R. Easterling et al., Observed climate variability and change of relevance to the biosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 20101 (2000). 10. J. Feichter, E. Roeckner, U. Lohmann , B. Liepert, Nonlinear aspects of the climate response to greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing. J. Climate, Vol. 17, 12, 2384-98 (2004). 11. H. Douville, F. Chauvin, J.-F. Royer, D. Salas-Melia, S. Tyteca, Sensitivity of the hydrological cycles to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Climate Dynamics 20, (2002). 12. Liepert BG, Feichter J, Lohmann U, Roeckner E (2004) Can aerosols spin down the water cycle in a warmer and moister world? Geophysical Research Letters 31 (6): Art. No. L06207 MAR 19 2004. 66

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

The discussion herein concerning SH and RH in the atmosphere is symptomatic of the general confusion that reigns in science regarding the so-called effects of increasing CO2 on the hydrologial cycle and hence on the average optical depth of the atmosphere. And this is not to even consider the contrasts between the various drivers on the atmosphere over continents versus those over the oceans!

The following (presented late 2004 at the workshop in Canberra for which I have previously posted the entire .pdf web reference) reflects how confused the AGW orthodoxy is also about the effect of increased CO2 on the the optical depth of the atmosphere (and everything which flows from that):

‘Discussion

As in numerous greenhouse gas model-experiments, tropospheric temperatures increase everywhere in these simulations. The strongest warming is found in the upper tropical troposphere, extending into the Southern Hemisphere, and also at high latitudes. The specific humidity follows the general temperature increase as implied by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. The temperature increase is somewhat reduced at the surface where the direct aerosol effect and the cloud feedback is largest. Evaporation is reduced in these areas as well. While the second indirect effect suppresses drizzle formation and reduces precipitation efficiency. An increase in liquid water content of clouds is associated with the enhanced atmospheric moisture and the second indirect aerosol effect. The cloud coverage itself stays constant but the clouds hold more water. These clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. In summary, all these processes increase the atmospheric moisture storage while reducing the moisture fluxes into and out of the atmosphere. It is worth emphasising that the increase in moisture storage is a result of the increased holding capacity of the atmosphere and not a result of the increased fluxes from and to the storage. Douville et al. (12) defines the water vapour residence time (total water vapour content divided by precipitation rate) as a measure for the turnover time of the hydrological cycle. This time increases from 10 to 10.5 days in our experiment. Most greenhouse gas simulations produce an increase in the atmospheric storage and slightly longer residence times of water vapour but with an intensification of the hydrological cycle (higher precipitation and evaporation rates). Although, as shown by Roeckner et al. (5) already, the introduction of the first indirect aerosol effect (cloud albedo effect) can flip the changes in the hydrological cycle from intensifying to dampening.

Summary

Surface observations show puzzling evidence of reduced surface solar radiation, reduced potential evaporation and global temperature rise in the decades between 1950 and 1990. In principle, global warming acts on the entire troposphere whereas the hydrological cycle is governed by near-surface processes. Based on climate simulations with the general circulation model of the Max-Planck Institute in Hamburg it is suggested that the interaction of greenhouse gas forcing and aerosol effects on clouds can explain this paradox. Greenhouse gases warm the troposphere and lead to an increase in the holding capacity of moisture in the atmosphere. The residence time of water vapour increases by half a day, whereas the associated cloud and water vapour feedbacks plus the aerosol effects reduce the solar radiation at the surface so effectively that the greenhouse effect at the surface is overcompensated. Hence the net surface energy budget is balanced at a higher surface temperature but at the cost of reduced sensible and latent heat fluxes. Consequently evaporation and precipitation (also due to second indirect aerosol effect) is reduced and the water cycle is dampened in a warmer and moister world.

References

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Scientific Basis, 105pp. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 105 (2001) 2. B. Liepert, Observed reductions in surface solar radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, (2002). 3. G. Stanhill, S. Cohen, Global dimming a review of the evidence for a widespread nd significant reduction in global radiation with disscussion of the probable causes and possible agricultural consequences. Agric. For. Meteorol. 107 (2001). 4. H. Gilgen, M. Wild, A. Ohmura, Means and trends of shortwave irradiance at the surface estimated from global energy balance archive data. J. Climate 11, 2042 (1998). 5. E. Roeckner, L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, H. Rodhe, Transient climate simulations with coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle. J. Climate 12, 3004 (1999). 6. M. L. Roderick, D. Farquhar, The cause of decreased pan evaporation over the past 50 years. Science 298, 1410 (2002). 7. A. Robock et al., The global soil moisture data bank. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 81, 1281 (2000). 8. G. M. Abakumova, E. M. Feigelson, V. Russak, V. V. Stadnik, Evaluation of longterm changes in radiation, cloudiness, and surface temperature on the territory of the former Soviet Union. J. Climate 9, 1319 (1996). 9. D. R. Easterling et al., Observed climate variability and change of relevance to the biosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 20101 (2000). 10. J. Feichter, E. Roeckner, U. Lohmann , B. Liepert, Nonlinear aspects of the climate response to greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing. J. Climate, Vol. 17, 12, 2384-98 (2004). 11. H. Douville, F. Chauvin, J.-F. Royer, D. Salas-Melia, S. Tyteca, Sensitivity of the hydrological cycles to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Climate Dynamics 20, (2002). 12. Liepert BG, Feichter J, Lohmann U, Roeckner E (2004) Can aerosols spin down the water cycle in a warmer and moister world? Geophysical Research Letters 31 (6): Art. No. L06207 MAR 19 2004. 66

• Barton Paul Levenson

Alex writes:

I’m still puzzled as to why you’re claiming that H2O has risen for the “past several decades,” apparently on the basis of the 13 years of data from the Brown et al. (2007) study that you keep citing.

Try using as an end point Seller’s canonical 1965 value for global mean annual precipitable water of 24.5mm (as I recall).

• Barton Paul Levenson

Alex writes:

Iâ€™m still puzzled as to why youâ€™re claiming that H2O has risen for the â€œpast several decades,â€ apparently on the basis of the 13 years of data from the Brown et al. (2007) study that you keep citing.

Try using as an end point Seller’s canonical 1965 value for global mean annual precipitable water of 24.5mm (as I recall).

• Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

I think my ideas are completely compatible with Miscolczi’s.

You say there IS NOT a greenhouse effect.
Miskolczi (and everybody else in the world) says there IS a greenhouse effect.
How are these positions “completely compatible?”

• Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

I think my ideas are completely compatible with Miscolcziâ€™s.

You say there IS NOT a greenhouse effect.
Miskolczi (and everybody else in the world) says there IS a greenhouse effect.
How are these positions “completely compatible?”

• Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short — did you use the term “AGW orthodoxy” in your presentation? Just wondering.

• Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short — did you use the term “AGW orthodoxy” in your presentation? Just wondering.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#376

“Steve Short — did you use the term “AGW orthodoxy” in your presentation? Just wondering.”

What presentation? I did not attend the late 2004 workshop – although I use evaporation and ET (in their various parametric forms) a lot in small catchment hydrogeologic modeling. Hence my interest.

Wondering about what? As you will have noticed I only post here occasionally and only when I think I have something valid to contribute. You might also concede I try hard to avoid any non-scientific insinuations.

I submit the term ‘AGW orthodoxy’ is a mild and fair term to describe the body of scientists who operate most GCMs and essentially contribute-to, and concur with, the ‘consensus’ IPCC position.

FYI, I accept the concept of AGW. I just have misgivings about the ‘ground truth’ of the whole GCM model framework and the resulting conclusions about likely CO2 sensitivity over the intermediate and longer term. Hence Miskolczi etc….

At this point in time I am interested in the following fact (for obvious reasons) and would value your interpretation of it.

Numerous studies have shown that at individual sites, there have been both increases and decreases in (land based) pan evaporation over the last 50 years.

However, when averaged over many pans, there has been a consistent trend for a decline in pan evaporation in many parts of the northern hemisphere. The rate of the decline is typically about 2 to 4 mm a-2, e.g. throughout the US and former USSR (Golubev et al., 2001; Peterson et al., 1995) and China (Liu et al., 2004) amongst other places.

The first review from the southern hemisphere reported an averaged rate of decline of about 3 mm a-2 for the period 1975-2002 across 61 pans scattered throughout Australia (Roderick & Farquhar, 2004). This latter study also suggested that many of the expected changes from GCM modeling (e.g. increases in runoff and soil moisture) were already being observed around the world. This latter study was also the reason for the late 2004 Canberra, Australia workshop.

A critical scientific question is why is pan evaporation decreasing worldwide when we know (believe?) that the air temperature near the surface, has on average, increased?

It has previously been argued that in arid climates (like most of Australia), declining pan evaporation usually means increasing local actual evaporation (i.e. evaporation from the environment around the pan) (Brutsaert & Parlange, 1998).

Roderick and Farquhar showed (at the late 2004 workshop) that at many arid sites, years with high rainfall tend to have low pan evaporation and vice versa which is consistent with this idea because in arid climates, years with high rainfall are usually years with high actual evaporation.

However, they also showed that increasing rainfall cannot adequately explain the long term pan evaporation trend because there are many sites with decreases in pan evaporation, but decreases in rainfall as well.

Roderick and Farquhar conclude that the pan evaporation trends were generally consistent with the trends in the underlying meteorological variables (sunlight, VPD, wind speed) at the five (Australian and New Zealand) sites they examined.

Most importantly, they also conclude that a change in rainfall is not by itself sufficient to explain the long term declines in pan evaporation.

This is the key issue. Comments?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#376

“Steve Short â€” did you use the term â€œAGW orthodoxyâ€ in your presentation? Just wondering.”

What presentation? I did not attend the late 2004 workshop – although I use evaporation and ET (in their various parametric forms) a lot in small catchment hydrogeologic modeling. Hence my interest.

Wondering about what? As you will have noticed I only post here occasionally and only when I think I have something valid to contribute. You might also concede I try hard to avoid any non-scientific insinuations.

I submit the term ‘AGW orthodoxy’ is a mild and fair term to describe the body of scientists who operate most GCMs and essentially contribute-to, and concur with, the ‘consensus’ IPCC position.

FYI, I accept the concept of AGW. I just have misgivings about the ‘ground truth’ of the whole GCM model framework and the resulting conclusions about likely CO2 sensitivity over the intermediate and longer term. Hence Miskolczi etc….

At this point in time I am interested in the following fact (for obvious reasons) and would value your interpretation of it.

Numerous studies have shown that at individual sites, there have been both increases and decreases in (land based) pan evaporation over the last 50 years.

However, when averaged over many pans, there has been a consistent trend for a decline in pan evaporation in many parts of the northern hemisphere. The rate of the decline is typically about 2 to 4 mm a-2, e.g. throughout the US and former USSR (Golubev et al., 2001; Peterson et al., 1995) and China (Liu et al., 2004) amongst other places.

The first review from the southern hemisphere reported an averaged rate of decline of about 3 mm a-2 for the period 1975-2002 across 61 pans scattered throughout Australia (Roderick & Farquhar, 2004). This latter study also suggested that many of the expected changes from GCM modeling (e.g. increases in runoff and soil moisture) were already being observed around the world. This latter study was also the reason for the late 2004 Canberra, Australia workshop.

A critical scientific question is why is pan evaporation decreasing worldwide when we know (believe?) that the air temperature near the surface, has on average, increased?

It has previously been argued that in arid climates (like most of Australia), declining pan evaporation usually means increasing local actual evaporation (i.e. evaporation from the environment around the pan) (Brutsaert & Parlange, 1998).

Roderick and Farquhar showed (at the late 2004 workshop) that at many arid sites, years with high rainfall tend to have low pan evaporation and vice versa which is consistent with this idea because in arid climates, years with high rainfall are usually years with high actual evaporation.

However, they also showed that increasing rainfall cannot adequately explain the long term pan evaporation trend because there are many sites with decreases in pan evaporation, but decreases in rainfall as well.

Roderick and Farquhar conclude that the pan evaporation trends were generally consistent with the trends in the underlying meteorological variables (sunlight, VPD, wind speed) at the five (Australian and New Zealand) sites they examined.

Most importantly, they also conclude that a change in rainfall is not by itself sufficient to explain the long term declines in pan evaporation.

This is the key issue. Comments?

• jae

BPL:

You state:
“You say there IS NOT a greenhouse effect.
Miskolczi (and everybody else in the world) says there IS a greenhouse effect.
How are these positions “completely compatible?””

I’m trying to shut up, here, but you like to bicker, so…

No, I have never stated that. I believe there is some sort of “greenhouse effect,” but it might just be a result of heat storage (which of course is associated with characteristic IR radiation). We certainly know that the term “greenhouse effect” is a poor term to use for the atmosphere, since whatever is happening isn’t the same thing that makes greenhouses work (although many, including EPA, are still using equally wrong terms like “blanket” to describe what is happening). We know that greenhouses do not work by “trapping radiation.” But we are perfectly willing to say that the atmosphere acts by “trapping radiation.” I find an inconsistency in that, somehow.

In the summer, my swimming pool stores enough solar energy to stay nice and warm all summer, even at night. It is even normally warmer thant the air in the winter. I don’t attribute that to IR radiation, and I don’t think back-radiation has much effect, since it can’t penetrate the water beyond a mm or so.

BTW, what do you think about Thieme’s statement that, because upradiation and downradiation are vector quantities, they cancel out?

• jae

BPL:

You state:
“You say there IS NOT a greenhouse effect.
Miskolczi (and everybody else in the world) says there IS a greenhouse effect.
How are these positions â€œcompletely compatible?â€”

I’m trying to shut up, here, but you like to bicker, so…

No, I have never stated that. I believe there is some sort of “greenhouse effect,” but it might just be a result of heat storage (which of course is associated with characteristic IR radiation). We certainly know that the term “greenhouse effect” is a poor term to use for the atmosphere, since whatever is happening isn’t the same thing that makes greenhouses work (although many, including EPA, are still using equally wrong terms like “blanket” to describe what is happening). We know that greenhouses do not work by “trapping radiation.” But we are perfectly willing to say that the atmosphere acts by “trapping radiation.” I find an inconsistency in that, somehow.

In the summer, my swimming pool stores enough solar energy to stay nice and warm all summer, even at night. It is even normally warmer thant the air in the winter. I don’t attribute that to IR radiation, and I don’t think back-radiation has much effect, since it can’t penetrate the water beyond a mm or so.

BTW, what do you think about Thieme’s statement that, because upradiation and downradiation are vector quantities, they cancel out?

• Franko

Greenhouse effect is a very simple concept.
Heat has to get out, flux, w/m^2 , is constant, and dictates the temperature.
Certain frequencies (wavelengths) are blocked, and the temperature adjusts higher, to maintain the constant flux. Every body is not black, hence, everywhere is higher than black body temperature.

• Franko

Greenhouse effect is a very simple concept.
Heat has to get out, flux, w/m^2 , is constant, and dictates the temperature.
Certain frequencies (wavelengths) are blocked, and the temperature adjusts higher, to maintain the constant flux. Every body is not black, hence, everywhere is higher than black body temperature.

• Jan Pompe

Franko

“Heat has to get out, flux, w/m^2 , is constant, and dictates the temperature.”

That is what various warmers would have you believe but it’s not true.

Heat transfer (for simplicity just BB) is given by [SBconst](Ts^4 – Te^4) where Ts is the effective temperature of the solar constant (~400K) and Te = Surface temperature so if the temperature of the surface rises during the day as it does the inward flux decreases if the surface heats faster the inward flux devreases faster.

The effective change in flux is given by

dE/dT = – 4 * sigma * Te^3 which works out for every 1K increase in temperature you get a ~ 5.4W/m^2 decrease in incoming at 288K.

Don’t take this as too precise but it gives the idea. For a fixed albedo we should get optimum transfer to climate system when emissivity = absorptivity (about .69).

While the numbers don’t exactly agree with Ferenc’s findings the idea is not generally inconsistent. A decrease in outgoing without an equal decrease in incoming is not consistent with an equilibrium or eve a steady state on which these low dimensional models are based.

• Jan Pompe

Franko

“Heat has to get out, flux, w/m^2 , is constant, and dictates the temperature.”

That is what various warmers would have you believe but it’s not true.

Heat transfer (for simplicity just BB) is given by [SBconst](Ts^4 – Te^4) where Ts is the effective temperature of the solar constant (~400K) and Te = Surface temperature so if the temperature of the surface rises during the day as it does the inward flux decreases if the surface heats faster the inward flux devreases faster.

The effective change in flux is given by

dE/dT = – 4 * sigma * Te^3 which works out for every 1K increase in temperature you get a ~ 5.4W/m^2 decrease in incoming at 288K.

Don’t take this as too precise but it gives the idea. For a fixed albedo we should get optimum transfer to climate system when emissivity = absorptivity (about .69).

While the numbers don’t exactly agree with Ferenc’s findings the idea is not generally inconsistent. A decrease in outgoing without an equal decrease in incoming is not consistent with an equilibrium or eve a steady state on which these low dimensional models are based.

• Franko

I was just looking at steady state

A hotplate, in a vacum, 1 kilowatt energy from electricity; Will have, greater than black body, internal kinetic temperature.

Temperature, optical depth, mean free photon path, flux, etc. ; What are convenient equations relating these ?

• Franko

I was just looking at steady state

A hotplate, in a vacum, 1 kilowatt energy from electricity; Will have, greater than black body, internal kinetic temperature.

Temperature, optical depth, mean free photon path, flux, etc. ; What are convenient equations relating these ?

• Jan Pompe

Franko #381

A hotplate, in a vacum, 1 kilowatt energy from electricity; Will have, greater than black body, internal kinetic temperature.

Temperature, optical depth, mean free photon path, flux, etc. ; What are convenient equations relating these ?

What I said holds for new steady state following a change.

If there is a new “mean” global temperature then the “mean” global absorption will change. If there is an increase in temperature due to reduced cooling (to space) whatever the reason there will be reduced absorption of incoming and reduced emission of out going which can be measured at TOA. There is an even simpler argument to the one I gave above which gives a mechanism and that is in a steady or equilibrium state incoming flux = outgoing flux.

Basically a simple starying point is in my previous post.

Q = k(Ti^4 – To^4) will give the available net flux at the surface and k = sigma * 1-albedo will do for a first approximation. Work with it a bit if you have a bit of electronic experience you might be able to recognise a voltage divider in the expression. I’ll expand later if you like. Right now I have to let some dogs help me walk off dinner.

• Jan Pompe

Franko #381

A hotplate, in a vacum, 1 kilowatt energy from electricity; Will have, greater than black body, internal kinetic temperature.

Temperature, optical depth, mean free photon path, flux, etc. ; What are convenient equations relating these ?

What I said holds for new steady state following a change.

If there is a new “mean” global temperature then the “mean” global absorption will change. If there is an increase in temperature due to reduced cooling (to space) whatever the reason there will be reduced absorption of incoming and reduced emission of out going which can be measured at TOA. There is an even simpler argument to the one I gave above which gives a mechanism and that is in a steady or equilibrium state incoming flux = outgoing flux.

Basically a simple starying point is in my previous post.

Q = k(Ti^4 – To^4) will give the available net flux at the surface and k = sigma * 1-albedo will do for a first approximation. Work with it a bit if you have a bit of electronic experience you might be able to recognise a voltage divider in the expression. I’ll expand later if you like. Right now I have to let some dogs help me walk off dinner.

• Jan Pompe

oops that should be k = σ * (1-albedo)

• Jan Pompe

oops that should be k = σ * (1-albedo)

• Franko

Thanks !

A little extra incoming will raise kinetic tenperature,
perhaps even activating another spectral line. (~T^1)

Convection, radiation (~T^4) limit the effect.
So, less than expected change, for the new steady state.
Hence the power of minus three.
“dE/dT = – 4 * sigma * Te^3″

• Franko

Thanks !

A little extra incoming will raise kinetic tenperature,
perhaps even activating another spectral line. (~T^1)

Convection, radiation (~T^4) limit the effect.
So, less than expected change, for the new steady state.
Hence the power of minus three.
“dE/dT = – 4 * sigma * Te^3″

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

Most importantly, they also conclude that a change in rainfall is not by itself sufficient to explain the long term declines in pan evaporation.

This is the key issue. Comments?

I imagine there is less pan evaporation because continental interiors are becoming drier. You will perhaps remember that predictions about global warming include more droughts in continental interiors as well as more violent weather along coastlines. I don’t see the problem.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

Most importantly, they also conclude that a change in rainfall is not by itself sufficient to explain the long term declines in pan evaporation.

This is the key issue. Comments?

I imagine there is less pan evaporation because continental interiors are becoming drier. You will perhaps remember that predictions about global warming include more droughts in continental interiors as well as more violent weather along coastlines. I don’t see the problem.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

Heat transfer (for simplicity just BB) is given by [SBconst](Ts^4 – Te^4) where Ts is the effective temperature of the solar constant (~400K) and Te = Surface temperature so if the temperature of the surface rises during the day as it does the inward flux decreases if the surface heats faster the inward flux devreases faster.

The solar constant doesn’t have a temperature. It’s a measurement of flux density. It’s measured in watts per square meter. Temperature is measured in Kelvins. (In the SI.)

And how can anything, by changing its temperature, modify the inward flux it gets from something else? You seem to be describing sympathetic magic here.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Jan Pompe writes:

Heat transfer (for simplicity just BB) is given by [SBconst](Ts^4 – Te^4) where Ts is the effective temperature of the solar constant (~400K) and Te = Surface temperature so if the temperature of the surface rises during the day as it does the inward flux decreases if the surface heats faster the inward flux devreases faster.

The solar constant doesn’t have a temperature. It’s a measurement of flux density. It’s measured in watts per square meter. Temperature is measured in Kelvins. (In the SI.)

And how can anything, by changing its temperature, modify the inward flux it gets from something else? You seem to be describing sympathetic magic here.

• Jan Pompe

BPL #386

The solar constant doesn’t have a temperature. It’s a measurement of flux density. It’s measured in watts per square meter. Temperature is measured in Kelvins. (In the SI.)

Just divide it by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and take the fourth root and you’ll convert it to the equivalent black body temperature. Since space is a hard vacuum there are no emissivity problems so it may be treated as a black body source of ~393K.

Simple isn’t it?

• Jan Pompe

BPL #386

The solar constant doesnâ€™t have a temperature. Itâ€™s a measurement of flux density. Itâ€™s measured in watts per square meter. Temperature is measured in Kelvins. (In the SI.)

Just divide it by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and take the fourth root and you’ll convert it to the equivalent black body temperature. Since space is a hard vacuum there are no emissivity problems so it may be treated as a black body source of ~393K.

Simple isn’t it?

• Barton Paul Levenson

I begin to see where you’re coming from, Jan. Unfortunately, you’ve missed something.

The Solar constant averaged 1,366.1 watts per square meter over 1951-2000, according to Judith Lean’s figures. That would indeed correspond to a temperature of 394 K if you inverted the Stefan-Boltzmann law from that figure. But nothing on Earth actually experiences such a temperature due to the solar constant. If you had a perfectly black, flat plane in outer space at Earth’s distance from the sun, perpendicular to the incoming solar energy, it would heat to 394 K. The Earth doesn’t, however, because A) it’s a sphere, not a plane, and B) it has a nonzero albedo. The flux density that is actually absorbed into the climate system is about 237 watts per square meter, corresponding to about 254 K — the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature.

• Barton Paul Levenson

I begin to see where you’re coming from, Jan. Unfortunately, you’ve missed something.

The Solar constant averaged 1,366.1 watts per square meter over 1951-2000, according to Judith Lean’s figures. That would indeed correspond to a temperature of 394 K if you inverted the Stefan-Boltzmann law from that figure. But nothing on Earth actually experiences such a temperature due to the solar constant. If you had a perfectly black, flat plane in outer space at Earth’s distance from the sun, perpendicular to the incoming solar energy, it would heat to 394 K. The Earth doesn’t, however, because A) it’s a sphere, not a plane, and B) it has a nonzero albedo. The flux density that is actually absorbed into the climate system is about 237 watts per square meter, corresponding to about 254 K — the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature.

• jae

BPL:

“The flux density that is actually absorbed into the climate system is about 237 watts per square meter, corresponding to about 254 K — the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature.”

Yes, that would also be true, if the planet had no atmosphere or water. But it does, and that has far-reaching effects. One of them is that the atmosphere and water store energy in the system. And that, by itself, has to add energy in the form of kinetic energy (temperature). How much?

• jae

BPL:

“The flux density that is actually absorbed into the climate system is about 237 watts per square meter, corresponding to about 254 K â€” the Earthâ€™s radiative equilibrium temperature.”

Yes, that would also be true, if the planet had no atmosphere or water. But it does, and that has far-reaching effects. One of them is that the atmosphere and water store energy in the system. And that, by itself, has to add energy in the form of kinetic energy (temperature). How much?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#385

“I imagine there is less pan evaporation because continental interiors are becoming drier. You will perhaps remember that predictions about global warming include more droughts in continental interiors as well as more violent weather along coastlines. I don’t see the problem.”

If the interiors of the continents are getting drier they are also meant to be getting warmer, n’est pas?

This means that if someone sticks a Class A pan out there, by definition periodically topped up with water (following rain if any) and measures the pan evaporation it is going to increase with time not decrease.

So where you can’t see a problem I see an enormous one.

A lesser problem with your statement is that it simply relies on appeal to a vague and un-validated ‘authority’ i.e. the predictions of GCMs.

Well, even those who are experts on GCMs such as Ann Henderson-Sellers will freely acknowledge that they perform poorly at the regional level and what are the interiors of continents but regions?

I have just read a very good paper which came out recently examining the whole issue of the climate of the Sahel, the influence of the West African monsoon etc. GCM-based hindcasting was shown to be relatively poor.

On this blog there has also been an extensive debate about CSIRO/BOM predictions of regional drying here in Australia and David has shown just how weak is the statistical basis for that. I’m sure you will have followed those threads.

Therefore unless you are also saying that GCMs are predicting the interiors of continents are getting colder as a result of AGW as well as drier as a result of AGW (and where is the evidence?) your comments simply don’t stand up.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#385

“I imagine there is less pan evaporation because continental interiors are becoming drier. You will perhaps remember that predictions about global warming include more droughts in continental interiors as well as more violent weather along coastlines. I donâ€™t see the problem.”

If the interiors of the continents are getting drier they are also meant to be getting warmer, n’est pas?

This means that if someone sticks a Class A pan out there, by definition periodically topped up with water (following rain if any) and measures the pan evaporation it is going to increase with time not decrease.

So where you can’t see a problem I see an enormous one.

A lesser problem with your statement is that it simply relies on appeal to a vague and un-validated ‘authority’ i.e. the predictions of GCMs.

Well, even those who are experts on GCMs such as Ann Henderson-Sellers will freely acknowledge that they perform poorly at the regional level and what are the interiors of continents but regions?

I have just read a very good paper which came out recently examining the whole issue of the climate of the Sahel, the influence of the West African monsoon etc. GCM-based hindcasting was shown to be relatively poor.

On this blog there has also been an extensive debate about CSIRO/BOM predictions of regional drying here in Australia and David has shown just how weak is the statistical basis for that. I’m sure you will have followed those threads.

Therefore unless you are also saying that GCMs are predicting the interiors of continents are getting colder as a result of AGW as well as drier as a result of AGW (and where is the evidence?) your comments simply don’t stand up.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Despite the efforts of Brutsaert and Palange all the way back in 1998, here we are a full decade later and the scientists are still running around in circles trying to explain away the “pan evaporation paradox” of AGW viz:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JD004511.shtml

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6C-4MP56D9-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7ca920d98603f948dc0c9cf70d4f901f

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18972700

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/basic/wksp17/pdf_docs/Rotstayn.pdf

Just as the issue with SH and RH levels atmosphere is a ‘skeleton rattling in the AGW closet’ which strikes right to the heart of whether Miskolczi is right and the AGW orthodoxy is wrong, so too does the (intimately related) “pan evaporation paradox”.

If anything (and there are still plenty of ‘ifs and buts’ on this issues) the most recent suggestion is that it is aerodynamic effects (wind run etc) which are controlling pan evaporation. What does this mean if pan evaporation has been declining from for 30 years or more?

I’d dearly love to see the likes of BPL and Luke tie themselves up in knots trying to explain away this pan evaporation paradox.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Despite the efforts of Brutsaert and Palange all the way back in 1998, here we are a full decade later and the scientists are still running around in circles trying to explain away the “pan evaporation paradox” of AGW viz:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JD004511.shtml

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6C-4MP56D9-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7ca920d98603f948dc0c9cf70d4f901f

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18972700

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/basic/wksp17/pdf_docs/Rotstayn.pdf

Just as the issue with SH and RH levels atmosphere is a ‘skeleton rattling in the AGW closet’ which strikes right to the heart of whether Miskolczi is right and the AGW orthodoxy is wrong, so too does the (intimately related) “pan evaporation paradox”.

If anything (and there are still plenty of ‘ifs and buts’ on this issues) the most recent suggestion is that it is aerodynamic effects (wind run etc) which are controlling pan evaporation. What does this mean if pan evaporation has been declining from for 30 years or more?

I’d dearly love to see the likes of BPL and Luke tie themselves up in knots trying to explain away this pan evaporation paradox.

• Anonymous

Yes, whatever the answer is, its weird to see the disproportionate little effort put into the more direct empirical tests of the theory that enhanced greenhouse is causing warming, and the way the authors seem to do contortions to make it fit when they do (e.g. Santer, Soden).

Not so much psuedoscience, but has to be one of the biggest signs of psuedoscientists, to be trying so hard to make the data fit.

Yes, whatever the answer is, its weird to see the disproportionate little effort put into the more direct empirical tests of the theory that enhanced greenhouse is causing warming, and the way the authors seem to do contortions to make it fit when they do (e.g. Santer, Soden).

Not so much psuedoscience, but has to be one of the biggest signs of psuedoscientists, to be trying so hard to make the data fit.

• Jan Pompe

Steve #391

Do I see it right in the BOM presentation?

Those pans contain water so the the dryness so the surrounding soil moisture and BPL’s objection is irrelevant.

I had thought that they contained a mix of soil and water to resemble the surrounding soil. Perhaps BPL did too. Clausius-Clapeyron is not going to explain it at all unless there is increased humidity (water vapour partial pressure) due to advection or something like that. On still wind days (I don’t recall too many of those when I lived in Hay) I can imagine water vapour hanging around near surface within the confines of the pan thus slowing further evaporation but that would need to be tested and there would have to be quite a few wind free days to make much of a difference.

• Jan Pompe

Steve #391

Do I see it right in the BOM presentation?

Those pans contain water so the the dryness so the surrounding soil moisture and BPL’s objection is irrelevant.

I had thought that they contained a mix of soil and water to resemble the surrounding soil. Perhaps BPL did too. Clausius-Clapeyron is not going to explain it at all unless there is increased humidity (water vapour partial pressure) due to advection or something like that. On still wind days (I don’t recall too many of those when I lived in Hay) I can imagine water vapour hanging around near surface within the confines of the pan thus slowing further evaporation but that would need to be tested and there would have to be quite a few wind free days to make much of a difference.

• Anonymous

The evaporation pan I used to measure was just an open tank about 2m across and 1m high with bird netting over the top. Its pretty hard to imagine a more low tech instrument, a good thing IMHO.

The evaporation pan I used to measure was just an open tank about 2m across and 1m high with bird netting over the top. Its pretty hard to imagine a more low tech instrument, a good thing IMHO.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

“The flux density that is actually absorbed into the climate system is about 237 watts per square meter, corresponding to about 254 K — the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature.”

Yes, that would also be true, if the planet had no atmosphere or water.

It’s true now. The amount of sunlight absorbed by the climate system is 237 watts per square meter. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 235 to 240. It is not 1366.

the atmosphere and water store energy in the system. And that, by itself, has to add energy in the form of kinetic energy (temperature). How much?

Yes, the fact that they store energy means it has to add energy. Good observation. That still is not what keeps the surface temperature higher than the radiative equilibrium temperature.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

jae writes:

â€œThe flux density that is actually absorbed into the climate system is about 237 watts per square meter, corresponding to about 254 K â€” the Earthâ€™s radiative equilibrium temperature.â€

Yes, that would also be true, if the planet had no atmosphere or water.

It’s true now. The amount of sunlight absorbed by the climate system is 237 watts per square meter. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 235 to 240. It is not 1366.

the atmosphere and water store energy in the system. And that, by itself, has to add energy in the form of kinetic energy (temperature). How much?

Yes, the fact that they store energy means it has to add energy. Good observation. That still is not what keeps the surface temperature higher than the radiative equilibrium temperature.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

A lesser problem with your statement is that it simply relies on appeal to a vague and un-validated ‘authority’ i.e. the predictions of GCMs.

That and the fact that those predictions are borne out by the empirical evidence. Did you miss that part? (Hint: Ask the Australians.)

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

A lesser problem with your statement is that it simply relies on appeal to a vague and un-validated â€˜authorityâ€™ i.e. the predictions of GCMs.

That and the fact that those predictions are borne out by the empirical evidence. Did you miss that part? (Hint: Ask the Australians.)

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

I’d dearly love to see the likes of BPL and Luke tie themselves up in knots trying to explain away this pan evaporation paradox.

The problem is that the “paradox” seems to exist solely in your mind. If climatologists are ignoring it, you might want to ask one of them why.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve Short writes:

Iâ€™d dearly love to see the likes of BPL and Luke tie themselves up in knots trying to explain away this pan evaporation paradox.

The problem is that the “paradox” seems to exist solely in your mind. If climatologists are ignoring it, you might want to ask one of them why.

• Jan Pompe

BPL #395

The amount of sunlight absorbed by the climate system is 237 watts per square meter. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 235 to 240. It is not 1366.

1366 W/m^2 is the solar constant from which the smaller numbers are derived. From that you can determine how hot a surface at earths orbit can get if prevented from radiating in all directions except the direction it came from. That figure is about 400K the surface of the moon facing the sun approximates that condition.

Scroll to diurnal variation

• Jan Pompe

BPL #395

The amount of sunlight absorbed by the climate system is 237 watts per square meter. Iâ€™ve seen estimates ranging from 235 to 240. It is not 1366.

1366 W/m^2 is the solar constant from which the smaller numbers are derived. From that you can determine how hot a surface at earths orbit can get if prevented from radiating in all directions except the direction it came from. That figure is about 400K the surface of the moon facing the sun approximates that condition.

Scroll to diurnal variation

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#397

“The problem is that the “paradox” seems to exist solely in your mind. If climatologists are ignoring it, you might want to ask one of them why.”

Ignoring it? Hardly.

If so, why have ‘climatologists’ been publishing so many papers over the last 10 years trying to (variously) explain away the paradoxof this global trend (not to mention holding numerous workshops)?

Given that you clearly don’t read any of the web references I post, your faith in ‘climatologists’ is very touching (and exists solely in your mind).

I find your never-ending references to the authority of your own perceived (but usually dated and/or obscure and/or unreferenced) ‘gods’ rather boring. Presumably your all-knowing faith also extends to other self-proclaimed ‘masters of the universe’ such as, uh, modern day ‘born again’ hedge fund managers?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#397

“The problem is that the â€œparadoxâ€ seems to exist solely in your mind. If climatologists are ignoring it, you might want to ask one of them why.”

Ignoring it? Hardly.

If so, why have ‘climatologists’ been publishing so many papers over the last 10 years trying to (variously) explain away the paradoxof this global trend (not to mention holding numerous workshops)?

Given that you clearly don’t read any of the web references I post, your faith in ‘climatologists’ is very touching (and exists solely in your mind).

I find your never-ending references to the authority of your own perceived (but usually dated and/or obscure and/or unreferenced) ‘gods’ rather boring. Presumably your all-knowing faith also extends to other self-proclaimed ‘masters of the universe’ such as, uh, modern day ‘born again’ hedge fund managers?

• Franko

If Barton Paul Levenson cannot explain well, then, it means, he could improve his understanding; By paying attention, to those, who can explain well.

• Franko

If Barton Paul Levenson cannot explain well, then, it means, he could improve his understanding; By paying attention, to those, who can explain well.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve,

Okay, you’ve discovered this great paradox which disproves AGW. Why don’t you write it up as a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed science journal? Any of the following would do:

Nature
Science
Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres
Journal of Atmospheric Science
Monthly Weather Review
Icarus

As for making fun of my religion — that reflects much more poorly on you than on me.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Steve,

Okay, you’ve discovered this great paradox which disproves AGW. Why don’t you write it up as a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed science journal? Any of the following would do:

Nature
Science
Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres
Journal of Atmospheric Science
Monthly Weather Review
Icarus

As for making fun of my religion — that reflects much more poorly on you than on me.

• Franko

Barton Paul Levenson;
Let us hammer the basic physics. Disagree with the approach ? Correct it. — Other approaches, more than just questionable interpretations !

As to the Religion, hidden object variable; You brought it in, as your identifier. Some would accuse you of link baiting.

• Franko

Barton Paul Levenson;
Let us hammer the basic physics. Disagree with the approach ? Correct it. — Other approaches, more than just questionable interpretations !

As to the Religion, hidden object variable; You brought it in, as your identifier. Some would accuse you of link baiting.

• http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php Derek

Hi All,
On this section of the GWS forum are the papers of Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi’s that he has sent me so far.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/phpbb3/viewforum.php?f=22

Any future ones sent to me by him will also be added in this section.

I also have on public folders at photo bucket a lot of Dr. Miskolczi’s figures,
I will not remove or change the figures or links,
and will also add any more he sends me.
They can be found,
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Miskolczi%20Figures/

Fantastic (if somewhat rather long..) on going discussions of the issues raised.
Great to see.

• http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php Derek

Hi All,
On this section of the GWS forum are the papers of Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi’s that he has sent me so far.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/phpbb3/viewforum.php?f=22

Any future ones sent to me by him will also be added in this section.

I also have on public folders at photo bucket a lot of Dr. Miskolczi’s figures,
I will not remove or change the figures or links,
and will also add any more he sends me.
They can be found,
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Miskolczi%20Figures/

Fantastic (if somewhat rather long..) on going discussions of the issues raised.
Great to see.

• Franko

# 403 Derek;
“How can we help Miskolci?”

He needs a new computer,
Holes in his shoes ?

Perhaps set him up with a PayPal account, directly deposited to his bank account. People could put a PayPal to Miskolczi button on their website. Save the Planet Earth from Carbon Taxation.

With loose change in Miskolczi’s pocket — he could even buy an occasional cup of coffe.

He needs a job. More than a volunter, while suffering personally.

Occasional email to politicians. (one email per per week ? adds up) Request; Backpay for Miskolczi, and all NASA password priviledges restored.

• Franko

# 403 Derek;
“How can we help Miskolci?”

He needs a new computer,
Holes in his shoes ?

Perhaps set him up with a PayPal account, directly deposited to his bank account. People could put a PayPal to Miskolczi button on their website. Save the Planet Earth from Carbon Taxation.

With loose change in Miskolczi’s pocket — he could even buy an occasional cup of coffe.

He needs a job. More than a volunter, while suffering personally.

Occasional email to politicians. (one email per per week ? adds up) Request; Backpay for Miskolczi, and all NASA password priviledges restored.

• http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php Derek

Great ideas Franko,
I’ve copied your post over there as well, I hope you do not mind.
Let’s see if we can get some positive reactions.

• http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php Derek

Great ideas Franko,
I’ve copied your post over there as well, I hope you do not mind.
Let’s see if we can get some positive reactions.

• Franko

Difficult ideas are made of numerous easy ideas.

Same here. Break it down. Define, every step, then, do an easy example, one after another.

No Kings road to mathematics, or atmospheric understanding.

Every symbol, equation, diagram, hypertexted, to a page opening eplanation.

• Franko

Difficult ideas are made of numerous easy ideas.

Same here. Break it down. Define, every step, then, do an easy example, one after another.

No Kings road to mathematics, or atmospheric understanding.

Every symbol, equation, diagram, hypertexted, to a page opening eplanation.

• http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php Derek

Many thanks Franko, your spot on correct.
That is some idea, and some work.
I’ll give it a go as a work in progress on the GWS forum Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi section.

Maybe I’ll see you again in a couple of years..LOL.

• http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php Derek

Many thanks Franko, your spot on correct.
That is some idea, and some work.
I’ll give it a go as a work in progress on the GWS forum Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi section.

Maybe I’ll see you again in a couple of years..LOL.

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

As to the Religion, hidden object variable; You brought it in, as your identifier. Some would accuse you of link baiting.

So if I identify myself as a born-again Christian, that justifies people slamming my beliefs? You have an odd idea of good and just behavior, Franko. You’re a little deficient in formal logic, too. Go google “ad hominem fallacy.”

• http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960 Barton Paul Levenson

Franko writes:

As to the Religion, hidden object variable; You brought it in, as your identifier. Some would accuse you of link baiting.

So if I identify myself as a born-again Christian, that justifies people slamming my beliefs? You have an odd idea of good and just behavior, Franko. You’re a little deficient in formal logic, too. Go google “ad hominem fallacy.”

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#401

“As for making fun of my religion — that reflects much more poorly on you than on me.”

Actually, I had no idea that you were religious (in any form). Just as you never bother to read any of the web references I use to support my posts (!) I had also never bothered to check your web site either – until your post 401.

And of course you don’t employ web references to support your statements anyway so no needs there.

I have close friends who are Quakers and others who are Buddhist, would never poke fun at their religions and respect them for holding certain beliefs.

Therefore, I apologise if I’ve inadvertently offended you by “making fun of your religion”. It was not intended.

As for publishing in Nature etc., I don’t know the answer to this paradox, therefore I have nothing to publish. So I don’t follow your logic.

It is noted many climatologists have labored for over a decade to find the answer.

In my belief system it is not a sin to admit I don’t know the answer to this paradox. All I know is that the pan evaporation paradox undoubtedly exists as there are numerous papers and data sets showing that.

While we are on areas of doubt in our understanding of climate change, GCMs etc, here is another one I’ve mentioned recently (which is also not just in my mind).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021190646.htm

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BPL#401

“As for making fun of my religion â€” that reflects much more poorly on you than on me.”

Actually, I had no idea that you were religious (in any form). Just as you never bother to read any of the web references I use to support my posts (!) I had also never bothered to check your web site either – until your post 401.

And of course you don’t employ web references to support your statements anyway so no needs there.

I have close friends who are Quakers and others who are Buddhist, would never poke fun at their religions and respect them for holding certain beliefs.

Therefore, I apologise if I’ve inadvertently offended you by “making fun of your religion”. It was not intended.

As for publishing in Nature etc., I don’t know the answer to this paradox, therefore I have nothing to publish. So I don’t follow your logic.

It is noted many climatologists have labored for over a decade to find the answer.

In my belief system it is not a sin to admit I don’t know the answer to this paradox. All I know is that the pan evaporation paradox undoubtedly exists as there are numerous papers and data sets showing that.

While we are on areas of doubt in our understanding of climate change, GCMs etc, here is another one I’ve mentioned recently (which is also not just in my mind).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021190646.htm

• Alex Harvey

BPL # 396, 397, 401:

Your responses to Steve Short (# 391, 399) are nothing less than bizarre. “The paradox exists solely in your mind … why don’t you write it up as a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed science journal.” I’m sorry; write it up? He just cited, what, five, six or more? published papers. Are you honestly now saying that these journals aren’t good enough, and that all research from now on must come from a shortlist of RealClimate-approved journals? The CSIRO might not be NASA, but it’s not exactly the Lavoisier Group either. I submit that the paradox is not from Steve’s mind, but from the papers he just produced:

Here is one example (I invite you to find the remainder for yourself):

Liu, B., M. Xu, M. Henderson, and W. Gong (2004), A spatial analysis of pan evaporation trends in China, 1955–2000, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D15102, doi:10.1029/2004JD004511:

Pan evaporation, an indicator of potential evaporation, has decreased during the last several decades in many parts of the world. This trend is contrary to the expectation that global warming will be accompanied by an increase in terrestrial evaporation, known as the pan evaporation paradox.

It would seem that your imputation of unsoundness of mind reflects more poorly on yourself than Dr. Short.

And was he really mocking your religion, or your style of preaching conclusions without condescending to offer argument?

• Alex Harvey

BPL # 396, 397, 401:

Your responses to Steve Short (# 391, 399) are nothing less than bizarre. â€œThe paradox exists solely in your mind … why donâ€™t you write it up as a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed science journal.â€ Iâ€™m sorry; write it up? He just cited, what, five, six or more? published papers. Are you honestly now saying that these journals arenâ€™t good enough, and that all research from now on must come from a shortlist of RealClimate-approved journals? The CSIRO might not be NASA, but itâ€™s not exactly the Lavoisier Group either. I submit that the paradox is not from Steveâ€™s mind, but from the papers he just produced:

Here is one example (I invite you to find the remainder for yourself):

Liu, B., M. Xu, M. Henderson, and W. Gong (2004), A spatial analysis of pan evaporation trends in China, 1955â€“2000, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D15102, doi:10.1029/2004JD004511:

Pan evaporation, an indicator of potential evaporation, has decreased during the last several decades in many parts of the world. This trend is contrary to the expectation that global warming will be accompanied by an increase in terrestrial evaporation, known as the pan evaporation paradox.

It would seem that your imputation of unsoundness of mind reflects more poorly on yourself than Dr. Short.

And was he really mocking your religion, or your style of preaching conclusions without condescending to offer argument?

• jae

Hmm, sounds very familiar to the tree-ring divergence paradox.

• jae

Hmm, sounds very familiar to the tree-ring divergence paradox.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Thanks BPL for being a unique voice of reason in a very odd discussion.

For those who missed ATMOS 101, the 240 W/m**2 used by BPL is correct, and comes from

~1368 W/m^2 * (1-0.3)*pi r^2 = 4 pi r^2 sig T^4 (the pi terms due to the area of the disk facing the sun and the outward radiation in all directions). The pi r^2 terms cancel and you have T= [1368(0.7) /4sig]^.25 = 255 K. There is an upward surface longwave flux of ~390 W/m^2 but only 240 W/m^2 at the top-of-atmosphere. Loa and behold, the GHG effect means the planet radiates at a colder temperature than the surface. This is due to infrared trapping gases– not “stored energy” or Casper the friendly ghost. I’m not sure why this is all too hard to understand.

I’m sure everyone here wants to have the next nobel prize or have their names in with Einstein. But in order to do so you need a solid understanding of the basics. Miskolczi does not understand Kirchoff’s law, the Virial theorem, principles governing atmospheric humidity, and his paper was not found convincing by any real specialist in the field…so he’ll have to try better. Anyone else wishing to do so needs to go through a proper peer-reviewed process, and I have little doubt they will fail.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Thanks BPL for being a unique voice of reason in a very odd discussion.

For those who missed ATMOS 101, the 240 W/m**2 used by BPL is correct, and comes from

~1368 W/m^2 * (1-0.3)*pi r^2 = 4 pi r^2 sig T^4 (the pi terms due to the area of the disk facing the sun and the outward radiation in all directions). The pi r^2 terms cancel and you have T= [1368(0.7) /4sig]^.25 = 255 K. There is an upward surface longwave flux of ~390 W/m^2 but only 240 W/m^2 at the top-of-atmosphere. Loa and behold, the GHG effect means the planet radiates at a colder temperature than the surface. This is due to infrared trapping gases– not “stored energy” or Casper the friendly ghost. I’m not sure why this is all too hard to understand.

I’m sure everyone here wants to have the next nobel prize or have their names in with Einstein. But in order to do so you need a solid understanding of the basics. Miskolczi does not understand Kirchoff’s law, the Virial theorem, principles governing atmospheric humidity, and his paper was not found convincing by any real specialist in the field…so he’ll have to try better. Anyone else wishing to do so needs to go through a proper peer-reviewed process, and I have little doubt they will fail.

• jae

Chris Colose lectures us:

“I’m sure everyone here wants to have the next nobel prize or have their names in with Einstein. But in order to do so you need a solid understanding of the basics. Miskolczi does not understand Kirchoff’s law, the Virial theorem, principles governing atmospheric humidity, and his paper was not found convincing by any real specialist in the field…so he’ll have to try better. Anyone else wishing to do so needs to go through a proper peer-reviewed process, and I have little doubt they will fail.”

Are you Albert Einstein’s long lost son, or something (or are you BPL’s brother)? Should I just take your word for all this, or do you have some type of objective evidence to share?

• jae

Chris Colose lectures us:

“Iâ€™m sure everyone here wants to have the next nobel prize or have their names in with Einstein. But in order to do so you need a solid understanding of the basics. Miskolczi does not understand Kirchoffâ€™s law, the Virial theorem, principles governing atmospheric humidity, and his paper was not found convincing by any real specialist in the fieldâ€¦so heâ€™ll have to try better. Anyone else wishing to do so needs to go through a proper peer-reviewed process, and I have little doubt they will fail.”

Are you Albert Einstein’s long lost son, or something (or are you BPL’s brother)? Should I just take your word for all this, or do you have some type of objective evidence to share?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Chris Colose #411

“Thanks BPL for being a unique voice of reason in a very odd discussion.”

If BPL is ‘a unique voice of reason’ then science should bring back the rack and the Grand Inquisition and the rest of us ‘deviates’ should gather our loved ones about us and head for the hills, pronto.

The arrogance of this bandwagon never fails to bemuse.

Back in 1998

Brutsaert W. & Parlange M.B. (1998) Hydrologic cycle explains the evaporation paradox. Nature, 396, 30

had no trouble with Nature’s ‘peer reviewers’ when they published what was claimed to be the definitive reason for explaining away the so-called ‘pan evaporation paradox’ which flew in the face of ‘principles governing atmospheric humidity’ as the AGW bandwagon would have it. Pan evaporation is our only available widespread measure of potential evaporation at the bottom of the troposphere, just above the Earth’s surface.

Yet here we are 10 years later, and we are hardly closer to understanding the nature of this (still apparent) paradox. The AGW bandwagon has not yet been able to explain why sometimes the paradox can be ascribed (variously) to changes in insolation, changes in wind strength or changes in the Vapor Pressure Deficit nor why these should all conspire to produce a negative trend in Ep over such vast areas of the globe for such long periods (nor why there are some regional areas which buck the global trend).

Each year there are a significant number of peer reviewed papers showing the paradox remains.

Personally, I think this bandwagon has been relatively confused from the day long, long ago when it started to sink in that they have bitten off far more than they can quickly chew.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021190646.htm

This Aspberger’s kid says: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Chris Colose #411

“Thanks BPL for being a unique voice of reason in a very odd discussion.”

If BPL is ‘a unique voice of reason’ then science should bring back the rack and the Grand Inquisition and the rest of us ‘deviates’ should gather our loved ones about us and head for the hills, pronto.

The arrogance of this bandwagon never fails to bemuse.

Back in 1998

Brutsaert W. & Parlange M.B. (1998) Hydrologic cycle explains the evaporation paradox. Nature, 396, 30

had no trouble with Nature’s ‘peer reviewers’ when they published what was claimed to be the definitive reason for explaining away the so-called ‘pan evaporation paradox’ which flew in the face of ‘principles governing atmospheric humidity’ as the AGW bandwagon would have it. Pan evaporation is our only available widespread measure of potential evaporation at the bottom of the troposphere, just above the Earth’s surface.

Yet here we are 10 years later, and we are hardly closer to understanding the nature of this (still apparent) paradox. The AGW bandwagon has not yet been able to explain why sometimes the paradox can be ascribed (variously) to changes in insolation, changes in wind strength or changes in the Vapor Pressure Deficit nor why these should all conspire to produce a negative trend in Ep over such vast areas of the globe for such long periods (nor why there are some regional areas which buck the global trend).

Each year there are a significant number of peer reviewed papers showing the paradox remains.

Personally, I think this bandwagon has been relatively confused from the day long, long ago when it started to sink in that they have bitten off far more than they can quickly chew.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021190646.htm

This Aspberger’s kid says: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

jae,

consult some stuff on atmospheric physics, radiative transfer, etc. There is absolutely nothing I said that is in debate. If Ferenc thinks he overturned a century of physics in a spurious hungarian journal, he has the obligation of a good argument. He has not done so, and thus the “consensus view” remains. I really wish I could overturn the theory, and I wish I were the next Einstein, but I doubt I will. If you think a crackpot paper does this, I feel sorry for you, but the quality is much like how “evolution violates thermodynamics” or we have no transitional fossils, or whatever nonsense creationists spew nowadays.

Steve Short,

you can look at a variety of recent papers for evidence of a strongly positive water vapor feedback. You can look at past climate changes which we hear so much about to show climate sensitivity cannot be very low. Really, I have no clue what anyone here is arguing against, or if they are just rebelling against AGW for the sake of rebellion (like when I was a teenager and I knew everything).

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

jae,

consult some stuff on atmospheric physics, radiative transfer, etc. There is absolutely nothing I said that is in debate. If Ferenc thinks he overturned a century of physics in a spurious hungarian journal, he has the obligation of a good argument. He has not done so, and thus the “consensus view” remains. I really wish I could overturn the theory, and I wish I were the next Einstein, but I doubt I will. If you think a crackpot paper does this, I feel sorry for you, but the quality is much like how “evolution violates thermodynamics” or we have no transitional fossils, or whatever nonsense creationists spew nowadays.

Steve Short,

you can look at a variety of recent papers for evidence of a strongly positive water vapor feedback. You can look at past climate changes which we hear so much about to show climate sensitivity cannot be very low. Really, I have no clue what anyone here is arguing against, or if they are just rebelling against AGW for the sake of rebellion (like when I was a teenager and I knew everything).

• http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm Hans Erren

I have a natural suspicion about any paper that claims that climate sensitivity is much different (be it high or low) from the theoretical 1 K/2xCO2.
AFAIK Miskolczi applies a model to radiosonde data and does not work with direct OLR observations.
Can anybody please explain me in simple terms how a decreased emissivity caused by a CO2 increase is compensated in the Miskolczi theory? Is it done by water vapour decrease?
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sb.htm

• http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm Hans Erren

I have a natural suspicion about any paper that claims that climate sensitivity is much different (be it high or low) from the theoretical 1 K/2xCO2.
AFAIK Miskolczi applies a model to radiosonde data and does not work with direct OLR observations.
Can anybody please explain me in simple terms how a decreased emissivity caused by a CO2 increase is compensated in the Miskolczi theory? Is it done by water vapour decrease?
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sb.htm

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#412,#415 Cris Colose

Once M. Zagoni told you that this is not the kids problem. Why just not stay with your books and study? Even if you are one of ‘raypierre’ super student you might have problem with graduation. It is not a shame to remain silent if you do not know something.

And could you please remind your master that he owes me an answer regarding the atmospheric Kirchhoff law . Until then we can not go further into the depth of the virial concept.

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#412,#415 Cris Colose

Once M. Zagoni told you that this is not the kids problem. Why just not stay with your books and study? Even if you are one of ‘raypierre’ super student you might have problem with graduation. It is not a shame to remain silent if you do not know something.

And could you please remind your master that he owes me an answer regarding the atmospheric Kirchhoff law . Until then we can not go further into the depth of the virial concept.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Ferenc,

Please explain the temperature of the earth, the ice ages, the faint young sun, Venus, early Mars, the modern warming, snowball earth, the Cretaceous, the PETM, or just about anything in climate science with your “theory” or without the application of CO2. Explain to the blogosphere the difference between “emission” and “emissivity.” Explain to Hans Erren above how atmosphere H20 magically decreases when CO2 increases, which of course is not happening. Explain to us the differences between the surface and top-of-atmosphere energy balance. Explain to us the runaway greenhouse on Venus which “contradicts energy balance equations” and is a strawman for modern earth. How are radiative applications in satellites all working with incorrect premises? Please discuss your representations of the atmospheric kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy and how you think they relate directly to atmospheric and surface radiative fluxes.

I am a student, but an open-minded student, and I’d like to know the details behind your falsification of decades of theory, modelling, observations, etc. I’d like to know what kind of explanatory and predictive power it offers as well and how it will change climate science

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Ferenc,

Please explain the temperature of the earth, the ice ages, the faint young sun, Venus, early Mars, the modern warming, snowball earth, the Cretaceous, the PETM, or just about anything in climate science with your “theory” or without the application of CO2. Explain to the blogosphere the difference between “emission” and “emissivity.” Explain to Hans Erren above how atmosphere H20 magically decreases when CO2 increases, which of course is not happening. Explain to us the differences between the surface and top-of-atmosphere energy balance. Explain to us the runaway greenhouse on Venus which “contradicts energy balance equations” and is a strawman for modern earth. How are radiative applications in satellites all working with incorrect premises? Please discuss your representations of the atmospheric kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy and how you think they relate directly to atmospheric and surface radiative fluxes.

I am a student, but an open-minded student, and I’d like to know the details behind your falsification of decades of theory, modelling, observations, etc. I’d like to know what kind of explanatory and predictive power it offers as well and how it will change climate science

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#416, Hans Erren

Fig. 4 and Fig 5 (In Idojaras, Vol 108, No4, 2004) uses 40177 clear-sky observations from ERBE. Selected ERBE observations (over oceans from – Raval and Ramanathan) were also used in Fig. 24. HARTCODE was used at NASA to obtain OLR from the AIRS and CERES sensors, and a whole intercalibration procedure for the different satellite radiation sensors was based on HARTCODE OLRs.

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#416, Hans Erren

Fig. 4 and Fig 5 (In Idojaras, Vol 108, No4, 2004) uses 40177 clear-sky observations from ERBE. Selected ERBE observations (over oceans from – Raval and Ramanathan) were also used in Fig. 24. HARTCODE was used at NASA to obtain OLR from the AIRS and CERES sensors, and a whole intercalibration procedure for the different satellite radiation sensors was based on HARTCODE OLRs.

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#418 Cris Colose

What I am suggesting to you is to study until you understand the su=olr/f equation as a first step. BPL still saying that the surface temperature is controlled by this: Ts=Te*(1+(3/4)tau). Get back to me if you see why BPL (and ‘raypierre’ or Goody and Yung ) is wrong.

• Ferenc Miskolczi

#418 Cris Colose

What I am suggesting to you is to study until you understand the su=olr/f equation as a first step. BPL still saying that the surface temperature is controlled by this: Ts=Te*(1+(3/4)tau). Get back to me if you see why BPL (and ‘raypierre’ or Goody and Yung ) is wrong.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Alrighty Galileo, I’ll go to the textbooks and literature and try to find something that agrees with you. My guess is I’ll be studying for a very long time.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Alrighty Galileo, I’ll go to the textbooks and literature and try to find something that agrees with you. My guess is I’ll be studying for a very long time.

• Jan Pompe

Chris #412

~1368 W/m^2 * (1-0.3)*pi r^2 = 4 pi r^2 sig T^4 (the pi terms due to the area of the disk facing the sun and the outward radiation in all directions). The pi r^2 terms cancel and you have T= [1368(0.7) /4sig]^.25 = 255 K.

What universe do you live in?

Your numbers assume the earth is a poor absorber but a perfect emitter that just does not happen in this universe.

• Jan Pompe

Chris #412

~1368 W/m^2 * (1-0.3)*pi r^2 = 4 pi r^2 sig T^4 (the pi terms due to the area of the disk facing the sun and the outward radiation in all directions). The pi r^2 terms cancel and you have T= [1368(0.7) /4sig]^.25 = 255 K.

What universe do you live in?

Your numbers assume the earth is a poor absorber but a perfect emitter that just does not happen in this universe.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Jan,

Why are you telling me this? I acknowledge that an atmsophere keeps the planet much warmer than the blackbody temperature.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Jan,

Why are you telling me this? I acknowledge that an atmsophere keeps the planet much warmer than the blackbody temperature.

• Jan Pompe

Chris #418

Please explain the temperature of the earth, the ice ages, the faint young sun, Venus, early Mars, the modern warming, snowball earth, the Cretaceous, the PETM, or just about anything in climate science with your “theory” or without the application of CO2.

If you want the discussion to be rational I suggest you keep the red herrings out of it.

• Jan Pompe

Chris #418

Please explain the temperature of the earth, the ice ages, the faint young sun, Venus, early Mars, the modern warming, snowball earth, the Cretaceous, the PETM, or just about anything in climate science with your â€œtheoryâ€ or without the application of CO2.

If you want the discussion to be rational I suggest you keep the red herrings out of it.

• Jan Pompe

Hans #416 & Ferenc #419

First of all Hi to Hans nice to see you here.

I don’t see HARTCODE as a model but a software tool to turn measured data, i.e. temperature and concentration of absorbing species and empirically determined data from a database, into useful information.

In much the same way that for example you can apply Fourier transform to the output of a Michelson interferometer to obtain absorption spectra of a sample in the optical path. What I’m referring to is of course a Fourier Transform Infrared Red spectrometer. It’s decidedly more complex, I don’t think it quite makes it into to the model category.

• jae

Chris:

“There is absolutely nothing I said that is in debate.”

This is really why you need to go to another school. You, sir, are seriously brainwashed in the PC dogma that prevails most majour universities. Been there, done that, and I hope you, too, can escape that prison.

• Jan Pompe

Hans #416 & Ferenc #419

First of all Hi to Hans nice to see you here.

I don’t see HARTCODE as a model but a software tool to turn measured data, i.e. temperature and concentration of absorbing species and empirically determined data from a database, into useful information.

In much the same way that for example you can apply Fourier transform to the output of a Michelson interferometer to obtain absorption spectra of a sample in the optical path. What I’m referring to is of course a Fourier Transform Infrared Red spectrometer. It’s decidedly more complex, I don’t think it quite makes it into to the model category.

• jae

Chris:

“There is absolutely nothing I said that is in debate.”

This is really why you need to go to another school. You, sir, are seriously brainwashed in the PC dogma that prevails most majour universities. Been there, done that, and I hope you, too, can escape that prison.

• jae

Chris: If you have some knowledge in this area, please just pick one of Ferenc’s equations and explain in detail why it is wrong. That’s what an expert should be doing here, not armwaving about the whole theory. You are being instructed in armwaving, it seems to me.

• jae

Chris: If you have some knowledge in this area, please just pick one of Ferenc’s equations and explain in detail why it is wrong. That’s what an expert should be doing here, not armwaving about the whole theory. You are being instructed in armwaving, it seems to me.

• jae

“I am a student, but an open-minded student, and I’d like to know the details behind your falsification of decades of theory, modelling, observations, etc. I’d like to know what kind of explanatory and predictive power it offers as well and how it will change climate science”

Have you really carefully read Miscolsczi’s papers? I really, really doubt it, judging by your vague arm-waving comments. And if you have not, you will NEVER be a scientist. Read the damn papers or go to the political “science ” department, please.

• jae

“I am a student, but an open-minded student, and Iâ€™d like to know the details behind your falsification of decades of theory, modelling, observations, etc. Iâ€™d like to know what kind of explanatory and predictive power it offers as well and how it will change climate science”

Have you really carefully read Miscolsczi’s papers? I really, really doubt it, judging by your vague arm-waving comments. And if you have not, you will NEVER be a scientist. Read the damn papers or go to the political “science ” department, please.

• jae

Can’t shut up tonite. Chris, your job is to bite that damn Miscolczi on the leg. Prove that one leg of his theory is incorrect, and you will be a hero at your PC University.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

jae,

a lot of people have read his paper, and I’m really not aware of anyone credible who disgrees with me.

But if you want to play games. Start with this statement on page 5:

//”According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange
energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts”//

Kirchhoff’s Law states that emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at a given wavelength. Then in 3.1 he equates the upward LW fkux from the atmosphere with the total internal energy of atmosphere. He also says “”To identify E_U as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the E_U=S_U/ 2 equation must hold,” but that is not proved.

I’m not quite sure what we’re arguing here since all of this is stuff that is rather basic and it might need a few minutes on google at most. If a student wrote this paper, he’d get a flunking grade…there is no reason this guy should get special treatment.

• jae

Can’t shut up tonite. Chris, your job is to bite that damn Miscolczi on the leg. Prove that one leg of his theory is incorrect, and you will be a hero at your PC University.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

jae,

a lot of people have read his paper, and I’m really not aware of anyone credible who disgrees with me.

But if you want to play games. Start with this statement on page 5:

//”According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange
energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts”//

Kirchhoff’s Law states that emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at a given wavelength. Then in 3.1 he equates the upward LW fkux from the atmosphere with the total internal energy of atmosphere. He also says “”To identify E_U as the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere, the E_U=S_U/ 2 equation must hold,” but that is not proved.

I’m not quite sure what we’re arguing here since all of this is stuff that is rather basic and it might need a few minutes on google at most. If a student wrote this paper, he’d get a flunking grade…there is no reason this guy should get special treatment.

• jae

Chris: way to go! Except you and Miscolczi don’t see “Kirchoff’s concept” in the same way. Miscolczi maybe should have used a different terminology, here. But the empirical evidence is very clear, if you read the paper. And please explain the “discontinuity” to me.

• jae

Chris: way to go! Except you and Miscolczi don’t see “Kirchoff’s concept” in the same way. Miscolczi maybe should have used a different terminology, here. But the empirical evidence is very clear, if you read the paper. And please explain the “discontinuity” to me.

Chris, try to be even more open minded than you think you are, your intimacy with the “consensus” seems to be an obstacle for you.

I guess everyone agrees that many people were many times wrong about many things in the past. Yet still, even today, whenever people face a different view than the currently “accepted” one, they ressist the possibility of something new so strongly that it looks extremely ridiculous if we’re reminded of our past. So, just check out every new view as objective as you can… If anyone doesn’t see the necessity for objectivity in science then I’d like to hear them explain that and see if they can achieve it while keeping it all scientific.

Chris, try to be even more open minded than you think you are, your intimacy with the “consensus” seems to be an obstacle for you.

I guess everyone agrees that many people were many times wrong about many things in the past. Yet still, even today, whenever people face a different view than the currently “accepted” one, they ressist the possibility of something new so strongly that it looks extremely ridiculous if we’re reminded of our past. So, just check out every new view as objective as you can… If anyone doesn’t see the necessity for objectivity in science then I’d like to hear them explain that and see if they can achieve it while keeping it all scientific.

• jae

Chris:

“I’m not quite sure what we’re arguing here since all of this is stuff that is rather basic and it might need a few minutes on google at most. If a student wrote this paper, he’d get a flunking grade…there is no reason this guy should get special treatment.”

As a scientist, you gotta forgo all that appeal to authority. In the case of AGW, the support is really skin-deep, as measured by any criterion. The Hockey Stick is gone, no matter what you think. The models are way off. It is getting colder, and we may be entering a new ice age. The Sun is teaching us something, IMHO. Do you have an HO?

• jae

Chris:

“Iâ€™m not quite sure what weâ€™re arguing here since all of this is stuff that is rather basic and it might need a few minutes on google at most. If a student wrote this paper, heâ€™d get a flunking gradeâ€¦there is no reason this guy should get special treatment.”

As a scientist, you gotta forgo all that appeal to authority. In the case of AGW, the support is really skin-deep, as measured by any criterion. The Hockey Stick is gone, no matter what you think. The models are way off. It is getting colder, and we may be entering a new ice age. The Sun is teaching us something, IMHO. Do you have an HO?

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Jan (424)
Don’t be silly. If Miskolczi’s theory can’t explain anything or is inconsistent with everything, then it should probably be dismissed even before a rigorous theoretical rebuttal is attempted. Apparently the planet Venus doesn’t exist because it contradicts physics. What do you want me to get out of this?

For instance, he also says,

//”For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy flow with less water vapor available. This could increase the global average
rain rate and speed up the global water cycle resulting in a more dynamical climate, but still the energy balance equations do not allow the average surface temperature to rise.”//

The question is are YOU reading this?!?! Describe in your own words what that means to you (I feel like a grade school teacher). Then read,

Try to verify his theory with ANY independent piece, peer-reviewed in a reputable journal. Please don’t lecture me on what I do or don’t read. The fact is that Miskolczi is another person who either a) got an idea and is screaming Galileo/Einstein with his fingers in his ears saying “la la la” or b) is being dishonest. You pick, but I don’t see a viable choice c.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Jan (424)
Don’t be silly. If Miskolczi’s theory can’t explain anything or is inconsistent with everything, then it should probably be dismissed even before a rigorous theoretical rebuttal is attempted. Apparently the planet Venus doesn’t exist because it contradicts physics. What do you want me to get out of this?

For instance, he also says,

//”For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy flow with less water vapor available. This could increase the global average
rain rate and speed up the global water cycle resulting in a more dynamical climate, but still the energy balance equations do not allow the average surface temperature to rise.”//

The question is are YOU reading this?!?! Describe in your own words what that means to you (I feel like a grade school teacher). Then read,

Try to verify his theory with ANY independent piece, peer-reviewed in a reputable journal. Please don’t lecture me on what I do or don’t read. The fact is that Miskolczi is another person who either a) got an idea and is screaming Galileo/Einstein with his fingers in his ears saying “la la la” or b) is being dishonest. You pick, but I don’t see a viable choice c.

• Alex Harvey

Chris Colose:

The discussion has moved on a great deal since RealClimate publicly dismissed the theory as nonsense back in March. Please, you need to catch up with the debate before launching into an assault.

• Alex Harvey

Chris Colose:

The discussion has moved on a great deal since RealClimate publicly dismissed the theory as nonsense back in March. Please, you need to catch up with the debate before launching into an assault.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

it is always nice to see new science overtake the old stuff. It’s very hard for “broad ideas” to be overturned like the fact there is a greenhouse effect, or that evolution happens. Much more detailed questions like “how will hurricanes be effected” are usually the subject of much more worthy debate. But, of course, if a piece comes by challenging something people need to look at it.

However, just because it goes against the consensus doesn’t mean it’s right. I can’t tell my math teacher 2 + 2 = 5 and then yell at him for not being open-minded, appealing to authority, appealing to his education, etc. It’s very easy to invalidate my argument on 2 and 2, and it is just as easy to invalidate Miskolczi ‘s piece. I don’t care how anyone feels about AGW, or the shape of the earth, etc…that is a fact. It may very well be that a paper comes by and overturns everything, but it won’t be this one. It isn’t because my mind is closed, it’s because the paper is just fundamentally flawed.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

it is always nice to see new science overtake the old stuff. It’s very hard for “broad ideas” to be overturned like the fact there is a greenhouse effect, or that evolution happens. Much more detailed questions like “how will hurricanes be effected” are usually the subject of much more worthy debate. But, of course, if a piece comes by challenging something people need to look at it.

However, just because it goes against the consensus doesn’t mean it’s right. I can’t tell my math teacher 2 + 2 = 5 and then yell at him for not being open-minded, appealing to authority, appealing to his education, etc. It’s very easy to invalidate my argument on 2 and 2, and it is just as easy to invalidate Miskolczi ‘s piece. I don’t care how anyone feels about AGW, or the shape of the earth, etc…that is a fact. It may very well be that a paper comes by and overturns everything, but it won’t be this one. It isn’t because my mind is closed, it’s because the paper is just fundamentally flawed.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

jae,

you are arguably the most confused poster I’ve encountered on the internet. As a favor, please cite your top 5 sources of information on climate change. I think it will be very revealing.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

jae,

you are arguably the most confused poster I’ve encountered on the internet. As a favor, please cite your top 5 sources of information on climate change. I think it will be very revealing.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Anyway…it’s past my bedtime. Really, if people think this new paper is the next authoritative source on how atmospheres work (Goody and Yung he said!), that’s wonderful but the scientific community and policy makers never will (that’s what matters I suppose). IF you disagree with me, fine, but iF there is any real empirical evidence or past climate/climate on other planets which we can apply these news physics, and the second version of Kichoff’s law to and get some kind of predictive and explanatory power, I’d be willing to hear.

• http://www.chriscolose.wordpress.com Chris Colose

Anyway…it’s past my bedtime. Really, if people think this new paper is the next authoritative source on how atmospheres work (Goody and Yung he said!), that’s wonderful but the scientific community and policy makers never will (that’s what matters I suppose). IF you disagree with me, fine, but iF there is any real empirical evidence or past climate/climate on other planets which we can apply these news physics, and the second version of Kichoff’s law to and get some kind of predictive and explanatory power, I’d be willing to hear.

Chris,

I don’t think you were ever equally skeptical about the current mainstream view, neither after you began studying it nor before. (Your studies only strengthened your connection with it probably and I suppose you never approached it critically. In that sense it is pretty much like religion actually if you think about it, but that’s irrelevant for now and I don’t want to anger you. ) What I’m trying to say is that the main reason that you’re so aggressively opposing Miskolczi is because he disagrees with so much that you were indoctrinated with. I’m sure if you were raised by him (i.e. if you were his son) you wouldn’t be in your current position no matter what and where you study. So you’re certainly not biased towards him and it looks probable that the opposite might be the case.

Anyway, it can be that he really is wrong. But it can also be that he sees the world differently than you were taught to see and perhaps unbelievably his vision is more accurate than yours. The point is you’ll never know until you truly understand him. To achieve that, first you must acknowledge the possibility that he may somehow be right. You should completely absorb this fact, it’s essential. Only after that will you be able to invest enough time to try and see the world through his point of view. If you can’t convince yourself to do that (because you think it’s too unlikely or whatever) then you should avoid actively taking a stance. I, for example, don’t really have much clue who’s right, I don’t intend to study Miskolczi’s views. Therefore I’m just observing from outside and not acting as if I know all there is to know. But as far as I can tell you arrived here with a very solid assumption that he is wrong. You should consider reshaping that assumption…and I don’t mean just on the surface. Do it sincerely; begin to act and talk and live like someone who knows that it is absolutely possible that a seemingly incompetent scientist may just be a misunderstood but a pretty competent one.

Chris,

I don’t think you were ever equally skeptical about the current mainstream view, neither after you began studying it nor before. (Your studies only strengthened your connection with it probably and I suppose you never approached it critically. In that sense it is pretty much like religion actually if you think about it, but that’s irrelevant for now and I don’t want to anger you. ) What I’m trying to say is that the main reason that you’re so aggressively opposing Miskolczi is because he disagrees with so much that you were indoctrinated with. I’m sure if you were raised by him (i.e. if you were his son) you wouldn’t be in your current position no matter what and where you study. So you’re certainly not biased towards him and it looks probable that the opposite might be the case.

Anyway, it can be that he really is wrong. But it can also be that he sees the world differently than you were taught to see and perhaps unbelievably his vision is more accurate than yours. The point is you’ll never know until you truly understand him. To achieve that, first you must acknowledge the possibility that he may somehow be right. You should completely absorb this fact, it’s essential. Only after that will you be able to invest enough time to try and see the world through his point of view. If you can’t convince yourself to do that (because you think it’s too unlikely or whatever) then you should avoid actively taking a stance. I, for example, don’t really have much clue who’s right, I don’t intend to study Miskolczi’s views. Therefore I’m just observing from outside and not acting as if I know all there is to know. But as far as I can tell you arrived here with a very solid assumption that he is wrong. You should consider reshaping that assumption…and I don’t mean just on the surface. Do it sincerely; begin to act and talk and live like someone who knows that it is absolutely possible that a seemingly incompetent scientist may just be a misunderstood but a pretty competent one.

• Anonymous

I am starting a new post for this thread due to the length. Please continue at http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine-2/

I am starting a new post for this thread due to the length. Please continue at http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine-2/