Table of contents for Miskolczi
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 of…what? I don’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 doesn’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.
440 responses so far ↓
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.
RealClimate spoiler…
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, 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.
“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.
[...] Landshape has blogged on the controversy arising from the work of Ferenc Miskolczi, who has challenged the notion of “runaway greenhouse effect.” This is a technical post, and way over my hairless head, but I link it as an example of how unsettled basic questions of atmospheric science remain. Far from consensus, there is ferocious debate. This is good. In time a consensus may actually emerge — but I doubt it will resemble Al Gore’s version. Posted at 9:04 PM | | [...]
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 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.
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.
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, I didn’t say, and don’t believe, that emissivity has no variation with temperature.
Nick, thanks for the use of your comments in the post.
1. Eq 7 is an overall energy balance equation. I covers the entire atmospheric/surface region.
2. Reasonable people don’t normally have problems with shorthand expressions such as t4 as temperature (p12) which are common in science, especially with energy when area or time units cancel. The virial paragraph is another matter, and I agree the description is vague (but not necessarily wrong because of that).
3. I agree that the definition is not the same as the one in wikipedia, although I am not sure that the intent, being radiative equilibrium of bodies with different emissivities, is not the same. I think that the fact of radiative equilibrium and its importance as a central assumption is more important than whether it has been attributed correctly to Kirchhoff’s law or not (see recent post).
Appreciate your call for clarity though. Regards
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.
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, Thanks. You seem well read on these issues. Your input would be appreciated on future papers we examine. Cheers
#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.
#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…
#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?
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…)
#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 .)
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,
Is there something factually incorrect in anything I said?
#22 Barton Paul Levenson
Eq. (4) states that Su=Ed/A. Your interpretation somehow does not fit…
I never thought the personality of the amosphere, but I am sure it knows the physics better than you and all Physics Nobel Laurate together…
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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,
OK, to save us all time, would you like to state, carefully and quantitatively, just what you think Kirchhoff’s law does say?
#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 .
Ferencz M. writes:
Well, when I compute it I get 2.07. When Hart (1978) computed it in his famous paper he got 2.49. Both figures differ significantly from your figure (and from each other!).
What makes you think a gray model takes precedence over actual radiative transfer anyway? You know, understanding that greenhouse gases absorb in certain wavelengths and not others, and how the absorption is affected by pressure and temperature and so on, were real advances in knowledge. You seem to be trying to compete with Svante Arrhenius.
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.”
FM says I’m wasting people’s time by talking about Kirchhoff’s Law. Let’s see if this is a valid point or not. Here is the definition of Kirchhoff’s Law from FM’s paper:
Now, here’s the definition from Henderson-Sellers and Robinson (1986):
Now, here’s the definition from Petty (2006):
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?
WATTS! Sorry about that.
See what I mean? A preview function would really, really help, especially with us impulsive guys.
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.
$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.
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.
BPL
One thing I will agree on I need that preview too.
#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
“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.
OK: See what I mean? A preview function would really, really help, especially with us impulsive guys.
#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 #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.
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.)
P.S. Thanks for the preview function! It helps a lot.
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.
#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.
#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 #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?
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
#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 #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.
#52 Ferenc M. Miskolczi
I too am excited. Is there any chance we could get more information about this experiment?
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
Ferencz Miskolczi writes:
It generally means you’re treating the atmosphere (or another body) as having the same absorptivity/emissivity across the EM spectrum, instead of varying with wavelength the way real gas absorptivity/emissivity does.
I’ve been working with gray models since 1978, which you can confirm by giving Michael Hart a call. Most “gray models” are actually semigray, with a different figure for solar (UV + visible + near IR) and terrestrial (thermal IR) wavelength/frequency/wavenumber ranges.
For confirmation of my claim, you could try looking at the semigray model I developed on my web site to illustrate how the greenhouse effect works. Of course, unlike you but like everybody else in the field, I get no results which indicate that Earth’s IR optical depth is somehow fixed at 1.87.
#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?
Blogs are where its all happenin’ man
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)
Ferenc, equations 1 thru 6 applies to all planetary atmospheres. Equation 7 applies only to Earth type atmospheres, where there are oceans and a partial cloud cover. It leads to equation 8, S_u = 3OLR/2.
You then give equation 9 which is the general solution, which applies to both Earth and Mars. For Earth, T_A = 1/6, or E_D = 5S_T. Sure enough, substituting this into equation 9 does give equation 8, the Earth case.
In post #23 above, you say “The Su=(3/2)OLR relationship for the global average flux densities is an empirical fact.”
On the website “Developments in greenhouse theory” you/Zagoni show a graph of 3OLR/2 verses S_u with r=0.968 for the Earth’s atmosphere.
But after equation 8 you say “Eq (8) … does not account for the fact that the atmosphere is gravitationally bounded”.
So why do you say that? After all, equation 8 is experimentally verified for the Earth, and I think the atmosphere is gravitationally bounded.
Also, I didn’t see 3OLR/2 vs S_u graph in the paper. I should think this is the critical graph in support of equation 8. Equation 7 then seems to be the equation required to lead to the empirical result of equation 8. Is this a fair statement?
To get equation 9, you implement the virial term S_v = S_T/2 - E_D/10.
Please explain how you get this equation from the virial theoreum E_u = S_u/2.
Ken Gregory #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.
FM,
It doesn’t matter that you used an LBL code to find the IR optical depth of Earth’s atmosphere. However you got the figure, it’s still a semigray model if you’re using one figure for the IR optical depth of Earth’s atmosphere. What you did was like what atmosphere physicists do to develop band models, only you’ve only got one band. Which is the definition of a semigray model.
Barton Paul Levenson # 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.
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.
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.
Jan Pompe writes:
It doesn’t matter how you got the figure. If you use one figure for the IR optical thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere, it is by definition a gray or semigray model. How clearly do I have to spell this out?
If FM’s model is not gray or semigray, where do bands show up in his equations?
Steve Short writes:
Except that it’s not based on GCMs. When Svante Arrhenius published the first estimate of global warming under doubled carbon dioxide, he did not use a computer model. Neither did Challenger in 1938.
The theory of AGW is based on known facts about radiation physics. Put more of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and, all else being equal, the ground must get warmer. The GCMs are only used to try and quantify the effect and make projections (note — not predictions).
#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….
#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…
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.
#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’.
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 #77
How many numbers do you expect from a line by line integral?
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,
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?
#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