Maybe we should all re-read this:

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html

Created a topic on putting maths in posts - here http://www.landshape.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f...

oops

"colon" -> "semi-colon"

Alex #298

Okay, my less than & greater than signs disappeared in the above post.

yes they tend to do that since they are identified as html tags so it must be done with the ampersand lt|gt colon < and >

Okay, my less than & greater than signs disappeared in the above post.

...if absorption and re-emission are occurring at less than 0.5km and clouds are forming at greater than 2km...

Nick #289:

This is quite frustrating because I really feel you are equivocating. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. We have here, a whole body of MEP literature suggesting that the atmospheres of the earth, Mars, and Titan, are apparently in state of maximising their rate of entropy production. Next, we have Miskolczi's measurements showing that ED is within 0.16% of AA. From his model Martian atmospheres, he observed the same relationship on Mars. Arthur suggested that this is fine for the clear-sky case, but it would differ in the cloudy-sky case. Well, I don't buy this, especially if absorption & re-emission are occurring at 2km. At any rate, there are no clouds in the CO2 atmosphere of Mars, so the clouds can't help the AGW theory in that case.

You have gone back to calling Miskolczi's 228 instances (+ another 8 or so Martian profiles) a single instance. Why? It is very clear that these 228 atmospheric profiles were not selected for the purpose of studying the AA = ED relationship. Indeed, it's quite clear that Miskolczi's techniques for extracting ED were not refined at that stage (that being the purpose of MM2004). So we have 235 or so instances satisfying the rule, and 0 instances contradicting it.

The real question is, when you say, AA > ED, do you or don't mean AA is greater than ED by more than 0.16% in the clear-sky case? Is 0.16% the sort of difference you're talking about, or do you really mean more? On the other hand, 0.16% would be fine if the theory holds that AA = ED only in a limiting case. That would be fine, because we know that the atmosphere will never quite reach its peak efficiency for entropy-rate maximisation.

Broadening of spectral lines at higher temperatures near the surface. This effect would tend to equalize with the lower temperatures above. The reasoning by Steve Short, bringing in the effects of clouds would diminish this effect. Similar to Zagoni stating that high altitude clouds block the energy equivalent of totally closing the IR window. Greenhouse operating at top per Zagoni clouds, compared to Steve Short's low altitude maximum retaining effects ?

oops

Nick #293

Then keeping the surface at 287, suppose the air cools to conform with a 10K/km lapse rate. Su stays constant; Aa stays constant, but part of Ed is radiation from gas at altitude, and this diminishes. So Aa=Ed can’t be maintained.

Kirchoff's or Stewarts law, which ever you preference may be refer to an object in thermal equilibrium (i.e. it's observables are not changing) neither say anything about it being isothermal, so what is your obsession about.

Steve #290
As Aa (heat flux up incl. surface reflection) DECLINES towards Ed (heat flux down incl. SW)
No, Aa is not the heat flux up (that's Su) - it is the heat flux absorbed. I'll restate my argument as a thought experiment. Start with an isothermal atmosphere, 287K, and suppose that Aa=Ed. Then keeping the surface at 287, suppose the air cools to conform with a 10K/km lapse rate. Su stays constant; Aa stays constant, but part of Ed is radiation from gas at altitude, and this diminishes. So Aa=Ed can't be maintained.

Steve, 288:

"Please explain to me how the Cabauw measurement ‘fix’ these?"

I don't think anyone is stretching M's AA=ED idea farther than the first 200 m from the surface. Of course, nobody denies the lapse rate, etc ! The Cabauw measurements, as I understand them, show empirically that within the first 200 m of the surface (which here is defiined as 2 m above the "real surface"), AA = ED.

Nick #289

But the IR spectrum has high absorption in parts, near zero in the window, and a range of intermediate absorptions in between. And there, Ed is less than Aa.”

If the temperature isn't changing where those absorbers are they will emit as they absorb too that's how it works.

Have you read John Nicol's article again he does know quite a bit about this sort of thing.

Sorry, my typo, Aa = Ed + K (for radiative correction). Miskolczi's flux directions always sent me nuts.

Nick#289

"But it’s a huge stretch to infer from that a rule that convection will always adjust to enforce a radiative equality."

How about this, Nick?

As Aa (heat flux up incl. surface reflection) DECLINES towards Ed (heat flux down incl. SW) doesn't this simply increase the available KE in the lower troposphere?

Then the surface discontinuity/lapse rate increases again i.e. available FE is converted to available PE shifting latent and sensible heat back to the level of that cumulus layer I mentioned before? This then bolsters the downward SW flux during condensation (as well as frictional dissipation by falling rain) BUT importantly it also rejects more heat above the cumulus layer.

I'll quote it again:

” Pujol and Fort (2002) explore the surface temperature contrast and its influence on entropy production by convection. As one might expect, the higher the optical depth, the higher the convective flux. Similarly, the steeper the imposed lapse rate, or the larger the surface temperature contrast, the better the system can reject heat by radiation, and thus the lower the convective heat flux.”

Therefore doesn't abiotic MEP force Aa and Ed together?

And note I haven't even mentioned the effect of increased biotic MEP (increased surface albedo, increased Eocean or ETland and increased aerosol production rate) as soon as surface temperatures increase.

Huge stretch? Naaaah.

Alex #282
In that event, even if the result is empirical, it would still show that some part of the standard theory is wrong.
No, I've spelt that out. On radiative grounds, Aa > Ed. But convection boosts Ed and not Aa, so it's possible, in a given instance, to get equality. But it's a huge stretch to infer from that a rule that convection will always adjust to enforce a radiative equality.

And Jan #284
Your error here is that you fail to allow for the fact that the atmosphere is opaque to depth of around 10m to the wavelengths it absorbs so emissions measured do not come from very high at all. No, I've covered that one too :"Now in the limit of high absorption, the lapse rate has little effect, and Aa=Ed is close to true. But the IR spectrum has high absorption in parts, near zero in the window, and a range of intermediate absorptions in between. And there, Ed is less than Aa."

While AA may = ED to a reasonable precision under many 'clear sky' situations in the hands of Miskolczi it also became a dangerous concept which encouraged the perception that there is never, at any time a point of time, temperature discontinuity (dead wrong) or worse that lapse rate doesn't exist (dead wrong) or even worse there isn't massive transfer of available PE around the atmosphere (dead wrong) These perceptions lead nowhere. Please explain to me how the Cabauw measurement 'fix' these?

BTW, there are some good pdfs which encourage a more holistic view and are worth reading to be had here:

http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/245.0.html?&L=...

Fact is this is a not a 2 D atmosphere - it is 3D and there is a lot of lateral movement. There is also a hell of a lot of thermal advection (convection) moving latent sensible around. Having hang glided for about a decade, much of that 'thermalling' across country with a altimeter on my wrist, an air speed indicator and variometer beside me I have wallowed in this stuff.

In so far as we want to mess with Aa and Ed and the mish mash of mixed positive and negative that is Miskolczi formalism we should have Aa + K = Ed for a crude all sky 2D lumped parameter model. I guess I'm with Nick on this.

I liked van Andel's 'tome' but we need to remember that in summer greenhouse operators the world over not only commonly white wash their glass to increase opacity/albedo (!) but also often take other measures to increase advective heat mixing beneath the glass.

#286 jae

"AA = ED idea"

Closer to ground, closer to equal.
Higher up, Lapse in T implies lapse in Ed
The answer is blowing in the Lapse

Jan, 284, Steve, 285:

It seems to me that the Cabauw measurements provided in van Andel's "tome" also support the AA = ED idea.

Jan#284

"In fact if you look carefully at the output from MODTRAN over a range of heights from 25 - 450m you’ll find that the thermal equilibrium at least according to MODTRAN exist to that height."

Yes, I think this is a very important point. There is indeed a level below ~ <0.5 km where Aa = Ed in a purely radiative sense. Furthermore I think this level moves up and down below 0.5 km and is likely to be significantly lower on average over the oceans due to higher wind speeds, better turbulent mixing and generally higher evaporation (higher entropy production rate).

What I find intriguing is that there is also something which we could call the mean cumulus height (~ 2km) which also moves up and down in a sort of synchrony (refer Lindzen et al. 1982).

During this process clouds can both move apart and/or get bigger and/or denser depending upon the lapse rate and the rate of nucleation by biogenic aerosols (themselves responding to the PAR SW light flux and surface temperature principally). Remember mean atmospheric SW albedo is approximately 0.66 (~cloud cover) and mean LW albedo is approximately 0.33.

In my view, it is the combination of these two lower and upper 'interfaces' which produce an expanding and contracting interfacial 'iris' within which maximization of entropy and hence available PE particularly occurs.

So the answer is yes, there will be stronger turbulent meridional exchange as a response to increasing CO2 - this is why oceanic wind speeds have been trending upwards for 30 plus years.

The radiative/convective window of this interfacial iris adjusts LW and SW IR opacity and albedo balances in response to temperature and the level of CO2 in the critical lower troposphere tau zone between about 0.8 and 2.0 in accord with abiotic and biotic MEP.

We have more to learn about the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of the lower troposphere just above out heads. But I am beginning to get a glimpse of how this system may be formally described following Miskolczi.

Nick #281

But Ed represents the thermal radiation from higher levels of the atmosphere, and will be reduced from its isothermal value by the lapse rate. So it must be less than Aa

Your error here is that you fail to allow for the fact that the atmosphere is opaque to depth of around 10m to the wavelengths it absorbs so emissions measured do not come from very high at all. In fact if you look carefully at the output from MODTRAN over a range of heights from 25 - 450m you'll find that the thermal equilibrium at least according to MODTRAN exist to that height. John Nicol actually explained it rather well you should reread his article.

281 Nick Stokes

Kirchoff and the Virial Lapse are of opposite effects.
One flattens the local temperature, the other is an orbitally determined steady state. On the top, the Kirchoff is not equalized, but bounded by the background microwave of the universe.

What is stopped by the spectral fringes, is further bound by the tendency of the gas to emit along stronger thermalized spectral lines. A Virial Lapse Rate modified mean free path, can be part of the reasoning.

Nick # 281:

In that case, it sounds to me that Arthur's position that Miskolczi's numbers could be right (AA = 311.9, ED = 311.4) without challenging anything we know really is untenable. In that event, even if the result is empirical, it would still show that some part of the standard theory is wrong. Your position is closer to BPL's. That said, of course, you have tried to argue yourself in the past that Miskolczi's numbers could be right without challenging the 'consensus' view. Frankly, though, I think this is fudging, and stretching the meaning of 'approximate'. I think this is an attempt to avoid the inconvenient reality that Miskolczi's technology and methodology is well-tested, and no one wants to admit another anomaly for the AGW camp to have to deal with. That's how it seems to me, at any rate.

Alex #272
Here's a disproof of Aa=Ed as a theoretical proposition for pure radiative transfer. If true, it would be true for an isothermal atmosphere (and may well be). But we actually have a lapse rate. Now Aa is not affected by the lapse rate; the radiation from the ground depends only on ground temperature, and the fraction absorbed is a property of the gas which is basically independent of temperature. But Ed represents the thermal radiation from higher levels of the atmosphere, and will be reduced from its isothermal value by the lapse rate. So it must be less than Aa.

Now in the limit of high absorption, the lapse rate has little effect, and Aa=Ed is close to true. But the IR spectrum has high absorption in parts, near zero in the window, and a range of intermediate absorptions in between. And there, Ed is less than Aa.

This will be compensated to some extent by K, which enhances Ed without affecting Aa. But there is no mechanism to suggest exact balance. And anyway, M says that K is balanced exclusively by Eu.

Franko #279

Averaged to equal climatically, but not daily weather.

There is a daily lag too the hottest part of the day is about 1400 hrs (not summertime).

The surface does store. There is a 6 week delay -- Maxumun solar around June 21, and hottest 6 weeks later. Similarly,coldest is early February.

Averaged to equal climatically, but not daily weather.

Steve #277

Absolutely LOL.

I'd call that a 'dead heat' (pun definitely intended) wouldn't you?

pochas#274

"It is intuitively reasonable since year-round average surface temperatures are equal to average near-surface air temperatures. Any short-term imbalance must soon be reversed, or else surface temperatures will continue to either rise or fall indefinitely. The requirement for no net energy transfer means on average Aa = Ed."

Unfortunately, as Jan Pompe has pointed out, the record for 'surface' temperatures obtained at weather stations, many often located at airfields are actually measured anywhere between about 1 and 2 m above the surface i.e. they are de facto air temperatures anyway.

To the best of my knowledge very few 'surface temperatures' are actually measured by thermistors cemented directly to the solid land surface or measured by some other acceptable method such as Jan has also mentioned i.e. cavity radiometry.

This tends to make the whole distinction between a surface temperature and an air temperature rather laughable.

IMO, at the end of the day, whether one wants to quibble about this or not is rather pointless because even if there is some mysterious locality where Aa = Ed (somewhere) it doesn't really change the fact that for simply 'lumped parameter' models like Miskolczi's it is also necessary to assume an average lapse rate either explicitly or by some 'smoke and mirrors' (;-) method to achieve a flux continuity equation for the surface-troposphere.

All the wishing in the world to try to make do with a radiative-only model doesn't work without descending into language mutilation in an attempt to try to hide the 'pea' of the non-radiative element under the 'walnut' of the mathematical formalism. That is precisely why we have been running around in circles so much.

Pochas #274

It is intuitively reasonable since year-round average surface temperatures are equal to average near-surface air temperatures.

Can you tell us where near surface temperatures and surface temperatures are actually measured?

Alex #271:

"But do you still think that the law is defensible?"

If you mean Kirchoff's law at the surface, yes. Its a basic law of physics. To state that two objects are at thermal equilibrium is to state that they are at the same temperature and that absorptivity and emissivities are equal for each object and that means there can be no net transfer of energy between them.

It is intuitively reasonable since year-round average surface temperatures are equal to average near-surface air temperatures. Any short-term imbalance must soon be reversed, or else surface temperatures will continue to either rise or fall indefinitely. The requirement for no net energy transfer means on average Aa = Ed.

Alex. I agree with absolutely everything you say here.

May I suggest you revisit Pujol and Fort (2002):
States of maximum entropy production in a one-dimensional model with convective adjustment. Tellus Series A, 54, 363-369
and again that old favorite of mine, Lorenz and McKay (2003):
A simple expression for vertical convective fluxes in planetary atmospheres. Icarus 165, 407- 413

I know you have the latter. Please read it again and have a good look at Figure 2(b). Also note well the following text (bottom left page 409):

"We note that Lindzen et al. (1982) find deltaT = 0 ~ 6 K in a radiative convective model with a cumulus parameterization of convection and deltaT ~2 K for (lapse rate) adjustment models." (deltaT is the surface/atmosphere temperature discontinuity).

As we know, M adjusts the expression for the surface heat flux so that the surface temperature supposedly has the same temperature as the contacting atmosphere. He uses Ta = exp(-tautilde) claiming this is simply the transmittance of the atmosphere.

I disagree - I think the adjustment M makes is essentially a crude approximation for the deltaT (range 0 - 6 K, can use ~2K).

Notice in L & McK (2003) Figure 2(b) that there is negligible difference in estimated upward convective flux Fc (via the function Fc = Fs[tau/(C+D*tau)]; Fs= 140 W/m^2) as a function of tauzero for a moist pseudoadiabatic lapse rate of 6.5K and for a deltaT of 5K and a dry adiabatic lapse rate of 9.5K.

In others words Ta (or more properly f) is really a fudge of a purely radiative model to make it behave roughly like a simple radiative-convective model.

I'll nearly finish up with how L & McK (2003) summarize what Pujol and Fort (2002) found:

" Pujol and Fort (2002) explore the surface temperature contrast and its influence on entropy production by convection. As one might expect, the higher the optical depth, the higher the convective flux. Similarly, the steeper the imposed lapse rate, or the larger the surface temperature contrast, the better the system can reject heat by radiation, and thus the lower the convective heat flux."

This is where the connection to (abiotic) MEP comes in.

Interestingly I don't think this is quite how M arrived at Ta because he wasn't directly interested in convective heat fluxes. I think he arrived at it via an assumed a priori Aa ~ Ed because it is possible to infer this by balancing out the upwelling LW + SW IR from the surface against the downwelling IR and downscattered SW - especially off the cloud layer at about 2 km altitude (tau~1.47) as I quickly vomited up last Saturday on the other thread #133 (with my partner stomping around upstairs bad vibing me to the max ;).

Amazing what numerical gymnastics can be done with exponential elementary and integral functions.....

Steve # 255:

I did read your #122 and #133 at ‘More Data Disproving Global Warming’ several times but didn’t understand completely, which is probably my fault. You also wrote in #61 at ‘Greenhouse Heat Engine #3’:

Forget about Stewart’s Law and Kirchoff’s Law. If it behaves to a good approximation, as though it is pseudo-adiabatic then so it is. Cut the crap and move on.

I don’t agree. If eqn.4 is empirical and approximate, its ontological value, if you will, is considerably lower, and different, than it would be if it was a theoretical, necessary contraint. Moreover, without an equivalence, or necessary near-equivalence, I don’t believe Miskolczi can conclude:

...the upward atmospheric radiation is not related to LW absorption processes.

And he can’t get to his conclusion that eqn.5 & 6 might fundamentally change our concept of the greenhouse theories.

These conclusions require a theoretical equivalence to hold, right? Otherwise, it would be impossible to say how changes in concentrations in GHG’s would affect the AA / ED ratio. I still can’t understand all the effort that’s been expended in defending (and refuting) the virial law and eqn.7 when it seems that no one has been able to successfully defend the earlier eqn.4. And I say this only because some, e.g. Arthur, assert that the empirical result is not close enough to prove an equivalence (although BPL apparently disagrees with Arthur). It seems that, Steve, you have argued from what we know of the processes involved that AA must be approximately equal to ED. Zagoni has made arguments that seem to ignore the lapse rate. I haven’t understood Jan’s argument. I don’t understand Franko’s argument either, although it seems to be different from Jan’s. Pochas has spoken very clearly, but even he seems to be saying that the lapse rate presents a problem. If pochas’s argument can’t stand up, then I would wonder, perhaps AA = ED follows as a consequence of the MEP principle. (In fact, that’s exactly what the paper says, but almost as a footnote that’s so far remained almost completely ignored, i.e. that AA = ED can be derived from the MEP principle (see the proof on p. 24). The trouble is, that requires that the doubts about the derivation of the tau function be resolved, and that hasn’t happened either.) Perhaps all of Miskolczi’s observed relationships amongst fluxes are consequences of the MEP principle. But still, I haven’t seen any clear arguments for this.

But I don’t think ‘approximate’ gets us to where we need to be because we really don’t know how approximate; even Miskolczi himself concedes that there are limitations with the data he’s using:

MM2004, p. 231:

Further improvements seem to be difficult without building in more detailed temperature, water vapor, and ozone profile related information and breaking up the task for several shorter spectral intervals.

MM2004, p. 249:

Obviously, the presented results have their limitations. The most significant one is related to the temperature profile data base. In some latitudinal belts we had rather few soundings, therefore, it is difficult to set up selection procedures to obtain statistically consistent data sets for each latitudinal belts. There are virtually unlimited possibilities in increasing the complexity of such simulations by involving more atmospheric and surface parameters. The scientific community dealing with the present and future of the greenhouse effect of the Earth’s atmosphere would certainly welcome such extensions of this kind of research.

M2007, p. 24:

...probably the largest single source of the error is related to the selection of the representative atmospheric profile set...

So that’s my position. Until either eqn.4 or the derivation of eqn.28 in Appendix B can be resolved clearly, all this discussion of the remainder of the theory seems to me to be a waste of mental energy. The MEP literature is interesting in its own right, but my present interest is in whether or not it supports Miskolczi’s theory.

pochas # 269:

The darned lapse rate gets you every time. :)

But do you still think that the law is defensible?

admin: moving the long links down so they don't mess up the formatting.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=Articl...

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=Y...

http://www.complexsystems.net.au/index.php?page...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023...

http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/robertsa/holist...

"So each layer all the way up to the radiating zone has two inputs of 5 and two outputs of 5 for a net of zero."

I feel guilty about letting this oversimplification stand. :-(

This would apply to an isothermal atmosphere, and of course ours has a lapse rate. Emissions from each layer depend on the temperature of that layer, and we need an additional thermalization term for each layer to account for this. The 5's would apply only at the surface.

Well then Steve, there's still time for you to give a talk at the Heartland conference too. Instead of just criticizing M, why not attempt to do that better explanation yourself? Why not stick your head above the parapet too?

Franko, Steve:

And if we do nothing to protect the earth's biosphere as a direct result of green activists misleading our politicians and redirecting all resources to a nonexistent problem of CO2 emission, wouldn't it be a terrible irony if this was the ultimate cause of our planet's destruction?

In order to keep the plants warmly happy
Prevent Ice Ages, by eliminating a country
Nuke the Isthmus called Panama

I can see the logic, entrophy equations supported ?

Correctamundo.

Biology is Earth's (Past, Future, Present) Destiny.
Even the blue color of an oxygenated block of ice.
All related to air delivered planr food, CO2.

Steve Short, 255 & 261 on this thread and 133 on the other thread: Very interesting ideas! I, too, would like to see a thread that puts it all together with more details.

OK David. I'll see what I can put together. FYI the above crossed over. However, I'd really like to run my math notions past Jan first and am hoping to meet up with him in person fairly soon.

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 2009 in New York City and is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank, will host an international lineup of climate scientists and researchers who will focus on four broad areas: climatology, paleoclimatology, the impact of climate change, and climate-change politics and economics.

I sincerely hope that Ferenc Miskolczi will attend the 2009 conference and present an updated version of his theory.

In my view Miskolczi is a brilliant man. I believe his basic thesis, which is that there are a suite of natural phenomena which collectively produce a form of homeostasis in the interglacial (non-Milankovitch) global climate is essentially correct.

He is clearly a very good radiation physicist. But an understanding of thermodynamics that is less thorough and difficulties with the English language let him down.

I sincerely hope that a re-presentation of his theory in March 2009, leaving out those distracting (and essentially irrelevant) antediluvian buzz words like 'Kirchoff' and 'Virial', and taking on board modern ideas which have appeared in the mainstream literature over more than 10 years might help the situation.

Pocas is right. Of course there is a greenhouse effect. However it is not only the water cycle which apparently acts to stabilize temperatures by increased cloud increasing SW tau and SW albedo and by elevated cloud transferring more latent heat higher into the atmosphere (i.e. adjusting the Su/OLR ratio)

These effects arise because of the logical consequences of a turbulent system tending to maximize entropy production (and hence maximize available potential energy). Not fantasy - supported by good solid literature.

Other effects, also at root a consequence of the system's tendency to maximize entropy production is biotic. Increased CO2 increases continental plant growth and oceanic cyanobacterial growth. This in turn increases emissions of biogenic aerosols of various forms. This in turn increases surface albedo, clear sky SW and LW scattering below the cloud layer and cloud formation rates and composition, etc. Not fantasy - also supported by a body of good literature.

There is in fact a wealth of literature and good science to clothe the framework of Miskolczi's clever perception.

Steve: I assume you mean #133. It took a couple of reads before I got it, and I am still not certain. As I said before,write it up as a post and I will post it so you can have a thread. It would probably help to leave out things like "This is a fast and furious summary on a Saturday morning with lots of other stuff on the weekend agenda." too. Cheers

JamesG#256

"You can’t have given many talks Steve. Either the audience would fall asleep or walk out if M spoke like that."

Oh, only about 60-odd in a science career spanning 36 years. Let's forget the literature, the physics, and take it all down to a non-boring level shall we? Then it must surely come out right (for Gen Y at least).

Some folks seem to deny the presence of the greenhouse effect. It most assuredly exists, and it is directly related to the transparency of the atmosphere to OLR which is 1/6 according to M, and to incoming SW radiation, which is 1/4, the ratio of (Fo -F)/Fo in the example above. Anything which affects either of these ratios will affect surface temperature. Its not a question of "if", its a question of "how much". Of course all of this includes the water cycle which apparently acts to stabilize temperatures, but that mechanism cannot remove all the effects of changing greenhouse gas concentrations. BTW, ozone is a greenhouse gas with a concentration that varies with the solar cycle. I haven't seen this discussed much.

Alex #248:

Each layer except the surface has two inputs and two outputs. Lets call them

inputs:
Ed_(i+1),Eu_(i-1)

outputs:
Eu_(i), Ed_(i)

All 4 must sum to zero.

At the surface

inputs:
F_0-F

outputs:
S_g = S_t + A_a

According to M the transparency of the atmosphere is 1/6, so to keep the math easy lets consider a hypothetical with Sg = 6. Then, S_T = 1,
A_a = E_(d, 1) = 6 - 1 = 5

Since for every photon emitted downward we have one emitted upward
E_(u, 1) = 5

We need 5 more to make up the 10 units emitted, so
E_(d, 2) = 5

So each layer all the way up to the radiating zone has two inputs of 5 and two outputs of 5 for a net of zero. This amounts to saying that the atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) except for the radiating zone.

How about convection? It is a mass movement of parcels of air to the level of LTE with the rest of the atmosphere. Nothing wrong there.

What happens in the radiating zone? No more LTE. M says for Sg = 6 we will have Eu = 1/2 * 6 = 3 and not 5. To keep this short, I'll just say that the top radiating zone has an input from below of 5, an output downward of 5, an input from space of F= 3 and an output to space of E_u = 3.

Completing the energy balance, OLR and Fo are equal to 2/3 * 6 = 4.
St and Fo - F are equal to 1.

The above assumes that K, P, Po are equal to zero and how to handle nonzeros is up to M.

M, if I have abused your theory I apologize.

You can't have given many talks Steve. Either the audience would fall asleep or walk out if M spoke like that.

Alex

Nice to see you (and Ken and Jan and David) completely ignored what I said on the 'More Data Disproving Global Warming ' thread.

Here is a suggestion. As a man with a strong philosophical background, perhaps you should start by looking at what Miskolczi said at the Heartland Institute conference and what he should have really said if he had acknowledged the modern climate literature he borrowed much of his ideas from, actually understood it clearly and then been really honest about that:

He said:

-the greenhouse effect on the Earth is constrained by powerful 'negative energetic feedbacks'

He should have said:

-the greenhouse effect on the Earth is constrained by its turbulent and life-containing climate to naturally maximize the production of entropy, both abiotically and biotically, and hence to maximize available potential energy.

He said:

-the atmosphere maintains a 'saturated' greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content.

He should have said:

- the atmosphere is close to a saturated greenhouse effect, already controlled by cloud-based aerosol density and cloud-based shortwave IR albedo.

He said:

-including all energetic feedbacks, the long term sensitivity is zero;

He should have said:

-including all avilable entropy-maximizing effects, both abiotic and biotic, the long term sensitivity in an interglacial period is low.

He said:

-Earth's greenhouse effect is working at its energetic top; further greenhouse warming is practically impossible;

He should have said:

-Earth's greenhouse effect is working to maximize available potential energy and minimize available kinetic energy ; further greenhouse warming is therefore naturally limited;

He said:

- Human activity may alter the absorbed solar energy by modifying planetary albedo (though aerosols, land use change etc);

He should have said:

- Human activity has little effect but natural abiotic and biotic activity of a magnitude far greater than that which can be forced by humankind may alter the absorbed solar energy by modifying planetary albedo (through cloud-based aerosols and biogenic aerosols).

Reflect on this.

Nick, yes I see why I'm getting confused about the EU here. Miskolczi has challenged the standard definition of EU. If we agree that, AA = ED + EU, then if AA = ED, EU = 0. However, this EU is not the same quantity as the EU of eqn.5 (p. 6):

3.1 Upward atmospheric radiation
Eq. (5) shows that the source of the upward atmospheric radiation is not related to LW absorption processes. The F+K+P flux term is always dissipated within the atmosphere increasing (or decreasing) its total thermal energy.

Anyhow, stumped again.

TE says heat in = heat out whereas RE says LW in = LW out. Correct?
Well, TE generally just means steady temperature, and conservation of energy then implies heat in = heat out. As I said above, RE just states this specially for the case where the only hear transfer is radiation. It actually impli9es LW+SW in = LW+SW out, but reduces to LW=LW here on the assumption that SW is not absorbed (or emitted).
So OK, perhaps in #251 for extra exactitude I should have said “aA(1) = eD(1) + eU(1) is the statement of thermal equilibrium with conservation of energy.”

M's Eq 5 is the kind of reason I'm pushing you to distinguish eE and EU. EU in that equation is definitely gas-emitted IR at TOA. One of the reasons I think Eq 4 is so dubious is that this deduction (Eq 5) says that EU can be related to K - a non-IR fl0w several km away.
Eq (5) is a statement of radiative non-equilibrium for the whole atmosphere - convection in is balanced in part by IR out. But it assumes steady temp (thermal eq) and conservation of energy. That's a reason why I actually think talk of radiative equilibrium doesn't help; disequilibrium really can just mean something sensible.

In # 232 you wrote, "aA=eU+eD is the statement of radiative equilibrium." In # 251 you wrote, “aA(1) = eD(1) + eU(1) is the statement of thermal equilibrium.” TE says heat in = heat out whereas RE says LW in = LW out. Correct? So you must have been correct in # 232 and incorrect here? I am using EU to denote LW out whereas Miskolczi has it denoting something else. This is why I momentarily above thought that it should disappear altogether in Miskolczi’s model. I am confused by this, but this is probably my fault. On what the meaning of EU is if not LW out (well, it can’t mean LW out because Miskolczi has eqn.5 as EU = F + P + K). Perhaps what pochas & Franko are saying above is that there is a full radiative equilibrium throughout the atmosphere in the IR (AA = ED) whereas the thermal equilibrium exists only at the surface, with a temperature gradient being the function of conduction and convection (somehow relating to EU = F + P + K I suppose).

Alex #248
It goes wrong here:
such that aA(1) = eD(1) + eU(1). However, since there is thermal equilibrium with the surface, layer 0, aA(1) = eD(1); eU(1) = 0.
But aA(1) = eD(1) + eU(1) is the statement of thermal equilibrium - steady temp, so heat in = heat out. You actually can't have eU(1)=0 - that would imply zero temp at the top.
But your assumption that the layers are totally transparent or totally opaque will lead to trouble. The implication is that any radiation that gets through the first layer cannot be absorbed higher up. So you don't have to worry about radiation downwards from above. On the other hand, the gas above will drop to zero temp.
You shouldn't talk about thermal equilibrium for a wavelength. Thermal is thermal, and it is the total heat transfer that balances.
Radiative equilibrium is a term tossed around a lot, but it really is just conservation of energy in a situation where all the heat transfer is radiative. It isn't an extra condition that you can use.

Okay, I've forgotten to consider the case of radiation emitted downwards from higher layers. I'll fix this shortly.

Apologies, that should read 'We have N cases of incoming radiation to consider...' in the second last paragraph above. I think it's clear enough without me painstakingly explicating the three dots here. :)

pochas # 245, thank you. I believe I have understood, a light-bulb flashing, but again I remember that I’m probably wrong. So I’d much appreciate your feedback on the following reconstruction of the underlying argument.


We begin by considering the situation at layer 1.

We have a full thermal equilibrium between the surface and near-surface air, that is, between the surface, layer 0, and the near-surface air, layer 1.

We have two cases:

A) wavelengths for which layer 1 is transparent.

Any radiation emitted at these wavelengths passes through as ST.

B) wavelengths for which layer 1 is opaque.

Any radiation emitted at these wavelengths, by the radiative equilibrium condition, is either re-emitted upwards, or is re-emitted downwards, such that aA(1) = eD(1) + eU(1). However, since there is thermal equilibrium with the surface, layer 0, aA(1) = eD(1); eU(1) = 0. Here, eU(1) = 0 is the amount of radiation emitted upwards to layer 2 and beyond.

Next we consider the situation at layer 2.

We have a local thermal equilibrium (LTE) between layer 2 and layer 1.

As before, we have two cases:

A) wavelengths for which layer 2 is transparent.

Any radiation emitted at these wavelengths passes through as ST.

B) wavelengths for which layer 2 is opaque.

Any radiation emitted at these wavelengths, by the radiative equilibrium condition, is either re-emitted upwards, or is re-emitted downwards, aA(2) = eD(2) + eU(2). We have two cases of incoming radiation to consider: radiation from the surface, layer 0, that has passed through layer 1; and radiation emitted upwards from layer 1, i.e. eU(1). However, eU(1) = 0, therefore we disregard this case – and in disregarding this case we also disregard any use or need for the LTE assumption we introduced [if this analysis is correct, the quibble-question for Ferenc might be why the LTE approximation was invoked in M2007 in the first place]. However, since radiation emitted upwards from the surface crossed layer 1 to reach layer 2, we may consider layer 2 to be in full thermal equilibrium with the surface for this wavelength only. (But is this valid?) Therefore, aA(2) = eD(2); eU(2) = 0.

...

Next we consider the situation at layer N.

As before, we have two cases:

A) wavelengths for which layer N is transparent.

Any radiation emitted at these wavelengths passes through as ST.

B) wavelengths for which layer N is opaque.

Any radiation emitted at these wavelengths, by the radiative equilibrium condition, is either re-emitted upwards, or is re-emitted downwards, aA(N) = eD(N) + eU(N). We have two cases of incoming radiation to consider: radiation from the surface, layer 0, that has passed through layer 1; and radiation emitted upwards from layer 1, i.e. eU(N-1). However, eU(N-1) = 0, therefore we disregard this case – and in disregarding this case we also disregard any use or need for the LTE assumption we introduced. However, since radiation emitted upwards from the surface crossed layer N-1 to reach layer N, we may consider layer N to be in full thermal equilibrium with the surface for this wavelength only. Therefore, aA(N) = eD(N); eU(N) = 0.

...

We define AA as aA(1, 2 .. N) and ED as eD(1, 2 .. N). Since aA(N) = eD(N) for all N, it follows by a trivial use of mathematical induction that AA = ED.

Atmosphere could have an occasional flash of lightning, even emitting gamma rays at the atmosphere's top. Jupiter emits in the AM radio band. Not only convection; other processes do spice the atmospheric ghoulash.

More than just tortured Kirchoffs and Virials. -- We need a derivation of kinetic Virial Gas Theory. Then add photons, phase changes, chemical reactions ?

Alex: I picture it as follows: The IR from the surface is absorbed by the GHGs, which then "share" the energy to the N2 and O2 through collisions (thermalization). This produces the kinetic energy associate with the temperature of the atmosphere, T. At this temperature the GHGs radiate at a certain rate (AA), defined by (e)(sigma)(T^4). This radiation is in all directions, including ED. It is easy to get confused because of the idea that half the energy radiates up and half down. This is still true, but it is ED in all directions, and it is equal to AA.

To be emitted to space, the photon must either be from blackbody surface radiation at a frequency at which the atmosphere is transparent, or from some species in the atmosphere that can radiate at a frequency that can escape. But a molecule can only radiate at frequencies it can absorb, and those are the frequencies for which the atmosphere is opaque. Hence as an approximation there are no molecules in the lower atmosphere that can radiate to space. But those near the surface can radiate to the surface, and at the surface the power level in the opaque frequencies will be equal going up and coming down. That is the condition of thermal equilibrium. It requires that the surface temperature equal the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface, and that is Kirchoff's law as applied by M.

Sunlight striking the earth as shortwave radiation is variable and causes the temperature of the surface to change constantly, but the atmosphere still maintains equilibrium in the infrared by conduction, convection, and radiative heat transfer, and that is the region of interest. This is strikingly apparent in the satellite images. Visible light images go dark at night but infrared images look much the same.

Kirchoff is “enclosed radiation”

Each CO2 absorption line has a different expectation of interacting with a passing photon. (If not interacted, then does not count.) However, if a energy is absorbed, even on the absorption line fringes -- then it becomes thermalized, and likely to be emitted near the center of a strong spectral line. The caught energy can wonder only a little, with distance expectation zero. (random walk increases as the square root, just like the measurement errors in survey school) -- So, with expectation zero, trying to sneak away, via conduction, cannot get very far. --Waiting for the fast conveyor to higher up; convection.

Franko # 240:

...the leaky Kirchoff Greenhouse, mean free photon path defined...

I've noted you refer mysteriously a few times to the mean free path as though this is somehow the key to understanding Miskolczi's Kirchhoff law. I have been drawing diagrams trying to manually trace the paths of individual photons in the hope that I might understand why AA must equal ED (in the clear-sky case anyway). I still can't get it to work (perhaps unsurprisingly for someone who frankly can't tell the difference between a photon and a little tennis ball). Anyway, like Nick says, the reality is surely that photons don't just fly up, get absorbed, get re-emitted downwards, and then arrive again safely at the ground. If molecules are moving around randomly, and a photon making up a part of the ED collides with a GHG molecule, I can't find any reason for it not to occasionally end up getting lucky and leaving the atmosphere to space.

So, may I ask, what is the connection between the mean free photon path, which must surely be a lot less than the average height of a GHG molecule, and Miskolczi's Kirchhoff law?

# 239 “It is getting very hard to argue that water vapor exerts anything but a negative feedback.”

According to Zagoni; the Bunny powered by the surface energy leak through the InfraRed window is the high altitude (aerosol) cloud cover.

We have different, energy coupled surfaces. -- The ground which reflects and converts. – Then the leaky Kirchoff Greenhouse, mean free photon path defined. -- And then a water aerosol high altitude cloud , convection retarding surface.

If we completely block the IR from the surface (say SF6); then the heat transport becomes all convection (another ~ T^4 effect). What happens to the height of the high altitude H2O cloud layer ? Do we get another aerosol cloud layer, (of SF6), above the high altitude H2O clouds ?

For the record, I welcome basic questions on the blog. It seems a bit elitist to be referring people to text books. There are lots of readers at lots of levels of knowledge with many different motivations.

It may be important to recall that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was highly contested and not "proven," until EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE corrobrated it (the little deal with the star bending light waves). (Einstein had the brilliance to produce the equations BEFORE seeing the data; few others in science have that ability, but some pretend that they do). The text books that BPL and some others are promoting here provide pages and pages of equations which are plausible, but as far as I can tell, so far, only Milkolczi has the empirical evidence to back up his equations. The GCMs, which presumably are based on those pages and pages of unproven equations, are not working out. So, it is time to look at new equations, no?

Incidently, there is some good support for the climate's "self-regulating" mechanisms, that totally agrees with M's hypothesis, in the last part of van Andel's manuscript. He uses Spencer's data to support M's hypothesis. It is getting very hard to argue that water vapor exerts anything but a negative feedback.

Nick, jae: yes, I should stop thinking and start sleeping.Yes, I just defined that problem away. At any rate, perhaps it's worth thinking about what Fig. 1 becomes in Miskolczi's revised model wherein AA = ED. He doesn't present a revised Fig. 1. I think EU moves over to the right. Anyway, back to the drawing board for me. Perhaps I'll keep my promise & stay out of theoretical discussion. :)

Nick, 236:

"OLR is fixed - balancing sunlight, so the more GHG’s, the larger proportion is Eu and the warmer we get."

Now that is a big jump (BTW, don't you mean Ed, instead of Eu?). M says the greenhouse factor is fixed and is = Su/3. Have you proven that incorrect ?

Alex #233 I think the layer idea is good and necessary. It's what LBL codes use, for example. Layers have a single temperature and you don't have to worry about them absorbing hteir own emission etc.

As I said, your argument is overdefined. That is, you try to deduce restrictions on EU based on radiation balance. But you've already said what can be said for layers - after that, it's a matter of adding up the result; there's no extra rule.
The distinction between St and Eu is vital for M theory. Aa is just Sg-St, so you have to figure St. Eu is real, and it is big. Basically, GHG's have temperature and will radiate to space (Eu). But you can see it in that spectrum Fig 8.2b that I keep promoting. Part of it, the atmospheric window, follows a curve indicating radiation at 268K. That's St - the IR directly from the ground. Part follows a curve at about 220 K - that's Eu - IR emitted from GHGs at high altitude. And part is a mixture. The split between St and Eu is basic to the greenhouse effect. OLR is fixed - balancing sunlight, so the more GHG's, the larger proportion is Eu and the warmer we get.

Fig 8.2b is here http://climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=...

233, Alex:

"But anyway, what’s your view: why are there separate symbols for ST & EU?"

It is my understanding that Eu is the net absorbed radiation escaping from the atmosphere to space; whereas St is only the "window" radiation which is not absorbed in the atmosphere. M is not approaching the issue from a "layer" perspective, but from an overall "net radiation" perspective.

Nick & Alex
Recommend at least adding conduction to your layer model when above the tropopause.

See: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph) Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v3
PDF ver 3.0 11 Sep 2007

See especially Section 3.8 pp 72-75.
"In many climatological texts it seems to be implicated that thermal radiation needs not be taken into account when dealing with heat conduction, which is incorrect [175]. Rather, always the entire heat
ow density q must be taken into account. This is given by the equation
q = lambda * grad T (114)
in terms of the gradient of the temperature T. It is inadmissible to separate the radiation transfer from the heat conduction, when balances are computed."

[114] J. Schloerer, \Climate change: some basics", http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/climate-change/bas...

Then compare the magnitudes of the thermal conduction with the radiation under local thermal equilibrium (LTE).

Nick, well could you point to the part in the argument above that actually fails? Let's forget about the layered atmosphere again, and look at only the greybody, integrated, global, time-averaged fluxes. Perhaps I was wrong to consider layers. I'm looking at it another way, and sure, probably still wrong. Anyhow, look at Fig. 1. If EU > 0, is EU some part of OLR? Well, actually, that's what the uncontroversial eqn.2 says. OLR = ST + EU. But why is EU even there? Look at the diagram: By definition, ST is the transmitted part, and AA the absorbed part, of SG. Surely, just from this, if there's a radiative equilibrium, and net energy cannot be exchanged with matter, it is trivially true that EU is redundant, is 0, and doesn't even need to be there. It could be used interchangeably with ST. It suddenly looks very simple to me: I can't see why EU has a right to exist separately from ST in that diagram. But anyway, what's your view: why are there separate symbols for ST & EU?

Alex #231 You're over-defining again. I strongly urge notation that distinguishes layer balances from nett flows. aA=eU+eD is the statement of radiative equilibrium. There's nothing more you can pull out of that. eU just gets added to the upward stream. Some later gets absorbed and re-radiated again. It becomes part of the eU+eD of another layer. Some is transmitted direct to space. And eD doesn't all reach the ground. Again, a lot gets reabsorbed, and again becomes an eD+eU for another layer.

The thing to note is that the sum of the aA's is a lot more than AA. And the sum of the eD's is a lot more than ED.

This is again why I urge you to be wary of statements that seem to require the atmosphere to respond to keep parts of the radiation accounting in balance. Physically, all each layer knows is how much IR in total is arriving. It can't distinguish between what was originally emitted from the ground, and what came from other layers.

I didn't at all understand your last para. But there is nothing unreal about boundary "discontinuities". They're not discontinuous on a micron scale, but temperatures can change by degrees over a few metres, which is effectively no distance on an atmospheric scale. The key thing is that locally, the assumptions underlying the Eddington approximation don't apply near the surface. That doesn't mean the Earth has to somehow adjust; it just means that a mathematical approximation doesn't work there. And I'm still looking for some justification for using the word semi-infinite. It's just wrong.

Nick # 180:

I thought of a way of responding to what you wrote here:

... radiation goes both ways. AA=EU+ED. Incidentally, I don't like using ED, EU for layers. M has defined them for the whole atmosphere (and yes, he also lapses). But the practical difficulty is whether by ED you mean just the IR from that layer, or the whole IR from above. Here I think you mean the former, but generally it is the latter. I'll call the layer versions eU, eD, aA, So aA=eD+eU. But then for higher layers, eD doesn't all reach the ground - it is also absorbed, and re-radiated (up and down)(so is eU).

I noted something in Gorshkov & Makarieva (2002).

You say that radiation goes both ways, AA = EU + ED. It follows, AA > ED, EU > 0. But I noted on GM2002, p. 299, that the case of radiative equilibrium is means by definition that there is no net energy exchange between matter and radiation. So what then becomes of this non-zero EU? It can't be added to K + P + F (the radiative equilibrium condition just mentioned). It can't be added to OLR as that also must remain constant. And it can't return to earth or it would become ED again. Surely, AA = ED, then?

As for the eD that is absorbed and re-radiated, it ultimately either reaches the ground, in which case it is accounted for in ED, or it leaves the atmosphere, in which case it is accounted for in ST.

Now if, on the other hand, there was a temperature discontinuity at the surface, then none of this would work out. AA would always be greater than ED.

Arthur, I will attempt to measure the sun angle as well. Thanks for the suggestion. I feel we are all getting on the same wavelength here. I don't know whether this will establish an energetic constraint or not, but I will at least give it a try. Regards

jae # 228:

Actually, it was your comment #225 that sounded circular and that's what I was responding to. You seemed to be saying, eqn.4 is shown empirically; eqn.7 is also shown to hold empirically; therefore eqn.4 & 7 are general laws. It sounded like you were arguing along the lines of 'two empiricals makes a general', which is of course wrong. However I'm not so sure about your #223, which I hadn't read as closely as I should have. Sorry. I am thinking about this further. But anyway, it's all moot until the theory behind eqn.4 is shown to hold. I have actually been thinking some more about that & feel I have solved this, but more later when I write it up.

On KT1997, Miskolczi makes some very damning criticisms. They are far more wide-ranging than the simple point about some circular reasoning. There is an issue about the invalidity of their model atmosphere, the USST76 -- it's got about far too little H2O in it to be realistic. Then there is the fact that their internal numbers are not consistent with themselves. There are their own disclaimers along the lines of, "well, this is not meant to be exact or anything". There is the methodological issue (why all this guesswork when LBL codes are available? How can this be considered the best science has to offer when in fact there are better ways of doing this?). And then, yes, there is the point that they've clearly manipulated their model atmosphere to get some of their simulations to match observation at one point, admittedly, the part that to me is just bizarre. So far, there has not been a single sensible response to any of this. People are still comparing Miskolczi's numbers to theirs, but no one will stare this in the face and attempt to provide a plausible reason why we should give any credit to the KT1997 analysis at all. No one will comment. One might say, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Now, I feel Arthur has seen there are problems in KT1997 and is attempting, as it were, to 'save face' for the IPCC, and to say, well, there's really not that much difference between Miskolczi's numbers & KT1997's. But if you look at the 'Proof of Errors in KT1997' section of Zagoni's site, it's quite clear that there are some huge discrepancies in there.

Alex, 227: I don't understand your comment. Could you elaborate a little more?

jae # 225:

Miskolczi's criticisms of KT1997 are very important, and you are oversimplifying them by comparing them to Arthur's (I think, valid) criticism of circular reasoning. Meanwhile, I feel that Arthur is fudging an appearance that Miskolczi's measurements & KT1997's measurements are actually more in agreement than they really are.

David,
What was the angle of the sun with the horizon at the time the temperature was so high? Did you hold the plane of the apparatus perpendicular to the direction of the sun rays?

Arthur:

"That’s circular reasoning, not getting anywhere towards a proof."

I don't think this is true. The equations are mainly consequences of the Aa = Ed relationship, which has been shown to hold over all latitudes. I think the Su = 3/2 relationship has been demonstrated for all latitudes, also. I think this means that the relationships are general, not specific to the present time. This is also shown by at least three derivations of the Su = 3/2 OLR relationship from generalized equations.

If it's circular reasoning, isn't it fair to level the same criticizms of K&T's work?

Jae (#223) - nobody disputes that for Earth right now we roughly see Su = 3/2 OLR (under global average conditions - K&T etc.). The key question is whether that is some kind of constraint forced by the physics, or just the value it happens to have right now. You showed earlier that SU = 3/2 OLR (M8) and M7 are equivalent, so repeating it again here didn't really add anything. The current "empirical" evidence for M8 cannot be used as a proof that it will always have that ratio! So it can't be used as proof that M7 will always be satisfied either. That's circular reasoning, not getting anywhere towards a proof.

David S - that's great you're trying the flat-plate experiment. Can you get a rough idea of the sun angle (or even better, measure total solar intensity) for your new system?

Back to my 155, concerning M7. I think the following proves M7 is correct, if you accept M6 that (Su-OLR) =(Ed-Eu) and M4 that Ed=Aa

M7 says (Su-OLR) + (Ed-Eu) = OLR = Fo
Since M6 says (Su-OLR) = (Ed-Eu), then it has to follow that:
(1) (Su-OLR) = 1/2 OLR, and
(2) (Ed-Eu) = 1/2 OLR.
Eq. (1). reduces to Su = 3/2 OLR, which is demonstrated empirically (almost--it looks to me like the relationship is actually more like Su = 1.65 OLR).
Re: Eq. (2):
Eu + St = OLR (definition—see M’s energy balance diagram), so Eu = OLR-St
Substituting this into Eqn (2) gives Ed –OLR + St = ½ OLR, so Ed + St = 3/2 OLR
But Ed = Aa, (M4), so that Aa + St = 3/2 OLR
But Aa + St = Su (definition)
Therefore, Su = 3/2 OLR

Since (1) and (2) are identities, M7 holds.

WOW, I never thought you would get that high a temperature. Must have been a very hot, clear day!

Spending time on the new experimental setup, calibrating the thermometers, etc. Achieved almost 99C peak temp yesterday just with a black ti,e and single pane of glass.

Nuts. Forget my last post. I'm getting mixed up again. Anyway, Su is not equal to 3/2 OLR under the clear sky conditions, as shown by the lower left figure on p. 51 of Zagoni's presentation. This is due to Ta, I believe. When an adjustment is made for optical depth and Ta, there is a 1:1 relationship, as shown by the upper right figure. I think that is for all-sky conditions, but I'm not sure. M discusses clouds on on p. 19 of M2007 and on p. 13 of the "Developments in Greenhouse Theory" publication.

215, Alex:

"I believe his analysis of the cloudy-sky conditions occurred after M2007 was already published (I could be wrong, i.e. if you can find an earlier reference)."

No, I don't think so, since according to Zagoni, Equation 7 assumes that the atmosphere converts all the incoming SW solar flux to LW outgoing radiation OPTIMALLY (See p. 34 of Zagoni's presentation). This means to me that there must be no St ("window" radiation) for the equation to hold, and that infers cloudy conditions. You can see the clear-sky effect in the lower left-hand figure on p. 51 of Zagoni's presentation, where Su is greater than 3/2 OLR (by the amount of St, I think). When St is accounted for, as in the left upper figure, there is a 1:1 relationship.

Alex, 215 and Arthur. You are, indeed, correct. My bad. I think I was thinking in terms of SU, rather than AA. Sorry.

Oh, shit, I didn't think those posts got through. Got error messages that I don't dig. Admin, delet all and replace it with this one:

208, Arthur:

"Miskolczi’s calculations of A_A and E_D apply only under cloud-free conditions"

Where the hell did you get that idea? It is not proper to just make things up, like Gavin and the silly hare do. That's even worse than hand-waving. And I think that, in poetic form 

Aa = Ed =
kT^4=LTE.

And that’s also the major problem with K&T and all of the AGW crap that followed their incorrect 1997 publication (upon which a GREAT deal of the AGW mess is founded). Su is not equal to Ed, as K&T portray it (i.e., 390 = 390). Su = Ed + Ta. K&T are essentially claiming that Ed is “canceling” Ta! Ed should be equal to Su-Ta, but it is not in the K&T cartoon. It is 390 w/m-2. Maybe this is another way to illustrate the discontinuity at the surface.  K&T might be correct for an opaque atmosphere, but not the real semi-transparent one. Herein lies the big difference between M’s theory and the old discredited one.

208, Arthur:

"Miskolczi’s calculations of A_A and E_D apply only under cloud-free conditions"

Where did you derive that conclusion? It is my understanding that K&T are saying the same thing: 390 = 390. It is not proper to just make things up, like Gavin and the silly hare do. That's even worse than hand-waving. And I think that, in poetic form :)

Aa = Ed =
kT^4=LTE.

jae # 214:

It says, "within the clear atmosphere, the downward emittance is approximately equal to the absorbed flux density." Miskolczi then goes on to refer to this as the 'clear-sky atmospheric Kirchhoff law.' I believe his analysis of the cloudy-sky conditions occurred after M2007 was already published (I could be wrong, i.e. if you can find an earlier reference).

208, Arthur:

"Miskolczi’s calculations of A_A and E_D apply only under cloud-free conditions"

Where did you derive that conclusion? It is my understanding that K&T are saying the same thing: 390 = 390. It is not proper to just make things up, like Gavin and the silly hare do. That's even worse than hand-waving. And I think that Aa = kT^4=Ed.

Arthur # 211:

As you can probably see from my posts above (#211, 212) I don't find this very convincing. Unless you want to distance yourself from Eric's view (and I think you said more or less the same thing yourself in #197), it seems there should surely be a variation in the relationship of AA and ED by altitude, even in the clear-sky case, if the theoretical consideration of temperature gradient is the reason for not accepting the theory, AA = ED. I can't see how speculating about clouds helps. At any rate, there is no need to speculate about the clouds as Miskolczi has provided (post-publications) analysis of the cloudy sky conditions as well.

See http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolc...

This figure shows that up to an altitude of around 3 km, the mean atmospheric emittance is equal to the absorbed mean surface radiation (from ground and cloud bottom), EU+ ED = (SU + B)(1 - TM), where TM is the (weighted) average flux transmittance.

Apparently the atmosphere below the cloud layer is in radiative equilibrium with the emitting surfaces at the upper and lower boundaries. Above 3 km (not shown in the figure) the relationship changes to EU+ED= (OLRU+OLRD) (1-TM), where OLRU and OLRD are the sums of the emitted and transmitted flux densities at the lower and upper boundaries.

(also from a private communication).

Jan # 210:

In fact, the 228 atmospheric profiles definitely represent observations taken under all-sky conditions.

This may clarify the matter. In a private communication (Nov 17th), Ferenc wrote:

The computations were done for clear sky [whereas] the radiosonde observations were taken under all sky conditions. The spatial continuity of the temperature structure of the atmosphere is usually assumed in such calculations. The vertical thermal structure over a clear satellite pixel between two cloudy pixels (or over a claudy pixel between two clear pixels) is the same. Radiosonde observations (I checked thousands of them) show no vertical discontinuity of temperature, except some well recognized very small 'spikes' at the lower and upper boundaries of the cloud layers.

Eric # 207:

- I note that despite repeated promptings, you have still not responded to my post (or Franko's or many other posts) about the errors in the KT1997 energy budget. Indeed, not a single poster has commented either, although I thank Arthur for providing the link back to my post. I take this silence as consent that the KT1997 energy budget is largely indefensible, and nothing much more than IPCC guesswork. After all, no one has been shy of commenting on anything else raised.

- I note that your position seems to have now departed from Arthur's, who seems to hold that AA virtually equivalent in the clear-sky case is not a problem. But the lapse rate holds regardless of clear- or cloudy-sky conditions. Thus, if AA and ED were modified by the lapse rate, we would expect to see the rule hold more or less accurately depending on the altitude. I cannot see any evidence of this:

http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolc...

Eric #207

I have no idea what you are on about do you?

Arthur #208

Miskolczi’s calculations of A_A and E_D apply only ...

Regardless of what the paper labels fig 1 the data set used in fig 2 does not carry the same label in fact I have the data set and there is no information at all regarding the weather conditions the radiosondes were sent up in. Fig 2 is a point by point regression it's not an average vs average calculation where whether some were clear sky and some cloudy would make a difference. I do think you have a wrong idea of how that statistic works.

Finally do you really think that presence of clouds will increase or perhaps randomise differences between upward bound and downward bound fluxes?

An "edit" functionality on here would be nice. When I said in the previous comment

The additional heat of the surface may all flow through convection, with none of it on net heating the atmosphere

, what I meant was

The additional heat of the surface may all flow through convection and latent heat flux, with none of the radiative flux on net heating the atmosphere

Alex (#199) writes:

do you agree or disagree that the global average AA = 311.4 W m -2 and that the global average ED = 311.9 W m -2?

Those numbers surely do challenge the classical theory of the greenhouse effect, or at least if they don’t, you’re left with only 0.5 W m -2 of heating to blame on AA (is this right?). KT1997’s are not consistent with these at all.

I indeed disagree. Fig.1 is labeled as a "clear sky planetary atmospheric model", not "all sky"; Miskolczi's calculations of A_A and E_D apply only under cloud-free conditions, and while I would expect the difference to be a little larger than 0.16%, that number isn't unreasonable for clear-sky conditions. But when you add clouds to create a true global average of the relevant fluxes, you will see a more significant difference (I estimate about 10%, on the order of 30 W/m^2 under cloudy conditions, contributing around 20 W/m^2 to the global average). Of course, clouds aren't greenhouse gases, their absorption actually comes from the continuum spectrum of liquid water.

But even in a cloud-free Earth where A_A was quite close to E_D, you would still have a significant greenhouse effect due to the raising of the effective radiating altitude (and raising of the tropopause itself) with increasing GHG concentration. The additional heat of the surface may all flow through convection, with none of it on net heating the atmosphere, and you still have a quite conventional greenhouse effect. BPL is wrong to claim A_A close to E_D would invalidate it; not at all.

And if M's eq. 4 is close to valid for cloud-free conditions, and a little less accurate for all-sky conditions, that leaves eq. 5 and 6 approximately true, and so potentially useful. It is eq. 7 that is the real mystery.

Jan,
The equality of AA and ED is not an unconditional. The error will depend on the lapse rate. It is therefore not a general proposition. The larger the temperature gradient the larger the error in this equation. These errors are cumulative as the comparison of AA and ED proceeds at higher elevations since the temperature decreases with height.

Nick #205

FM did not test against experiment. He ran models in a digital computer.

HARTCODE can be used to create a model so can MODTRAN by running on synthetic data but the can also be used to analyse live or collected data sets.

They did both in M&M2004 and the regression in M2007 was done on selected TIGR profiles. That is not running a model. Never mind what in your opinion he language he used says the theory whether formulated before or after is supported by the run on empirical data. Perfectly valid scientific method. Whether or not you think he claimed it is quite irrelevant.

Jan #204
This is just way off beam. FM did not test against experiment. He ran models in a digital computer.
Anyway, I repeat that he was claiming eq 4 on theoretical grounds and his language reflects this. He was not claiming that it was justified by regression. That came later.

Nick #203

he was clearly claiming Eq 4 on theoretical grounds. Regression may support a rule,

It's fairly standard procedure to either put forward a theory then test against experiment or to notice something and put forward a theory.

You obviously have something against scientific method do you think running models in a digital computer is a better procedure?

What sort of lab were you trained in anyway?

Alex #202
It's no use going over the words in the apaer. Despite later revisionism, he was clearly claiming Eq 4 on theoretical grounds. Regression may support a rule, but on its own terms. There's an error which follows from the model, and this was not stated in the paper. Yes, there are 228 instances, I suppose, although I really can't see 228 dots on Fig 2. Anyway 228 instances have 228 discrepancies, which won't all be 0.5.

But no, it's quite wrong to say there's only 0.5 W/m2 heating from IR. In fact, I don't even know what it is meant to mean; it sounds more like 0.5W/m2 heat escaping from earth. But that's wrong too. People here miss the subtlety of Aa, which is the fraction of IR which does not escape directly. There is cooling through the window (mainly 8-13 micron) which is not in the arithmetic. But, as I said above, "first" absorption isn't final; the gas re-radiates, and a lot of that absorbed heat eventually escapes. You can see this clearly in the spectra. It may be re-radiated and reabsorbed several times.

Nick # 201:

Miskolczi refers to an equivalence. His usage of approximate is nothing more than exactly what I said it is above. You'll find that this is also the meaning of the 'equals' sign in eqn.4. Meanwhile, there were 228 atmospheric profiles, thus we have 228 instances, not one, apparently satisfying a rule. There was indeed a regression error stated; the correlation coefficient of r = 0.997 from memory which you can see on Zagoni's website. Meanwhile, do you agree that if those figures are accurate then we have only 0.5 W m -2 of heating accounted for by IR radiation? Are you saying that BPL is wrong to regard these figures as contradicting the classical theory? And if you are saying that, then exactly which bit did BPL get wrong? (see top of page 2 of greenhouse-heat-engine for BPL's post).

#199 Alex
Again, you're not distinguishing between an instance and a rule. FM correctly refers to his relation as approximate, because it is based on fitting a line in his Fig 2, and this is inherently approximate, with a stated regression error - well, it should have been stated. The fact that one particular instance comes out close does not make it "accurate".

I don't have a lot of faith in these figures of 311.4 and 311.9. But it's worth noting the implications of the general arguments, including yours, for approximate equality. They are that there is part of the spectrum where you do expect Aa=Ed; part where Aa>Ed because of net upward flux. This last is countered by the fact that Aa is only part of the heating of the upper air. Convection etc tend to increase Ed. It's possible that this could all balance out in a particular instance, without affirming a rule.

Alex #199

Obviously, he means ‘approximate’ in the sense that 311.4 W m -2 is approximately equal to 311.9 W m -2.

.16% error given that at least one will be computed computed using HARTCODE and the other may be measured using a prygeometer that's well within instrumental error.

Arthur # 197:

I feel you've seized upon a minor inconsistency in the wording in MM2004, and I'm not sure where you're going with this. Once again, quoting p. 232:

within the clear atmosphere the downward emittance is approximately equal to the absorbed flux density. Based on our data set, the global average clear-sky downward atmospheric emittance is 311.4 W m–2, while the global average of the absorbed radiation by the clear-sky is 311.9 W m–2. This equivalence – for the highly variable atmospheric emission spectra and for global scale – was not shown before with such a high numerical accuracy.

So, yes, he uses the word 'approximately'. Obviously, he means 'approximate' in the sense that 311.4 W m -2 is approximately equal to 311.9 W m -2. He then calls it an equivalence, a few lines down, which is what he really means. Yes, you've picked up on another point where the wording could have been clearer.

The question you seem to be skirting around, though, is do you agree or disagree that the global average AA = 311.4 W m -2 and that the global average ED = 311.9 W m -2?

Those numbers surely do challenge the classical theory of the greenhouse effect, or at least if they don't, you're left with only 0.5 W m -2 of heating to blame on AA (is this right?). KT1997's are not consistent with these at all. Barton Paul Levenson spelt this out very clearly in a number of posts. And he also made it very clear that he would regard the classical theory of the greenhouse effect as refuted by these numbers.

At any rate, you would surely have to admit that a difference of 0.5 W m -2 is close enough to be likely due to physical measurement error.

So once again, are you really agreeing to those numbers on MM2004, p. 232?

Eric # 190 etc:

I am not the right person to defend the theory. At this point, I'll just note that there seems to be a bit of 'my simplifying assumptions will beat up on your simplifying assumptions.' You talk about LTE, closed systems -- these are also simplifying assumptions. You mention the fluxes versus energies again. Yet it seems that others agree that without the temperature gradient, there's no problem with AA = ED. So does it really matter if they're fluxes? At any rate, my aim was just to clarify my understanding of the theory, not to say that I can defend it.

Just for you Arthur;

http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/images/2008...

David Stockwell (#168):

the obvious hand-waving explanation for M7-8 is that at most half of the radiation throughput is emitted back to the surface, due to the atmosphere being ‘two-sided’. So Su=OLR+OLR/2. The surface has to match that for balance.

Huh? By throughput, do you mean the full F_0 (+P_0) = OLR? But part of that (F) is absorbed from the sun directly by the atmosphere. Also, some of the energy flux from the surface is non-radiative: K (+P). But I'm guessing your "obvious hand-waving" assumes all those pieces are zero? Then we're left with:

S_T = T_A * S_U (definition)
A_A = (1 - T_A) * S_U = E_U + E_D (M1)
E_U = OLR - S_T (M3)
S_U = F_0 + E_D (M2)

Now your hand-waving seems to be saying the emitted energy from the atmosphere is the same up and down in this case (E_U = E_D). That leaves:

S_U = 2*OLR - T_A * S_U (from M1 or M2 combined with M3 and E_U = E_D)

or S_U = 2/(1 + T_A) * OLR

T_A = 0 here is the steel greenhouse model (2 * OLR).

I don't see any way to get a factor of 3/2 out of this argument, other than making a special assumption about the atmosphere's transparency to thermal radiation.

Alex Harvey (#169) - your long comment doesn't start off very consistently, does it:

It seems to me that you can only accept or reject eqn.4; accepting it only ‘approximately’ is not accepting it at all for the purpose of this discussion

and yet (quoting MM2004) a paragraph later we have:

within the clear atmosphere the downward emittance is approximately equal to the absorbed flux density

Did you notice that word "approximately"? So Miskolczi himself "is not accepting it at all for the purpose of this discussion"???

classical theory of the greenhouse effect is challenged at this point

No, Miskolczi's equation 4, "approximately" valid, presents no challenge to the standard greenhouse theory. Sorry!

In your argument, you make the assumption that the layers are:

opaque to other wavelengths

but to be opaque to any IR wavelength requires at least tens of meters of atmosphere, and for most of the relatively strongly absorbed wavelengths, it's more like kilometers. That is far too large an altitude range for "LTE" to apply, other than very "approximately".

the atmosphere is not being heated by LW radiation

-- well, it's almost obvious by definition that for parts of the atmosphere at the same temperature as the surface, they will not be heated by LW radiation, because that is thermal radiation whose exchange is subject to the laws of thermodynamics and cannot heat anything hotter than the source. But any part of the atmosphere that is colder than the surface will be heated by LW radiation, to some degree, and you then get the small imbalance between A_A and E_D that we've been discussing. Is it important? Marginally - the really important things are (1) there is sufficient energy reaching the surface to cause the atmosphere to be differentiated in temperature following the lapse rate up to the tropopause (even if most of the net flow of this warming energy is from non-radiative means), and (2) that the atmosphere's blocking of some infrared radiation raises the average altitude associated with radiation that reaches space. (1) combined with (2) forces OLR < S_U, and therefore greenhouse warming of the surface.

Jae (#174) - M9 depends on the "virial" nonsense, which I don't accept at all. I think this discussion of which equations apply to which conditions is moot though - thinking about it, Miskolczi's equations only make sense if applied under planetary average conditions - after all, the incoming short-wave radiation must be the average under cloudy and non-cloudy conditions, and given latitudinal redistribution of thermal energy via convection, there's absolutely no reason for balance of the terms under just clear-sky or just cloudy conditions. In any case, none of the discussion makes any headway on a justification for M7 (or equivalently, M8).

Boy, you guys are sure getting far-afield. I think M's Aa = Ed relationship is specifically related to the atmosphere near the surface and shows no discontinuity at the surface, as is assumed by the standard hypothesis. Again, the empirical data show this is true. See, e.g., the Cabauw data shown in van Andel's paper linked on one of David S's previous posts.

Jan,
Leaving aside the terminology dispute, it seems that Alex's description of how to do the numerical calculation will result in an atmosphere that has a constant temperature and the lapse rate will be zero everywhere.
Do you believe his description is correct?

Eric #193

You are making the same mistake and would fail also.

Sorry that's not for you to decide I've already passed that elementary stuff and got my degree long ago and worked with it (basically all forms of Kirchoff's laws) for years.

The model is a static one the temperature is not changing the Never mind what a wiki says the equation is then:

dT/dt = Q/mc = 0

m&c are constant therefor Q net energy flux (in W) is Zero now if I recall correctly (it was long ago) this was high school stufF. Now if there is zero watts going in and out then Q = Aa-Ed=0. QED

192 Jan Pompe // Nov 30, 2008 at 8:26 am says,

"Eric #191


" You would not get any credit for that answer in an elementary physics class."

I think he would but you won’t if the temperature of any body is not changing and it doesn’t in a static model it is in thermal equilibrium and it mus radiate what it absorbs so it is trivially true.

Sorry that’s a pass for Alex a fail for Eric."

You are making the same mistake and would fail also.
You are confusing thermal equilibrium with local thermal equilibrium .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equi...

"Thermal equilibrium is achieved when two systems in thermal contact with each other cease to exchange energy by heat. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium their temperatures are the same."

Clearly if there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere the two sytems in contact, i.e. the adjacent layers of air in the numerical calculation are not in thermal equilibrium.

Quoting from the same source:
"It is useful to distinguish between global and local thermodynamic equilibrium. In thermodynamics, exchanges within a system and between the system and the outside are controlled by intensive parameters. As an example, temperature controls heat exchanges. Global thermodynamic equilibrium (GTE) means that those intensive parameters are homogeneous throughout the whole system, while local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) means that those intensive parameters are varying in space and time, but are varying so slowly that for any point, one can assume thermodynamic equilibrium in some neighborhood about that point."

So each layer of the numerical calculation can be assumed to be in local thermal equilibrium if the layers are small enough that the temperature gradient is not significant within the layer. However it is incorrect to claim that all the layers are in thermal equilibrium with one another. This would require them all to have the same temperature.

Even if LTE is assumed, it only means that the absorption coefficients and the emission coefficients have the relationship they would have in thermal equilibrium. It does not mean that the absorption equals the emission, or that the energy fluxes are equal in all directions. The equality of fluxes was a condition used for the derivation of Kirchoff's law as a consequence the materials being enclosed in a black box with all regions being in thermal equilibrium.

It seems that a lot of equations are being thrown around here, but there seems no basic understanding of the physical principles underlying a correct calculation of radiation transport.

Eric #191

You would not get any credit for that answer in an elementary physics class.

I think he would but you won't if the temperature of any body is not changing and it doesn't in a static model it is in thermal equilibrium and it mus radiate what it absorbs so it is trivially true.

Sorry that's a pass for Alex a fail for Eric.

Alex,
Another fallacy in 176 is your statement:
"It follows trivially from the law of conservation of energy that AA = ED. "

AA and ED are fluxes not energies. The statement of conservation of energy refers to a closed system. The lower surface of the atmosphere is not a closed system, although it may be in a steady state.

You would not get any credit for that answer in an elementary physics class.

#

Alex Harvey // Nov 30, 2008 at 12:22 am 181
says,

"Eric # 176:

Well, it seems to me that you either agree with the LTE assumption, or you don’t. But everyone agrees with the LTE assumption, so that’s a problem. You would need to answer, at what layer does AA NOT equal ED then? And if at this layer, AA does not equal ED, then is the LTE assumption holding between these two layers? And if the LTE assumption is not holding between these two layers, why is the temperature stable between the two layers?"

Alex,

I have already mentioned that I don't agree that AA=ED is a rigorous equation. There are some who have posted who agree with me, and say there is a small but finite error in this because of the atmosphere has a temperature gradient. A steady net upward heat flux is consistent with a stable temperature gradient.
There must be a net upward heat flux in the atmosphere to return the incoming solar short wave radiation which heats up the earths surface, back to space. Besides the atmosphere does have a temperature gradient on average over time. The higher up you go, the colder it gets. It is an elementary consequence of the adiabatic expansion of rising air as the pressure is reduced with increasing altitude.

It seems that you are dividing the atmosphere into layers to do a numerical approximation for calculation of energy flow. Each layer has a uniform temperature, in order to do the calculation so that LTE is satisfied. You
also say that the boundaries of the connecting layers have the same temperature on each side. Is my understanding correct?

If this is the way you are doing this calculation , then you cannot have any temperature variation versus height in the atmosphere, ie. the gradient of temperature is always zero. Since this is not true physically, your concept of how to do the calculation must be wrong.

If my impression of what you are proposing is mistaken, please explain. If my logic is incorrect please correct it.

Nick #188

What is Th and why does it matter?

Does it make a difference to the sign? Obviously and I mean obviously the sign tells us the direction of heat flow. Why are you having such difficulty with this?

Can you tell us the sign.

Jan,
What is Th and why does it matter?

Now I remember why I used numbers

Let me rephrase that. then what is the sign if
A) $$ T_h$$ is greater than $$T_C$$
B) $$ T_h$$ is less than $$T_c$$

Nick #185

$$Q = \frac {\epsilon_h} {\alpha_c} \sigma \left(T_h^4 - T_c^4 \right)$$

I don't think a physicist will have a problem with understanding that equation do you? Well Arthur might. You even had the context it seems so straight forward and the question so simple I even gave you two sets of values on for Venus one for earth. Perhaps if I take it took it to another level of abstraction and give you this alle the constants outside the brackets are positive valued.

I'll ask you again you have the equation in several places now what is the sign if :
A) $$T_h T_C$$

Jan #184
As usual, you leave things far too unspecific to make a proper reply. But I'm presuming you mean by T_h the temperature reached by a black panel exposed orthogonally to the sun's radiation in space. There is no paradox there. The Earth never heats to such a temperature because peak sunlight passes rapidly, and for most of the 24hr the sun is either low or absent. So your second equation applies, roughly, but for a short time. It doesn't apply to Venus at all, because the radiation reaching the surface is nothing like that which establishes T_h; it is dominated by IR hot gases.

Anyway, I can't see what point you are making. Are you saying that the surface isn't 737K? Or it isn't in equilibrium? Or that there is another heat source?

Nick #180

I just found this where you are dead wrong in the second sentence already. Aren't you a little tired of making yourself look silly like you do here where you can't even tell me the sign of

$$Q = \frac {\epsilon_h} {\alpha_c} \sigma \left(T_h^4 - T_c^4 \right) $$

For Venus where $$T_c = 737K$$ and $$T_h = 464K$$
and for Earth Where $$T_c=288K$$ and $$T_h = 400K$$

thereby explaining why for Venus it is not
$$737^4 - 737^4 = \epsilon$$

Nick:

"It follows trivially from the law of conservation of energy that AA = ED. No, radiation goes both ways. AA=EU+ED. Incidentally, I don’t like using ED, EU for layers. M has defined them for the whole atmosphere (and yes, he also lapses). But the practical difficulty is whether by ED you mean just the IR from that layer, or the whole IR from above. Here I think you mean the former, but generally it is the latter."

My patience runneth out with you. As a simple chemist, it appears to me that you don't have a frigging clue as to what M is saying. Have you really read his papers in depth? Have you studied Zagoni's summary? It seems to me that you need to sit back and READ AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND what his ideas are, before shooting your blog-mouth off. It is very important to know precisely what your opponent thinks, before berating him/her. It appears to me that you have not done that, at all. If you look closely, you will see that even Kiehl and Trenberth agree with much of what M is saying. Especially, AA - ED! If you actually understood M's theory, you would know this.

And then you have to also look at the empirical evidence, which shows that , indeed, Ed = AA. And Su = 3/2 OLR/f, where f = 2/(1+tau + exp(-tau)), and Su = 2Eu, and Su = Ed/(1-Ta). Of course, you can accuse M of "faking" the empirical evidence, but if you do that, you need some evidence of your own.

I just don't think you are approaching M's theory from a scientific perspective. Of course, I can't imagine what other perspective you might have....

Alex #181

Nick needs to learn that as a general rule physicists are not free to play fast and loose with numbers like mathematicians. Lubos has an interesting post on the subject

Richard Feynman's lecture watch the series it's great stuff.

Eric # 176:

Well, it seems to me that you either agree with the LTE assumption, or you don't. But everyone agrees with the LTE assumption, so that's a problem. You would need to answer, at what layer does AA NOT equal ED then? And if at this layer, AA does not equal ED, then is the LTE assumption holding between these two layers? And if the LTE assumption is not holding between these two layers, why is the temperature stable between the two layers?

Alex #169
Alex,
Your theoretical derivation is the sort of calculus way that it should be done. I can't see anywhere that M has done it, so maybe we'll be calling it Harvey's Law :). But there is more to the story:
It follows trivially from the law of conservation of energy that AA = ED. No, radiation goes both ways. AA=EU+ED. Incidentally, I don't like using ED, EU for layers. M has defined them for the whole atmosphere (and yes, he also lapses). But the practical difficulty is whether by ED you mean just the IR from that layer, or the whole IR from above. Here I think you mean the former, but generally it is the latter.

I'll call the layer versions eU, eD, aA, So aA=eD+eU. But then for higher layers, eD doesn't all reach the ground - it is also absorbed, and re-radiated (up and down)(so is eU).

What this all amounts to is a diffusion of radiation (Rosseland radiation). It looks like it might all balance, but there's a generaal upwards bias. This arises because while the radiant heat bounces around, what goes down comes back, while some of what goes up leaves the Earth.

Another way of seeing that is that, while each layer gets re-radiated heat from above and below, it's colder above. So counting emission as well, the nett flow is up.

Incidentally, with re-radiation and absorption, it's actually hard to pin down what AA actually means. It probably means for M radiation that is absorbed for the first time. But each layer just gets a mix of attenuated EU from the Earth, plus eU's from other layers, and can't tell which is which. That is why I say on occasions that AA=ED actually implies advabced calculating ability in the atmosphere. Physically, each layer can't distinguish the history of the radiation that it receives.

Overall, this is why Arthur and I say that, yes AA=ED is approx true, but I at least say that the difference is what matters. At all levels IR goes in both directions, and at lower levels in near balance, but the difference represents nett flow, which is what really matters. (This over-simplifies; AA is not the same as EU, but the imbalance issue is related).

Nick:

"Well, first question, where are these conditions stated? Eq 7 in the paper is stated with a high degree of absoluteness. When qew conditions just seem to appear out of the blue."

M2 says Su-OLR = Ed-Eu, almost by definition.

M also says Ed = Su (and so do Kiehl and Trenberth).

Therefore, if you believe those statements, OLR has to = Eu.

Surely, you don't have a problem with your condition 1!

jae #174

I think M7 and M8 are for cloudy conditions, and M9 is for the all-sky condition.

FWIW that's how I see it. M7&8 are maximal (assuming all Su - > Eu) M9 is more general.

David #173
The ratio requires two conditions to be met:
1. sunlight lands on a surface (else Su is zero)
2. the atmosphere is largely opaque to IR (so OLR = Eu)
Well, first question, where are these conditions stated? Eq 7 in the paper is stated with a high degree of absoluteness. When qew conditions just seem to appear out of the blue.
But these won't do. Sunlight is not required for Su (despite the symbol). Su is just determined by the temperature of the surface, and Venus has plenty of that. And an atmosphere largely opaque to IR rules out the Earth, too.

On energy partition, I wish you folk would make some effort to distinguish between energy and flux. The usual energy partitioning rules apply to bodies that have and hold energy. In fact, they are equilibrium statements which imply that energy sticks around long enough that exchanges over time converge to the predicted state. A surface holds no energy, and can't fulfill that requirement. So your last question just doesn't make sense to me.

Alex says,
"- Theoretical sense: My understanding of Miskolczi’s derivation of eqn.4 is as follows:

Imagine the earth as a spherical ball wrapped like an onion in thin, isothermal layers, numbered 1, 2, 3 … N, that make up the portion of the atmosphere where the LTE assumption is valid (i.e. for the first ~ 60km). We define the ’surface’ as the earth’s crust and assume thermal equilibrium between the surface and layer 1. The layers are transparent to SW radiation and to some wavelengths of LW radiation, and opaque to other wavelengths. ‘SG is the LW upward radiation from the ground … ST and AA are the transmitted and absorbed parts of SG, respectively.’ ‘ED is the long wave (LW) downward atmospheric radiation’. It follows trivially from the law of conservation of energy that AA = ED. Next, we move the ’surface’ to the top of layer 1. We have a local thermal equilibrium between the new surface and layer 2. Layer 2 is transparent to SW radiation and to some wavelengths of LW radiation; it is opaque to other wavelengths. SG, ST, AA, ED are defined as before. It follows trivially that AA = ED. Next, we consider the Nth layer. We have a local thermal equilibrium between the surface of layer (N-1) and layer N. SG, ST, AA, ED are defined as before. It follows trivially that AA = ED. It follows further, trivially, that AA = ED for all N"

I don't understand how the layer surfaces can be in thermal equilibrium while the temperature decreases versus altitude. I think there has to be something wrong with your account of the calculation.

Using M9, if you assume Ta (i.e., the window radiation through the glass) in David's experiment = 0.5, then
tauA + 0.5 -2 = 0, and tauA = 1.5.

If it happens to be only 0.13, tauA = 1.87.

No?

167, Arthur:

"Jae - #164, that doesn’t make any sense: M8 and M7 are essentially equivalent (given M6) as you showed earlier here. If M7 applies only under full cloud cover, then M8 applies under full cloud cover. If M8 works for “clear-sky or partially clouded conditions”, then M7 does too."

Perhaps I wasn't clear (or perhaps you didn't read carefully?). M7 and M8 both assume that all SW is converted to IR at the surface and that there is no loss through the "window." That's not true, of course, and that is why there is not a 45 degree slope in the plot of Su vs 3/2 OLR in the lower left fignur on p. 51 of Zagoni's recent presentation. The "window" problem is resolved in M9, which is why there IS a 45 degree slope in the upper right figure. I think M7 and M8 are for cloudy conditions, and M9 is for the all-sky condition.

Neal,
It would be surprising if there is some plateau in between where the ratio did not vary.
The ratio requires two conditions to be met:
1. sunlight lands on a surface (else Su is zero)
2. the atmosphere is largely opaque to IR (so OLR = Eu)
Condition 1 is not met by Venus, and condition 2 is not met by Mars. So why is this unreasonable or surprising? I find the counterexamples unconvincing.

there is no basis for such partition claims, Somehow, despite lack of mass, the surface converts most of the SW in into IR out and so acts as a source, for the atmospheres IR sink. Perhaps you would like to explain why there is no basis for a partition into source and sink of IR?

Nick #171

Neal’s very reasonable argument against Su=1.5*OLR is that it fails for atmospheres with little GHG and little absorption, when Su~OLR.

Comparing apples with oranges and pears is never a reasonable argument.

David #168
No, the proper arm-waving explanation would be that half the radiation absorbed would be emitted back (and half upwards). Neal's very reasonable argument against Su=1.5*OLR is that it fails for atmospheres with little GHG and little absorption, when Su~OLR. And it fails for Venus, where Su>>OLR. It would be surprising if there is some plateau in between where the ratio did not vary.

and as energy is divided between atmosphere and surface - no, the surface has no mass, and holds zero energy. If you mean the earth beneath, you just can't measure the energy there. But anyway, there is no basis for such partition claims, and no reason why they should determine flux ratios.

And furthermore, I think as jae said, not accepting the above simplifying assumptions is actually the same as not really believing in the LTE approximation.

Arthur # 151:

Well, I don't accept [eqn.4] fully, but even accepting it, it doesn't help in any way in deriving M7. ... A_A + F + K + P is the total flux in ...

It seems to me that you can only accept or reject eqn.4; accepting it only 'approximately' is not accepting it at all for the purpose of this discussion.

Moreover, in accepting eqn.4 you accept it in an empirical sense and as a new law of theoretical physics, a law that is valid for a planetary atmosphere that maximises its rate of entropy production (at least that is my understanding at the moment).

- Empirical sense: Accepting it in the empirical sense means you assent to the following proposition:

MM2004, p. 234:

within the clear atmosphere the downward emittance is approximately equal to the absorbed flux density. Based on our data set, the global average clear-sky downward atmospheric emittance is 311.4 W m–2, while the global average of the absorbed radiation by the clear-sky is 311.9 W m–2. This equivalence – for the highly variable atmospheric emission spectra and for global scale – was not shown before with such a high numerical accuracy.

That is you accept Miskolczi's 'measurements'; you accept that the LBL method of computing fluxes is valid; you accept that HARTCODE is valid; you accept that as the designer of HARTCODE, Miskolczi's use of HARTCODE is likely to be valid. You might join with us at this point in calling for others with LBL to participate in a study to validate these results, sure. But you would acknowledge that the classical theory of the greenhouse effect is challenged at this point and a response to this challenge is needed.

- Theoretical sense: My understanding of Miskolczi's derivation of eqn.4 is as follows:

Imagine the earth as a spherical ball wrapped like an onion in thin, isothermal layers, numbered 1, 2, 3 ... N, that make up the portion of the atmosphere where the LTE assumption is valid (i.e. for the first ~ 60km). We define the 'surface' as the earth's crust and assume thermal equilibrium between the surface and layer 1. The layers are transparent to SW radiation and to some wavelengths of LW radiation, and opaque to other wavelengths. 'SG is the LW upward radiation from the ground ... ST and AA are the transmitted and absorbed parts of SG, respectively.' 'ED is the long wave (LW) downward atmospheric radiation'. It follows trivially from the law of conservation of energy that AA = ED. Next, we move the 'surface' to the top of layer 1. We have a local thermal equilibrium between the new surface and layer 2. Layer 2 is transparent to SW radiation and to some wavelengths of LW radiation; it is opaque to other wavelengths. SG, ST, AA, ED are defined as before. It follows trivially that AA = ED. Next, we consider the Nth layer. We have a local thermal equilibrium between the surface of layer (N-1) and layer N. SG, ST, AA, ED are defined as before. It follows trivially that AA = ED. It follows further, trivially, that AA = ED for all N.

Obviously, this involves a lot of simplifying assumptions and I wouldn't believe it were the not for the fact that Miskolczi has computed these quantities at all altitudes as well as for his Martian atmospheric profiles and found that the law holds generally. This suggests that the simplifying assumptions above are valid generally, and we have a new law, which Miskolczi has, perhaps too humbly, attributed to Gustav Kirchhoff.

I do believe that a 'critical test' of the classical theory of the greenhouse effect, to use the language of Popper, is found right at the beginning of Miskolczi's paper in eqn.4. I really want to see the proponents of the other paradigm respond appropriately (i.e. falsify).

What all of this means is that the atmosphere is not being heated by LW radiation. Where you say the atmosphere has been heated by AA + F + K + P you have not accepted that AA is balanced by ED.

I am not saying that eqn.7 is necessarily any easier to understand, and I note that Ferenc has apologised for a lack of clarity here. It would not surprise me if he is still thinking about this one, wondering how he really has derived it. Why not give him some time to see if he can finally prove this relationship more clearly. For the moment, though, it seems to be borne out by observation.

Meanwhile, I do not see the point of discussing eqn.7 if you have not accepted and fully understood eqn.4.

Arthur, the obvious hand-waving explanation for M7-8 is that at most half of the radiation throughput is emitted back to the surface, due to the atmosphere being 'two-sided'. So Su=OLR+OLR/2. The surface has to match that for balance. Perhaps you could explain why this is bogus.

<abbr>David Stockwells last blog post..How to get rid of toxic debt</abbr>

Jae - #164, that doesn't make any sense: M8 and M7 are essentially equivalent (given M6) as you showed earlier here. If M7 applies only under full cloud cover, then M8 applies under full cloud cover. If M8 works for "clear-sky or partially clouded conditions", then M7 does too.

M7 seems to be completely bogus, and therefore M8 as well - Zagoni's condition (optimal conversion) has no precise definition that I'm aware of. Perhaps he means "under approximately the average partially-clouded conditions that apply for Earth today", but then it obviously has no generality and imposes no limit on warming. Or is "optimal conversion" explained somewhere else?

165, davids:

"But nothing I have seen so far demonstrates it is wrong, or right for that matter."

It appears to me that the empirical evidence on Zagoni's p. 51 backs it up. For the all-sky conditions, it doesn't quite hold (due to Ta), as shown in the lower left figure. But when the source function is incorporated in M9, as in the upper right figure, there is a very good correlation.

jae: It seems plausible that 1. (Su-OLR) = 1/2 OLR, as energy is divided between atmosphere and surface, and it is not a conservation equation, it is a constraint, or limit to maximum temperatures, meaning infinite number of states less than that are permissible too.

But nothing I have seen so far demonstrates it is wrong, or right for that matter.

<abbr>davidss last blog post..How to get rid of toxic debt</abbr>

157, Arthur:

"Jae (#155) - you’re right, if Miskolczi’s equation 7 is a true conservation of energy equation that must be satisfied on average, and he’s presented it in the “clear sky” case, it should work equally well in the “cloudy sky” case. "

No. If you look at Zagoni's recent publication (Oct. 08), you will see the following statement on p. 34. "This equation (M7) assumes that the atmosphere (and surface) converts the incoming SW solar flux to LW outgoing radiation OPTIMALLY." (bracketed items added by me). What this statement means to me is that M7 applies only to cloudy conditions, when Ta = approx. 0. In this case M7 is correct, as I think I've shown in my 155. Su=Ed, when there is no radiation transmitted through the "window." In clear-sky or partially clouded situations, you have to go to equations M8 and M9, which deal with the "window" radiation. The empirical evidence for these latter equations are on p. 51 of Zagoni's presentation.

Miskolczi is chatting on the CA Message Board. I wish he would come here and help us out.

R is universal gas constant ~8.3 j/molK $$c_v = \frac 3 2 R$$ is specific heat at constant volume

Specific heat

for a diatomic gas the ratio is 5/2 but that includes rotational energy which are not interested in for kinetic energy.

Ideal gas law

I am tryimg to work through the equations
Cv is heat capacity at constant volume ?
R is Su/3 ?
A link to a gas law page -- Thanks.

In the above post the second equation should start $$\frac {E_k} {E_p} $$ if got that term upside down.

Hey is there a connection?

$$\frac {S_U} {OLR} = \frac {3} {2} $$

and

$$\frac {E_p} {E_k} = \frac 2 5 \frac {c_v} R = \frac {3 c_v \int_0^\infty \rho dz} {5 \int_0^\infty \rho g z dz} = \frac 3 2 $$

I think there might be.

So we can go with pure virial which is the relationship between the particle's KE and PE as they move up and down through the gravitational field and relate that to $$S_U = 2 E_U$$ or the ratio of the total potential energy and kinetic energy of a random column and relate that to $$\frac {S_U} {OLR} = \frac 3 2$$?

Does the virial ride again??

Aye?

Arthur #157

Jae (#155) - you’re right, if Miskolczi’s equation 7 is a true conservation of energy equation that must be satisfied on average, and he’s presented it in the “clear sky” case, it should work equally well in the “cloudy sky” case.

No impugning of you intelligence going on here but you've already noted some difficulty with symbols he has used I sometimes think we ratios and absolute values mixed up. For instance is there any reason the ratios
$$ \frac {OLR} {S_U} = \frac {F^0} {S_U} = \frac 2 3$$ or
$$T_A= \frac {S_T} {S_U} = 1- A = e^{-\tilde \tau_A}$$

should change with varying cloud cover?

Jae (#155) - you're right, if Miskolczi's equation 7 is a true conservation of energy equation that must be satisfied on average, and he's presented it in the "clear sky" case, it should work equally well in the "cloudy sky" case. But the numbers in the two cases are quite different (and using K-T numbers neither one satisfies this equation). It seems to me he's physically overconstrained the problem with this additional equation, which has no justification.

Cohenite Idojaras site appears to be down try a little later.

SU is in the IR spectrum; CO2 absorbs only in avery narrow range of that spectrum; would not only a small part of the CO2 concentration be necessary for that narrow range absorption with the rest of the ~385ppm being superflous?

Not superfluous but of ever decreasing effect.

ED cannot be at higher temperature than the surface because not all the SU has been absorbed at that level; therefore, how can ED warm a warmer surface?

It can't but they can rise together but there is a limit to how much it's not 2000k but more like ~400K ( 127C) at the absolute outside and on the surface of the moon, unless you concentrate the light. It's more like 65 C at Newcastle but even then you would have to do some fancy stuff with selective transmission and insulation. So don't worry the sun isn't going to boil/fry you any time soon.

If ED and Fo can warm the surface wouldn’t that cause a Wein shift in IR wavelength so that even less SU is caught by the near surface CO2?

The Wien shift is not large enough over earth temperature range to take emissions out of the IR range or the CO2 absorption band away from near the peak

You can play with this to see what I mean">You can plug different temperatures in to see what I mean.

Hmm, M7 IS a puzzle. It says (Su-OLR) + (Ed-Eu) = OLR = Fo

Since M also says :
(Su-OLR) = (Ed-Eu), then it has to follow that:

1. (Su-OLR) = 1/2 OLR, and
2. (Ed-Eu) = 1/2 OLR.

If Su-OLR = 1/2 OLR, then Su = 3/2 OLR. We've seen that before.

M also says that Eu=OLR for cloudy skies. So, substituting OLR for Eu in 2. gives Ed-OLR=1/2 OLR, or Ed = 3/2 OLR Haven't seen that one before.

Since Ed and Su both = 3/2 OLR, this would mean that Su=Ed.

Can we live with this?

Miskolczi's paper seems to be no longer available on the web; some issues which are a problem for me are;
SU is in the IR spectrum; CO2 absorbs only in avery narrow range of that spectrum; would not only a small part of the CO2 concentration be necessary for that narrow range absorption with the rest of the ~385ppm being superflous?
ED cannot be at higher temperature than the surface because not all the SU has been absorbed at that level; therefore, how can ED warm a warmer surface?
If ED and Fo can warm the surface wouldn't that cause a Wein shift in IR wavelength so that even less SU is caught by the near surface CO2?
If there is surface warming would not the increased water at the near surface decrease Fo through increased cloud formation thus decreasing the primary source of radiation reaching the surface?

Arthur just a hint for readability (yes I forgot {sub} {/sub} doesn't work. David has tex installed if you enclose S_T with 2 X $ on each side you get $$S_T$$ but you don't see it in preview.

Arthur #151

Is the problem possibly that, truly, you just don’t accept eqn.4 ?

Well, I don’t accept it fully, but even accepting it, it doesn’t help in any way in deriving M7.

Does it help if you think of ED as a proxy for AA?

There’s no constraint from that accumulation on the final values of S_U, E_D or E_U.

There is a constraint on all of them but EU in particular

$$E_U = OLR - S_T = F^0 - S_T $$

and $$E_U$$ damps as it were the $$ A_A E_D $$ "resonance" that causes the temperature rise at the surface and $$S_T$$ which rises with temperature effectively "limits" by compensating the incoming absorbed by the surface.

Jan #144:

how did the surface get hot enough to be the source of SU and the atmosphere hot enough to be the source ED and EU where did all that energy come from?

Since the system is in a steady state, there's no way for the atmosphere or surface to warm up with the average fluxes as defined by Miskolczi. To warm up surface or atmosphere requires an imbalance - OLR (S_T + E_U) < F_0. The warming comes from the difference F_0 - OLR under non-steady-state conditions. Yes, the energy ultimately comes from the incoming solar flux F_0, but it can accumulate as slowly as you like if the F_0 - OLR difference is small. There's no constraint from that accumulation on the final values of S_U, E_D or E_U.

So ultimately the sum of all those fluxes must be zero.

Yes - that's what Miskolczi's equations 1 and 2 give. If you can express M7 also as a "sum of fluxes that must be zero" that bears any relation to this conservation of energy constraint, I'd love to see a diagram of it.

Alex #145

Is the problem possibly that, truly, you just don’t accept eqn.4 ?

Well, I don't accept it fully, but even accepting it, it doesn't help in any way in deriving M7.

Jan #146 - thanks, I left out the K +P flux by accident. Yes, they need to be included in the energy input to the atmosphere. It was a side point, anyway. A_A + F + K + P is the total flux in, quite different from S_U - F_0.

Arthur # 142:

On the cloudy-sky case, have a look at Zagoni's site again, for this figure:

http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolc...

Okay, from what I can see, the cloudy-sky cases are not relevant because the relationship is not meant to hold above a cloud layer. I feel that this part of the theory may have been clarified in Ferenc's mind after publication, as these figures are not in M2007. As you can see, it is a different relationship in this figure from the earlier one.

Hope this helps.

Nick #147

It's quite a puzzle isn't it.

Perhaps you need to revisit your impedance matching and resonant circuit I know I was critical but if you could get away from the notion of positive feedback in the system you were describing I think you were on a promising track there.

I'm sure there are some similarities even if not a perfect a perfect analogue.

What do you think?

Nick # 147:

- Look, we are talking about the absorbed part by definition. 'ST and AA are the transmitted and absorbed parts of SG, respectively.' Last time we discussed this, I have not forgotten, it was quite clear that you had completely not understood what some of the arrows meant in M2007, Fig. 1. That's not from a lack of clarity; Fig. 1 is from the standard theory. Now, I am trying to understand this; I have no idea what you're trying to do.

- 'The ability of the atmosphere' to make what calculation? Where does it say that the atmosphere has a calculator? Tell me, how does the earth manage to trace a perfect ellipse around the Sun when it doesn't have a compass? This is exactly what you'd have said to Kepler when he first proposed the idea, isn't it. How could the planets know to follow an ellipse without firstly knowing what an ellipse is? Or, here's a good one: how do birds sing perfect musical scales without any training? Tell me, how is it that the theory of quantum mechanics is the most predictively successful theory in the history of science, and yet to the day, no one has come up with a plausible mechanistic interpretation of it? Scientists exist, not to spin confusion to consensus, but to answer these sorts of questions.

Arthur #142 etc
A few things. I've been convinced since David's initial post that Eq 7 can't possibly be based on conservation of energy. The reason is that Eqs 1 and 2 express everything you can get there. Using cons en requires that you identify a region where you can identify the fluxes in and out, and equate that balance to internal sources. In M's model, there are only two such regions, Earth and Atmosphere. You can't get extra independent ones by taking them together, or whatever.

Further, Eq 7 just couldn't express such a balance. It adds Su to Ed. These are fluxes at the same surface (ground) in opposite directions. In any cons en equation, they would have to be subtracted.

The subsequent discussion has made this even more implausible. There was a stage when Zagoni's website was saying instead that it was a balance of radiation pressures (!). Then came M's proposition (in response to Neal pointing out that 8 didn't apply in the limit as GHG's got sparse) that Eq 7 applied only to partly cloudy skies, although there was no indication of how that could enter into the reasoning.

I don't believe Eq 7. There's still no supporting reasoning, and it just doesn't make sense. jae and Alex seem to think that the fact that some observation that it is satisfied in current circumstances carries weight, but any number of formulae will work in a single instance. My car had 26 litres of petrol on 26 Nov. That is consistent with a rule that it will have 27 l on 27th, or that it will always have 26, or ...

A few other things. Alex #145 said

Is not the whole idea of the ‘atmospheric Kirchhoff law’ AA = ED that LW radiation is enclosed and cannot, therefore, contribute to this atmospheric heating?

No, that's completely wrong. If LW radiation was enclosed, we'd vaporise. What it says is that what is absorbed is returned; what is not absorbed goes through. The ability of the atmosphere to make this calculation is implausible. As Arthur says, it's approx true, because wavelengths that have very high absorption also have high emission, so this exchange happens at about the same temperature. It is the portion that is blocked on a scale of km, so that the return comes from colder levels and is less, is what makes up the majority of the exit flux (the rest goes through the atmospheric window without absorption). It's the part that is subject to the effect of extra GHG. So it's one of those formulae where a smallish imbalance is the part that really matters.

you just don’t accept eqn.4 ?

Perhaps not because accepting means accepting that K (latent and contact) contributes significantly to warming the atmosphere and he hasn't included that.

Thus

What heats the atmosphere is A_A + F (absorbed thermal energy from the atmosphere plus the absorbed portion of the incoming solar flux).

Arthur # 142:

I could easily be off the mark here, but where you write:

These aren’t quite correct. What heats the atmosphere is A_A + F (absorbed thermal energy from the atmosphere plus the absorbed portion of the incoming solar flux).

Is not the whole idea of the 'atmospheric Kirchhoff law' AA = ED that LW radiation is enclosed and cannot, therefore, contribute to this atmospheric heating? Is the problem possibly that, truly, you just don't accept eqn.4 ?

Arthur #143

No you can’t. What does this mean, “the source”? The source of S_U is the surface of the planet. The source of E_D and E_U is the atmosphere.

This is interesting how did the surface get hot enough to be the source of SU and the atmosphere hot enough to be the source ED and EU where did all that energy come from?

Ultimately the energy that flows through the system that makes the surface and the atmosphere hot enough to be those sources can only come from F0 and P0 there are no other sources as far as I'm aware.

I think that is what Miskolczi and Zagoni are both saying an that even though there are all these fluxes flying around the first law must apply. There are no conservation laws for fluxes that I'm aware of. So ultimately the sum of all those fluxes must be zero.

Yes Arthur, that is exactly the source of uneasiness I have had with it. Now Zagoni says, in his powerpoint, again without proof that this equation only holds for a maximally developed greenhouse effect, whatever that means, but clearly a very important element of the puzzle. I don't want to dismiss it because it is not obvious, as I suspect there is a simple analytical proof that could be filled in. If not, hmm...

Ah, I see the source of the problem - M7 is based on a false argument, and is indeed wrong.

I checked David's discussion here which just restated Miskolczi's claim, and in the end referred to a Zagoni power-point that supposedly had a "proof" of M7. The supposed proof is on p. 33 and 34 of the linked pdf in David's comment at the end of that page - and while it is not a proof (again just paraphrasing Miskolczi's original), it clarified to me the source of the erroneous thinking here.

Here's what Zagoni said about it:

S_U – OLR heats the atmosphere, E_D– E_U is the answer of the atmosphere to this drive: it maintains the energetic equilibrium at the surface.

These aren't quite correct. What heats the atmosphere is A_A + F (absorbed thermal energy from the atmosphere plus the absorbed portion of the incoming solar flux). Rather, S_U - OLR (or S_U - F_0) represents the increase in flux out of the surface caused by the greenhouse effect - without the GHE S_U would be equal to OLR, and S_U - OLR would be zero. Similarly, E_D - E_U (which from M6 is approximately equal to S_U - OLR) is the balancing excess flux downward from the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect.

Conservation of energy in this case is already accounted for by requiring that these two terms be (close to) equal - the law of energy conservation here imposes only that S_U - OLR be (almost) equal to E_D - E_U. That energy can bounce back and forth between surface and atmosphere as many times as it likes; since it's all thermal energy there's no entropy increase to worry about; the entropy increase in the system is taken care of by the difference in energy quality between F_0 coming in and OLR going out.

But then Zagoni writes, echoing Miskolczi:

The source of (S_U – OLR) and (E_D – E_U) is the incoming available F0 flux. Therefore we can write:
(7) (S_U – OLR) + (E_D – E_U) = F_0 = OLR .

No you can't. What does this mean, "the source"? The source of S_U is the surface of the planet. The source of E_D and E_U is the atmosphere. There is a net energy flux running through the whole system, which boils down to F_0, but thermal radiation within a system can be much greater than any such net flow. It certainly does not have to add up to F_0, and in practice (see the K-T calculations above) it seems this equation is simply not followed at all.

Or do we have specific values of all these numbers for which M7 actually works? I'd love to see a "fixed" version of the K-T diagram that has numbers that fit these equations!

Eric # 130:

Let's be clear about this. MM2004 purports to show that AA and ED are equivalent.

Based on our data set, the global average clear-sky downward atmospheric emittance is 311.4 W m–2, while the global average of the absorbed radiation by the clear-sky is 311.9 W m–2. This equivalence – for the highly variable atmospheric emission spectra and for global scale – was not shown before with such a high numerical accuracy.

Sure, superficially, there seems to be a contradiction with the measurements of the LW down that you've provided that I intend to follow up. I suspect it will turn out that we're not comparing apples and apples. Meanwhile, let's forget the notion that M is only claiming 'approximately' equal; 'approximately' here means ~ +/- 0.5 W m-2 and that is theoretically supposed to be measurement error.

Arthur #139

I don't Miskoclzi claimed there was agreement between his observations and K&T97 only in the $$S_U = 2E_U$$ with $$S_U = 390 W/m^2$$ and $$E_U = 195 Wm^{-2}$$

FYI the corrected form of M7 for a clear-sky version of the K-T diagram (per Jae's #129) should be something like:

S_u = 390 W/m^2 (unchanged)
F_0 = 235 W/m^2 (unchanged)
E_d = 294 W/m^2 (back-radiation reduced by removing cloud emission downward)
E_u = 165 W/m^2 (atmospheric emission from K-T diagram - jae, you should have used 195, not 235, for the full-sky version, which would have produced the same 21% large result we get here for M7)

which gives
M7: S_u - F_0 + E_d - E_u = 284 W/m^2

which is considerably different (21% larger) than the actual F_0 of 235 W/m^2.

Or is F_0 supposed to be adjusted as well for clear-sky conditions, since without clouds less solar input is reflected in the first place? But in that case you'd have F_0 of about 320 W/m^2 which would produce:

M7': S_u - F_0 + E_d - E_u = 199 W/m^2

and now the sum is 38% lower than the "clear-sky" F_0 value we just used. I'm not at all sure which of these possibilities Miskolczi intended, but either way, the K-T numbers definitely don't fit his equation #7.

Proofs of errors in the Kiehl-Trenberth distribution:
See: http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolc...

"11. The Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 global mean energy budget estimate (c.f. IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 FAQ1.1. Fig.1.) is erroneous; the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (USST-76) does not represent the real global average temperature profile (not in radiative equilibrium, not in energy balance, not enough H2O); it should not be used as a single-column model for global energy budget studies;"

Sorry, for E_U in my last post, read A_A. Couldn't Miskolczi have come up with more memorable names for his variables? Ah well...

Eric (#130) - Alex Harvey quoted
Kiehl and Trenberth
, that the clear-sky "window" was about 99 W/m^2. On the other hand, downward long-wave will be reduced in the clear-sky case as well. I don't have a good way to estimate it, but the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram I looked at seemed to quote a 30 W/m^2 outward average flux directly attributable to clouds, so you would end up with E_U (average upward long wave - clear-sky "window") close to 300 W/m^2, and E_D (average downward long-wave - cloud contribution) also very close to 300 W/m^2 from those numbers. It would be nice to see something more precise, but I think there is some evidence there that the clear-sky numbers have M's E_U and E_D pretty close.

But that does break down when you add clouds - and I don't see that he really discussed that particular complication anywhere in his paper.

Jae - #129 - thanks, you do have it correct that M7 combined with M6 does prove M8. But the fact that M7 is almost satisfied in the one example of Kiehl-Trenberth numbers (particularly when M7 is for clear-sky while Kiehl-Trenberth includes clouds!) certainly does not prove M7 in general, which is the whole point. Where does M7 come from? I see David seems to have talked about this way back in May, I'll try to go read some of those threads now.

jae // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:43 am

eric:

“Jae, 127
The difference is more than just the IR window.”

I get REAL irritated when folks pay attention to only a PART of what I wrote, so they can obfuscate the issue. Please read the fuc…. post again. Then revise your silly comment.

My understanding of your post 127 is that the difference between the total upward Long wave radiation and the downward long wave should be the IR window. If I missed something please explain.

My post pointed out that the difference is greater than the IR window.

eric:

"The people who claim that an approximate empirical relationship can be used to prove that there is an upper limit to the efficacy of GHG’s in raising the global temperature are the ones who need a reality check. "

YOUR mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show that your "side" has ANY empirical relationships to support their hypothesis. All they have is black-box AGW models, which, BTW, are now so far off reality that they will soon make Saturday Nite Live. I am asking you for just ONE single empirical demonstration that OCO is causing heating. Miskolczi has provided many that show the opposite. You made a mistake bringing up the empirical issue, since you have NADA in your camp.

Eric #130

would be to add an error term related to the lapse rate.

Lapse rate is irrelevant all the E_d comes from the first 20 m.

BTW, eric, is your dad a wabbit?

eric:

"Jae, 127
The difference is more than just the IR window."

I get REAL irritated when folks pay attention to only a PART of what I wrote, so they can obfuscate the issue. Please read the fuc.... post again. Then revise your silly comment.

Jae, 127
The difference is more than just the IR window.

These are measured values from my reference in post 119:
CDAS Operational Kiehl & Trenberth
Downward long wave 334.66 336.7 324
Upward long wave 395.89 397.5 390
Net long wave 61.23 60.8 66

The IR atmospheric window is supposed to be 40W/M^2, so there is a difference of 26 W/M2 according to K & T.
I consider that significant.

If it is a result of clouds as Arthur says in 121, and the Kirchoff relation holds approximately because the lapse rate is small enough, it is still an error to claim that the relationship can be used to prove that adding CO2 cannot affect the temperature of the surface. The addition of CO2 would increase the lapse rate and make it a less good approximation.

Jan 120,
"Some people really need to get hold of the reality that A_A=E_D is an empirical result not a theoretical one."

The people who claim that an approximate empirical relationship can be used to prove that there is an upper limit to the efficacy of GHG's in raising the global temperature are the ones who need a reality check.

I guess the proper way to write the equation, if one limits the case to clear air, would be to add an error term related to the lapse rate.

Arthur:

"The real problem comes in the following paragraphs, where he first claims E_U must equal S_U/2 (based on the virial theorem), and then writes equations 7 and 8 with no logical justification I can see. "

Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't see why you have so much trouble with M7 and M8. M7 is really quite close to KT, if you ignore P, as KT does. It just represents an energy balance for Energy In = Energy Out, according to his diagram.

Ignoring P (as KT does): M says, Su-Fo+Ed-Eu = Fo = OLR

Using the KT diagram, this translates to:

390-235+324-235 = 244=235

Of course 244 isn't quite equal to 235, but it's only off by 9 watts, so it's close to the same idea.

The M8 equation follows by substitution, if you ignore P:

F0=OLR=Su-Fo+Ed-Eu
By definition Ed-Eu = Su-Fo
So, by substitution, Fo = Su-Fo+Su-Fo
And Fo = 2Su-2Fo
And 3Fo=2Su
And Su = 3/2 Fo
And since Fo = OLR, Su=3/2 OLR.

Arthur #121

All fine to here:

The real problem comes in the following paragraphs, where he first claims E_U must equal S_U/2 (based on the virial theorem), and then writes equations 7 and 8 with no logical justification I can see.

I think you A) have misunderstood the intent here and B) missed a comment while you were having your little tete a tete with Lord Monckton.

A) E_u = S_u/2 is a consistently observed relation (even seen in K&T 97) he just called it a virial because it resembled and felt it was related to hydrostatic balance.
B)you missed this
I call this virial type relationship

The rest is just algebra and yes I had to scratch my head over it quite a bit before it made sense. I agree it's not very clearly laid out but I think David has made fair fist of laying it out in earlier posts.

119, eric:

"The measurements of IR in the atmosphere say you are wrong. The net upward radiation at the surface is larger than the net downward radiation.
AA=ED would only be true if the entire atmosphere were at the same temperature."

I think you may be confusing AA with SU. They are not the same thing, because of the "window" transparency and the IR absorbed directly by the atmosphere.

I refer above to my post, # 92, greenhouse-quiz thread, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:07 am.

Of course, the philosophical problem of measurement holds that there is never, in fact, any direct measurement in science, at all. All measuring instruments, even the simplest, assume theory at some point. Perhaps this is a digression, but is worth keeping in mind.

Eric # 122:

I should correct my usage -- 'measurements using LBL codes'; I understand the use of the LBL codes is not the same as a direct measurement. However, there are no direct measurements of these fluxes, as far as I can see, so this is a big hole in your argument.

Arthur # 121:

My apologies, I see you say 'E_D has to be a little bit lower than A_A thanks to lapse rates, but the difference is not large - a few percent.' Well, the trouble is, MM2004 shows that they are closer than this, not even 1% different in the clear-sky case. Still, no one can say how Miskolczi could be wrong about this, since no one is doubting his ability to do the LBL simulations, or disputing that there is no more accurate way to compute these fluxes. I am not sure about the cloudy case.

Eric # 119:

The measurements of IR in the atmosphere say you are wrong.

What 'measurements'? Aside from Miskolczi, in MM2004, no one has ever taken any accurate measurements using LBL codes. KT1997 is guesswork. Have you read my detailed to you on this on the other thread?

Arthur # 121:

Barton Paul Levenson, among others, have asserted that AA = ED cannot be even approximately true without significantly contradicting the received theory of the greenhouse effect. Are you saying this view is incorrect?

Eric - actually, I think Miskolczi's argument based on Kirchoff's law here is considerably more valid than the virial business. Remember Miskolczi is discussing only *clear sky* radiation, and for that his A_A (thermal radiation from the ground absorbed by the atmosphere) and E_D (thermal radiation emitted from the atmosphere to the ground) are observationally quite close (even in Kiehl-Trenberth, as far as I can tell). In essence this works because much of the absorption (and emission) happens, in the clear-sky case, relatively close to the ground where temperatures are not very different from the surface. E_D has to be a little bit lower than A_A thanks to lapse rates, but the difference is not large - a few percent. When you add clouds however, you have a strong absorber/emitter that is not close to the ground, considerably colder, and therefore you get a much stronger difference between absorption and emission in the cloudy case - 10% or more.

In other words, Miskolczi (2007)'s equations 1-3 are exact over long-term averages, and equation 4 is good to within a few percent for the clear-sky case. That means his equations 5 and 6 (derived from 1 and 2 based on 4, respectively) are also good to some approximation. Nothing too bad happening up to that point, except that he's for some reason ignoring the cloudy case where things would be a bit different.

The real problem comes in the following paragraphs, where he first claims E_U must equal S_U/2 (based on the virial theorem), and then writes equations 7 and 8 with no logical justification I can see. I guess that's why David's trying to verify 7 - has anybody come up with a rational derivation of it from what he did up to that point? But does 7 even imply 8? I don't see that either!

That is why AA=/= ED, and Miskolczi’s ideas are wrong.

Some people really need to get hold of the reality that $$A_A=E_D$$ is an empirical result not a theoretical one.

Jae says,
"On the LARGE scale, IR is responsible for only a small fraction of heat transport (except at the surface where visible light energy is converted to IR, and at TOA, where IR transport to space is also important). Convection dominates in-between, I think (Aa = Ed, so no net “transport)."

The measurements of IR in the atmosphere say you are wrong. The net upward radiation at the surface is larger than the net downward radiation.
AA=ED would only be true if the entire atmosphere were at the same temperature.
.
www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/MET/WGASF/workshop/PDF/...

T he conditions at which Kirchoff derived his relationship between absorption and emission coefficients in the general case are not the same as in the atmosphere. Kirchoff was able to assume AA=ED because the entire system under consideration was inside a black box at a UNIFORM TEMPERATURE. In the case of the earth , radiation headed downward originates from a cooler body of gas than radiation headed upward from the surface. That is why AA=/= ED, and Miskolczi's ideas are wrong.

"Maybe the GHGs are more important for thermalization than anything else in the atmosphere. In this experiment, however, contact of the air with the heated surfaces probably effects plenty of thermalization."

That is so because convection and conduction, not radiation are the means by which the air inside the experimental system acquires energy, while most of the radiation from the black body goes straight to the glass.

The upper atmosphere gets most of the energy it absorbs through radiation.

Nick, My main motivation is to understand equation M7. I know you have expressed concerns with it, but noone has yet proven that it is wrong AFAIK. When I raise the issue I get no response. This is more central than KL or VT IMHO, as it represents a simple energetic constraint that stops the surface radiation (or temperature) rising above 1.5 times the solar radiation.

I don't think the experiment is going to 'prove' M7 either, as it is really a little model. But the behavior of the model should represent the gross features, and put in concrete terms something that seems abstract: i.e.the simultaneous interaction of two energetic constraints.

All you are saying above is that the Milne-Eddington constraint is not applicable to the apparatus, as the tau is so low. But that is not the constraint I am interested in. I am interested in the M7 constraint.

Nick:

"1. On this small scale, IR is responsible for only a small fraction of heat transport. Convection and conduction are more important."

Maybe you have this backwards? On the LARGE scale, IR is responsible for only a small fraction of heat transport (except at the surface where visible light energy is converted to IR, and at TOA, where IR transport to space is also important). Convection dominates in-between, I think (Aa = Ed, so no net "transport). Maybe the GHGs are more important for thermalization than anything else in the atmosphere. In this experiment, however, contact of the air with the heated surfaces probably effects plenty of thermalization.

Nick #115

1. On this small scale, IR is responsible for only a small fraction of heat transport.

i have a suggestion here beers law
$$ \frac I I_0 = exp \left(- \alpha lc \right)$$

you can see from that if you reduce concentration c you get the same absorption keeping l constant same as you would reducing l by the same amount and keeping c constant so you can go to MODTRAN and reduce the CO2 to about 17.5 then you can get a rough idea of absorption you can expect over 10 cm. That is assuming extinction over 20m and concentration of 350 ppm. Of course at the temperature involved relative reradiation will be higher so it's better to reduce concentration rather than distance.

Geoff #114
My take on this experimantal setup is that it is a weak analogue of atmospheric warming because:
1. On this small scale, IR is responsible for only a small fraction of heat transport. Convection and conduction are more important.
2. Small amounts of CO2 and water, on this scale, will absorb a tiny fraction of that IR (which wasn't doing much anyway).
Pure CO2 can absorb IR substantially over a metre or less, but within a fairly narrow bandwidth range. Most of the IR still gets through. In the atmosphere, CO2 is more effective, because a substantial part of the rest of the spectrum is impeded by water. Again on this scale, with normal humidity, trace water doesn't absorb much.
So the CO2 makes a small modification to a small component of heat transfer.
Little nett effect.

There is a deal of confusion of understanding of physical principles by some of the posters here. There is also some misunderstanding of what the described experiment set out to do.

Alternatively, those physics classes I sat through for years were teaching me nonsense that has been overtaken by experiments without names. (I spent 9 years at Uni on and off, mainly because I kept having to transfer form one Uni to another at the risk of expulsion. So I've heard a few physics lectures).

I'll illustrate this confusion with an example. Why not send in your forecasts for the result of David's first experiment, had the air been replaced with 100% CO2?

The qualitative answer appears in several posts above, but let's examine the confusion.

I chose CO2 as a pure gas that is not a mixture like air and because others have mentioned it in relation to Global Warming on grounds that might be similarly tenuous. But, I have not dismissed AGW, I merely seek an explanation backed by experiment.

Eric #112

Actually Jae said he didn’t believe that the GH theory of climate change violates the second law of thermodynamics.

You need to be careful by what you meant "theory" there are lots. some of them are OK some not so OK and some are stinkers. However I am at the present time rather disinclined rehashing the same old stuff. I am quite happy to see what David comes up with next if I see a point where I can make a useful or at least what I think might be useful I shall do so.

Jan Pompe // Nov 26, 2008 at 3:38 am
says,
"Eric #107

" Can you really defend this? It seems more like an emotional outburst than a scientific statement."

Of course I can defend it jae already has so I don’t need to. You could say it was an emotional outburst but more of a response to a funny situation my sister told me about that I was still having a chuckle about.

Does that explain it? Need more explanation? Just let me know. In the meantime I’m going back to making room to move in my garage."

Actually Jae said he didn't believe that the GH theory of climate change violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Eric #110

You made points?

What points?

Jae says,
"Eric, oh, eric:

As Jan says: “Just some of the theories that try to explain it do. -”

And that is exactly where your ideas lie, with your constant, unexplained claims that the surface is WARMED by GHGs. As I’ve said before several times (without any feedback from you), you don’t even comprehend your own hypothesis (the AGW one), let alone Miskolczi’s."

If the atmosphere prevents the loss of heat from the earth's surface, I think it is fair to say that the surface is being warmed by the atmosphere. You may disagree with this, but it is not proof of any ignorance. The fact that you make this into an issue instead of answering the points that I made, shows that you don't have a case.

That goes for Jan also.

Eric #107

Can you really defend this? It seems more like an emotional outburst than a scientific statement.

Of course I can defend it jae already has so I don't need to. You could say it was an emotional outburst but more of a response to a funny situation my sister told me about that I was still having a chuckle about.

Does that explain it? Need more explanation? Just let me know. In the meantime I'm going back to making room to move in my garage.

eric, oh, eric:

As Jan says: "Just some of the theories that try to explain it do. -"

And that is exactly where your ideas lie, with your constant, unexplained claims that the surface is WARMED by GHGs. As I've said before several times (without any feedback from you), you don't even comprehend your own hypothesis (the AGW one), let alone Miskolczi's.

106 Jan Pompe // Nov 26, 2008 at 1:01 am
Says,

"jae #105

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a misnomer that we’ve come to accept and it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics - it cannot. Just some of the theories that try to explain it do. - For instance the theoretical temperature discontinuity at the surface violates the zeroth, first, second third laws and when someone comes up with a 4th it will violate that too.

Unless of course that fourth law is “thou shalt violate all of the above”.

let’s not have anyparadoxes here"

Can you really defend this? It seems more like an emotional outburst than a
scientific statement.

The zeroth law relates to the definition of Temperature and equilibirium.
The earth is by definition not in thermal equilibirium. The lapse rate in the atmosphere is proof of this. What is called equilibrium is really a steady state, where the surface temperature remains constant.
A mathematical discontinuity as an approximation is not a real violation of any physical law.

As far as I know the first law is assumed by all models of the greenhouse effect, even the simplest of them involving a single layer atmosphere.

As far as the second law is concerned, there is no net flux of heat from a lower to a higher temperature in any of the simple models that I have seen.

The third law says absolute Zero of temperature is unattainable. Where does this figure in the greenhouse model?

Can you really defend these statements?

jae #105

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a misnomer that we've come to accept and it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics - it cannot. Just some of the theories that try to explain it do. - For instance the theoretical temperature discontinuity at the surface violates the zeroth, first, second third laws and when someone comes up with a 4th it will violate that too.

Unless of course that fourth law is "thou shalt violate all of the above".

let's not have anyparadoxes here

eric:

"Can you explain why G & T claim that the atmospheric greenhouse theory violates the second law of thermodynamics? "

FWIW, I don't think G and T are correct on this. I once thought so, too, but I'm reformed. :)

David Hagen 101
Can you explain why G & T claim that the atmospheric greenhouse theory violates the second law of thermodynamics? I have not been able to find a definitive explanation in the paper. If someone can prove that statement, they would become famous in the world of climatology.

I believe that thermodynamics is general enough to include radiation. Kirchoff showed that by using thermondynamics to prove his relationship between absorption and emission coefficients for radiation of a given wave length.

G and T's paper is so long and boring that very few people would take the time to read it. It seems that none of these proponents of alternative science are able to write clearly.

Some interesting citations of Gerlich & Tscheuschner:

Arthur P. Smith
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect physics.ao-ph 28 Feb 2008

Ahmed Boucenna, "The Great Season Climatic Oscillation and Global warming" 2008
"In this work, we recalculated the earth’s ground mean temperature to show the importance of the role of the earth IR radiation reflection by atmosphere cloud (solid and liquid). This cloud reflection, and not the greenhouse effect due to atmosphere greenhouse gases, gives to the earth’s ground its mean temperature."

See "Section 2.5 Experiment by Wood" pp 32-34
Wood (1909) compared a greenhouse with glass vs a rock salt cover.
"When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 deg C, the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass."
Then Wood filtered the sunlight through glass to remove the IR portion:
"There was now scarcely a dierence of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 deg C. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 deg C, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped."

Gerlich & Tscheuschner summarize:
"It is not the "trapped" infrared radiation, which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse, but it is the suppression of air cooling."

David
Recommend adding the following to your papers to review & discuss:
Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
arXiv:0707.1161v3 physics.ao-ph 11 Sep. 2007

Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 deg C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

From what I have briefly read, Gerlich & Tscheuschner appear to address the physics of the conventional greenhouse vs atmospheric models. The physics cited is also worth evaluating regarding Miskolczi's theory.

David, 96: Whadda ya want to bet that it doesn't matter much?

eric:

"It will warm up the entire apparatus including the top of the glass, increasing its surface temperature and the outgoing radiation. "

Don't think so. It might slow the rate of cooling, but it will not heat it. The outer surface of the glass is still going to try to come into equilibrium with ambient. There is still a "lapse rate" through the glass. And it's been shown that even if you use NaCl, which is completely transparent to IR, for the "glass," you still get the same greenhouse effect.

If you are trying to verify M's equation with a glass in the atmosphere wouldn't that depend on the transmission properties of the glass. Suppose you use a few thicknesses of low E glass. What would happen then?
Also the background IR radiation from the atmosphere should influence your equation. It will warm up the entire apparatus including the top of the glass, increasing its surface temperature and the outgoing radiation. This will have the effect of artificially decreasing the attainable ratio of incoming to outgoing radiation. That will make it impossible to test M's theory if you apply it to glass in a strict sense.

In 96, by the 3D to 1D approximation I am assuming the four fold difference of 3D black body radiating area Pi*D^2 to 2D solar interception area (Pi*D^2)/4 has been accounted for in the average inward radiation Fo.

Admin at 68
"Lets just talk about temperatures, not fluxes for convenience. Taking a cross-section through the apparatus, and temperatures Ambient (Ao), glass outside Go, glass inside Gi, and black body temperature Bb: eg."

Caution over cavalierly jumpingn from temperatures to fluxes. Your experiment is actually for BELL jars. These are sufficiently different from greenhouses and the earth as to confuse the issue.

Please look carefully at the major issue of surface AREA through which the fluxes act when comparing your bell jars vs greenhouse vs earth. There may be substantial differences will come when considering heat conduction, convection and radiation.

After establishing equations from energy conservation, I understand Miskolczi to assume local thermal equilibrium and thus simplify his equations. Note carefully his implicit assumptions on the areas involved.

Expanding on my comment above at 89
For the earth, the 3D system is approximated by a 1D approach where the area of the earth's surface, middle atmosphere and outer atmosphere are approximated as about equal. This is a good approximation.
In commercial greenhouses, the outer area may be a small percentage higher than the ground surface.

However in the Bell Jar, your surface area for heat loss to the air is much higher than in the base. For height H, diameter D
Bell Jar outer surface area Aj = (Pi*D^2)/4 + Pi*D*H
Base Area Ab = (Pi*D^2)/4

Outer surface area/Base area = Aj/Ab = 1 + 4H/D.

For H/D of about 1.25, Aj/Ab = 5
compared to
greenhouse Aj/Ab ~ 1.1
earth Aj/Ab~ 1.0.

That changes your convective heat loss to the air from the outside of the jar by about 5. That would make it easier to explain and model as similar to the earth, flat plate solar collectors and conventional greenhouses.

Thus my recommendation to surround the walls of your experiment with insulation is to reduce the side heat losses/gains relative to the horizontal surface areas. i.e. effectively to set Aj/Ab ~ 1 rather than to ~5.

Thanks Arthur,
I have enough to plan the next generation now. I do like to predict what I think will happen, to keep myself honest and focused on the goal. If I get a chance to post on the planned experiment this week I will. The ultimate goal is still to test the energetic constraint Su=1.5*OLR, which in combination with the Milne-Eddington constraint gives the constant tau. This would be tested via the measured apparatus quantities here : http://landshape.org/enm/maxpower-datasheet-exp...

Actually a questions something like does 3Go/Ao = 2Bb/Ao + 1, where Go is outer glass temp, Bb is blackbody temp, and Ao is ambient.

I am amazed at the number of tangents people are going off on that are completely not where I am going with this. So I would like to write a post on that too sometime. I am not trying to create a mini-earth. I am not trying to do some breakthrough research either. It seems a rather trivial scientific apparatus, but I am trying to either verify or falisify Miskolczi's M7 equation. I think this equation is central, as it provides the basic energetic constraint that stops the atmospheric greenhouse temperatures running away through +ve feedbacks. It is

Ed-Eu+Su-F=OLR (M7)

It seems like a equal partitioning of greenhouse energy between the atmosphere and the surface, and people have been concerned about it, but I have yet to see anyone prove it is false. Other people seem to say it is obvious. Either way it is central, it leads to Su=1.5*OLR constraint.

Because I have concerns and it is so central, and I don't have an analytic proof, I am stuck with doing experiments.

<abbr>davidss last blog post..Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2</abbr>

David, thanks for the question (though I'm still wondering about some of the questions I asked...) - on your #64 here:

I am not convinced that the heating in the black body is entirely due to suppression of convection, and a function only of the black body temperature of the body inside.

Heating happens when incoming energy exceeds outgoing energy; outgoing energy increases through various heat transfer processes when the temperature increases (Newton's law of cooling means transfer rate is proportional to temperature difference - this roughly applies to any mode of heat transfer when the temperature differences aren't large). Obstruction of any of the heat transfer processes (convection, conduction, latent heat flow, radiation) means the temperature will rise. Under normal circumstances at the human scale, most cooling is through convection, so suppression of that should lead to the most temperature increase.

How about:
1. plate of glass over a black plate, 1cm air gap, mounted in EPS, in the sun.
2. measure the outside glass temperature and the black plate temperature.

EPS (styrofoam) should block heat flow from any of the 4 mechanisms, so a good material to bring into the experiment. That means the only way heat can leave is through the parts not covered in foam; this system would result in maximum energy input to the black plate (assuming the sun directly overhead) relative to the area that can lose heat (presumably just the top surface of the plate), i.e. almost 1:1, rather than 1:3.15 or more in your current set-up.

You could try this with or without the air gap - the gap would allow the bottom surface of the glass to be cooler than it would be in direct contact with the bottom plate, which might make some difference. We're assuming there's infrared absorption in the glass - the actual behavior would strongly depend on the properties of the glass relevant to thermal radiation, but in principle the hypothesis here would be that the thicker the glass (assuming it does absorb infrared to some extent across the entire thermal spectrum), the higher the temperature of the bottom plate.

So to the extent glass is a "gray body" absorber for thermal radiation, increasing thickness increases the optical depth, and bottom plate temperature. If there are gaps in the absorption spectrum for the glass, letting some fraction through with no absorption independent of thickness, then there will be some limit to the warming of the bottom plate. Trying different radiatively obstructing materials that have different gaps of this sort (or none) would also be a useful test.

Would the difference between the glass plate temperature, and the black plate temperature be due to greenhouse effect? After all, disregarding losses from the EPS, the glass surface is dumping the extra heat absorbed by the inner black body, resulting in a non-zero Tglass-Tambient.

-- this would be true only if the glass is sufficiently strongly absorbing across the entire spectrum so that essentially no radiation escapes directly from the glass plate, and all is intercepted by the glass on the way out. Otherwise your glass temperature will be somewhat lower than the actual T_blackbody you would expect with no greenhouse effect (and only radiative heat transfer). Experimenting with different glass thicknesses will tell you something about this, but there is still the issue of gaps in the absorption that allow radiation directly through.

Hope that makes sense! I think it definitely would be an improved version of your experiment.

Something called "Wikis category" does not show up. After a search operation, I found my way to a registration screen of some kind. I don't have my email confirmation yet.

Eric; did you click on the WIKIS category at the right hand side at the top of this thread? If you do that and follow the prompts you should receive a password and access.

Eric #90

I need a userid also. Also, I find password ambiguous. Is it the last 4 words in the sentence?

Just make one up and she'll be apples a password will be sent to which you can change later.

Cohenite said,

"Eric; I was looking at the Cabauw measurements and the 44 TIGR profiles; if you look at the Warm Mid-latitudinal Profile, my point is evident; this is shown on p7 of the following reference but you may need a password, it is David’s Wiki of Miskolczi;

http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=i...

I need a userid also. Also, I find password ambiguous. Is it the last 4 words in the sentence?
Thanks.

Sockwell
Excellent for simple conceptual communication.
A few refinements:
Your height/width ~ 1.2.
Troposphere/circumference ~ 17 km/40008 km ~ 0.000025

1) Recommend adding an 6" or 8" fiberglass blanket around the sides to get better scaling of heat loss/heat gain.

2) Suggest a tray of water in the bottom with a clay tile covering about 30% of the base to 70% water to symbolize land and ocean.

Eric; I was looking at the Cabauw measurements and the 44 TIGR profiles; if you look at the Warm Mid-latitudinal Profile, my point is evident; this is shown on p7 of the following reference but you may need a password, it is David's Wiki of Miskolczi;

http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=i...

Ah, yes, it's about 0.92: http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1...

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the emissivity for glass is about 1 in the far-IR region.

Eric, pick all the nits you want. And while you are at it, prove that CO2 IS a factor. Nobody else has been able to do it!

Jae,
Anything that appears to prove that CO2 is not a factor is not bad, no matter how fantastic and unbelievable.

Never mind that the equation used has no physical justification, and doesn't balance by about 40% oh no wait, it is only 8%.

How did you calculate those fluxes in the equation? What did you use for the emissivity of glass? What kind of glass was it?

Nuts. I did the calcs above wrong. I think it comes out 1806 = 1952, or since temps are almost linear with radiation in this range, 144 C = 161 C. Not too bad for a quickie experiment, I'd say!

eric sez:

"It does this by absorbing the upward radiation and sending it back downward where it warms the surface. It takes ~ a 40Km column of air to do this.”

eric, I submit that you do not even understand your own theory (the popular AGW one). It does NOT say that the downward radiation WARMS the surface (which I think would violate the second law). It says that it keeps the air warmer than it would be without the GHE.

cohenite // Nov 23, 2008 at 7:03 am

Eric; you say; “The atmospheric greenhouse blocks the exit of a significant fractions of the upward radiation from the surface of the earth leaving the atmosphere system. It does this by absorbing the upward radiation and sending it back downward where it warms the surface. It takes ~ a 40Km column of air to do this.”

In the case of CO2 all it requires is about 650 cm. At this height CO2 and greenhouse has done most of its work. Incidentally, apart from Philipona’s studies, do you have any material to substantiate the AGW model of LDR/ED in clear-sky conditions above 650cm"

This is not a well known fact, to say the least. Do you have a reference for this?
(Sorry I screwed up the order of my last post)

cohenite // Nov 23, 2008 at 7:03 am says,

Eric; you say; “The atmospheric greenhouse blocks the exit of a significant fractions of the upward radiation from the surface of the earth leaving the atmosphere system. It does this by absorbing the upward radiation and sending it back downward where it warms the surface. It takes ~ a 40Km column of air to do this.”"

This is not a well known fact, to say the least. Do you have a reference for this?

In the case of CO2 all it requires is about 650 cm. At this height CO2 and greenhouse has done most of its work. Incidentally, apart from Philipona’s studies, do you have any material to substantiate the AGW model of LDR/ED in clear-sky conditions above 650cm

David's equation 1 above ain't that far off for a first order approximation. I get 1806 = 1194, assuming everything is BB.

eric says:

“So what you are testing with your glass is the agricultural greenhouse effect”.

eric, I'm afraid you really don't get the concept. The greenhouse can be visualized as a small planet. It has a surface, an atmosphere, comlete with lapse rate (the air and glass), and "outer space" (ambient). Heck, you even have a little "weather" when the water is added. Think out of the box (AGW) for a little bit.

“I am not volunteering my time on this problem.”

Then why are you so vociferous?

eric: OK so let me get this right.
You were arguing that the agricultural greenhouse (AG) was not relevant to the atmospheric greenhouse because the AG was entirely based on convection and not radiation. So now you acknowledge that it does have some radiative basis.

Now you also argue that glass is not a good proxy because the process of heat transfer is conduction and not convection, even though I have already said that I am abstracting over the transport mechanism in order to create the model at all.

Then you say that glass is not a good proxy because the temperature differential on the inside of the glass is only a matter of degree, not 30C. What if the glass were thick enough to maintain a 30C difference. Would that satisfy you? I doubt it.

Do I have that right?

admin // Nov 23, 2008 at 7:03 am
says,
"eric:
"So what you are testing with your glass is the agricultural greenhouse effect".

So what you are saying is there is no fraction of the upward radiation from the black absorbed by glass and sent back downward where it warms the surface. We can test, or as you say solve it, to see if you are right. I have indicated numerous times, including in the quoted section, that the glass is the proxy for the atmosphere."

I did not intend to imply that the glass radiated in only one direction when heated.
The glass is not a good proxy for the atmosphere.
Glass has different phenomena involved in heat transport.
It has conduction but no convection.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect depends on the difference between temperatures at the top and bottom of the atmosphere to work. The temperature differences are about 30C.
You are not measuring the difference between the inside and outside temperatures of the glass, but I suspect they will be much smaller than 30C.

It is pretty clear that the glass is not any kind of revealing proxy for the atmosphere at all.

# 72 eric
"I am not volunteering my time on this problem."

Then figure out how to save yourself from Runaway CO2 Taxation.

eric:
So what you are testing with your glass is the agricultural greenhouse effect.

So what you are saying is there is no fraction of the upward radiation from the black absorbed by glass and sent back downward where it warms the surface. We can test, or as you say solve it, to see if you are right. I have indicated numerous times, including in the quoted section, that the glass is the proxy for the atmosphere.

Eric; you say; "The atmospheric greenhouse blocks the exit of a significant fractions of the upward radiation from the surface of the earth leaving the atmosphere system. It does this by absorbing the upward radiation and sending it back downward where it warms the surface. It takes ~ a 40Km column of air to do this."

In the case of CO2 all it requires is about 650 cm. At this height CO2 and greenhouse has done most of its work. Incidentally, apart from Philipona's studies, do you have any material to substantiate the AGW model of LDR/ED in clear-sky conditions above 650cm

admin says, // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:05 am
"Hi Arthur, I would appreciate some advice on this approach: I am not convinced that the heating in the black body is entirely due to suppression of convection, and a function only of the black body temperature of the body inside. How about:

1. plate of glass over a black plate, 1cm air gap, mounted in EPS, in the sun.
2. measure the outside glass temperature and the black plate temperature.

Would the difference between the glass plate temperature, and the black plate temperature be due to greenhouse effect? After all, disregarding losses from the EPS, the glass surface is dumping the extra heat absorbed by the inner black body, resulting in a non-zero Tglass-Tambient. Or do you think the two surfaces will be at the same temperature? What about emissivity?"


Your use of "greenhouse effect" is extremely ambiguous. Are you speaking of the agricultural greenhouse or the atmospheric greenhouse? The 2 greenhouse effects are not the same thing, as has been pointed out before on this board.

Agricultural greenhouse suppresses the loss of energy by confining air currents due to convection of heated air inside the greenhouse, so that cold air cannot enter the greenhouse and heated air cannot leave it. The key element is a material which allows sunlight to heat the interior and blocks air flow from the interior.

The atmospheric greenhouse blocks the exit of a significant fractions of the upward radiation from the surface of the earth from leaving the earth atmosphere system. It does this by absorbing the upward radiation and sending it back downward where it warms the surface.
It takes ~ a 40Km column of air to do this.

So what you are testing with your glass is the agricultural greenhouse effect.
The 1 cm column of air will have a negligible effect on the progress of radiation from the black surface to the surface of the glass above it.
Heat conduction and convection within the 1 cm air space will transport some energy from the black absorber to the bottom of the glass.
The progress of the upward radiation depends on the IR absorption/emission properties of the glass, as well as normal heat conduction. Since this is a 1 dimensional equation in can be solved pretty easily, if one knows the material properties of the glass, and where to find equations for convection.

I am not volunteering my time on this problem. It will shed no light on the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

dmin // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:05 am
"Hi Arthur, I would appreciate some advice on this approach: I am not convinced that the heating in the black body is entirely due to suppression of convection, and a function only of the black body temperature of the body inside. How about:

1. plate of glass over a black plate, 1cm air gap, mounted in EPS, in the sun.
2. measure the outside glass temperature and the black plate temperature.

Would the difference between the glass plate temperature, and the black plate temperature be due to greenhouse effect? After all, disregarding losses from the EPS, the glass surface is dumping the extra heat absorbed by the inner black body, resulting in a non-zero Tglass-Tambient. Or do you think the two surfaces will be at the same temperature? What about emissivity?"

Your use of greenhouse effect is extremely ambiguous. Are you speaking of the agricultural greenhouse or the atmospheric greenhouse? The 2 greenhouse effects are not the same thing, as has been pointed out before on this board.

Agricultural greenhouse suppresses the loss of energy by confining air currents due to convection of heated air inside the greenhouse, so that cold air cannot enter the greenhouse and heated air cannot leave it. The key element is a material which allows sunlight to heat the interior and blocks air flow from the interior.

The atmospheric greenhouse blocks the exit of a significant fractions of the upward radiation from the surface of the earth from leaving the earth atmosphere system. It does this by absorbing the upward radiation and sending it back downward where it warms the surface.
It takes ~ a 40Km column of air to do this.

So what you are testing with your glass is the agricultural greenhouse effect.
The 1 cm column of air will have a negligible effect on the progress of radiation from the black surface to the surface of the glass above it.
Heat conduction and convection within the 1 cm air space will transport some energy from the black absorber to the bottom of the glass.
The progress of the upward radiation depends on the IR absorption/emission properties of the glass, as well as normal heat conduction. Since this is a 1 dimensional equation in can be solved pretty easily, if one knows the material properties of the glass, and where to find equations for convection.

I am not volunteering my time on this problem. It will shed no light on the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

You want to measure 4 things simultaneously
Su -- Ed -- Eu -- OLR

IBM joystick inputs - scrounge 4 optodetectors
Use the old quickbasic language . Program for realtime screen output, and to make a file for further analysis.

Sunlamp on top. colder below.
In between ? Try all kinds of absorbers

Amazing would be, to model a thin layer of mist above a swamp. Could you detect cosmic rays ,with this kind of cloud chamber ?

cohenite #66
I'm not saying anything about the " relationship between water and temperature". I'm making a specific statement about latent heat of evaporation. It's taken from the environment when water evaporates and returned when it condenses. Since over time the amount of water as vapor doesn't change, latent heat cancels out as a heat source.

Now you might say there has been a long term fall or rise in atmospheric water vapor content. OK, that is a nett change, but it is very small. The moisture in air is equivalent to 18 mm liquid. A change of 1 mm in a year is big, but represents 2260 kJ/sq m in latent, which is about 2 seconds of peak sunlight.

Nick: Incidentally, you might like to review your reason for currently believing M7 to be true.

How about this derivation? Lets just talk about temperatures, not fluxes for convenience. Taking a cross-section through the apparatus, and temperatures Ambient (Ao), glass outside Go, glass inside Gi, and black body temperature Bb: eg.

Ao < Go < Gi <= Bb

Then following the pattern of M7:

Gi-Go+Bb-Go=Go-Ao
Gi+Bb+Ao=3Go

Then if Gi=Bb, measured or by Kirchhoff. Then
3Go = 2Bb + Ao (1)

In the case of a planet in space, Ao=0 and (1) simplifies to 3Go=2Bb or 3OLR=2Su in flux terms. So if we would look to see if 1 holds in the experiment. I am aware of emissivity, flux/temperature conversion, before everybody starts nit picking.

Admin said,

"Eric, As a statement of intent, I suppose you could say it is to find out to what extent such small scale experiments could inform us about greenhouse processes. Noor for example has a number of similar experiments in the wiki document, what conclusions can be drawn? If you say none, because its not like the like the atmosphere, OK in what way exactly, functionally that is? You don’t throw out small scale experiments because say, the mode of heat transport in one is convection and in the other is conduction. At the abstract level they are the same."

You are begging the question.
What equations are you trying to verify?
How do the quantities in the equations related to the parameters you are measuring?
What are you doing to get rid of extraneous effects that would spoil your measurments?

Nick; you say; "On Earth, every molecule of water that evaporates subsequently condenses, so there is no long term heating or cooling from this effect."

What about water molecules which freeze and add to ice and vice-versa, adding to or decreasing the albedo and the Stefan-Boltzman amount of surface radiation. The type of condensed water droplet is also crucial; Kump and Pollard, in a recent paper, "Amplification of Cretaceous Warmth by Bilogical Cloud Feedbacks" (Science 11/4/2008) found that when there is more CCN then there are more and smaller cloud droplets with more and brighter clouds and higher albedo; with less CCN the droplets are bigger and fall more readily as rain producing less and and less shiny clouds, increasing the albedo. K&P look at ocean algae as a source of CCN with the amount of algae dependent on upwelling; they suppose that upwelling would be reduced with warming; other researchers have looked at the causality from the other direction, namely that upwelling frequency determines SST and global temperatures. Then there is the notion that SST determine the amount of atmospheric CO2 which in turn prompts the growth of cynaobacteria which both increases albedo and consumes the CO2 and increases CCN. I don't think the relationship between water and temperature is anywhere as neat or balanced as you describe.

Admin says,
"If you accept this equation M7: Eu-Ed+Su-F=OLR then its a short step to Su=1.5*OLR as a practical upper limit of surface temperatures, irrespective of GHG absorption. Current temperatures are at this level. And this seems to be the crucial step. If its correct, the whole AGW model falls in a heap."

The equation is written Su=1.5OLR, but it is stated that the upper limit of Su is actually given by that equation, so the correct way to write it is :
Su<=1.5*OLR.
This constraint doesn't come just from the flux relationships for steady state. This relationship was not "derived", in the way that the word "derived" is accepted by scientists. Accepted physical principles in the form of equations, were not logically or mathematically manipulated to deduce this relationship.

The relationship Su=1.5*OLR is believed to be correct based on 2 cases, Mars and Earth, where the relationship Su=1.5*OLR was observed. These observations do not prove that a constraint such as has been postulated is correct. Actually the current value for earth is believed to be about 1.62 not 1.5.

The so called short step contains a lot of incorrect statements.
One is that Aa=Ed because of Kirchoff's law. This is not correct. Kirchoff's law is about emission and absorption coefficients in an small volume that is at thermal equilibrium. It doesn't equate incident radiation fluxes entering at the boundary of a gas to fluxes of radiation exiting the gas at the boundary.

The other is the use of the virial theorem as I and others have mentioned is not correct. Potential and kinetic energy are not the same thing as radiation.
Symbols are being manipulated with no relationship to the original physical properties for which they were originally derived.
To put it charitably, I doubt that Chandrasekhar and Kirchoff would approve of what use is being made of the equations that they derived.

Hi Arthur, I would appreciate some advice on this approach: I am not convinced that the heating in the black body is entirely due to suppression of convection, and a function only of the black body temperature of the body inside. How about:

1. plate of glass over a black plate, 1cm air gap, mounted in EPS, in the sun.
2. measure the outside glass temperature and the black plate temperature.

Would the difference between the glass plate temperature, and the black plate temperature be due to greenhouse effect? After all, disregarding losses from the EPS, the glass surface is dumping the extra heat absorbed by the inner black body, resulting in a non-zero Tglass-Tambient. Or do you think the two surfaces will be at the same temperature? What about emissivity?

LOL, nick and arthur: you guys have got your minds so closed to new ideas that it is plainly and painfully obvious. It hurts. Why not explore a new paradigm, instead of defending one that just may be slowly being splintered, just like the hockey-stick? Are you scientists or religious zealots? You protest way too much, methinks.

"I’m sorry if I seemed harsh, but in my reading of your blog the last few days, up to the time you posted this you sounded like you were honestly trying to get somewhere. This post seemed much more like you were just playing games. I vowed long ago not to waste time on games. But if you are trying to be sincere, I’ll take a little more time - let’s focus on just the peak temperature question to start with here:"

The sound of doubt is wonderful.

"admin" #45 - you complain about my statements. I'm sorry if I seemed harsh, but in my reading of your blog the last few days, up to the time you posted this you sounded like you were honestly trying to get somewhere. This post seemed much more like you were just playing games. I vowed long ago not to waste time on games. But if you are trying to be sincere, I'll take a little more time - let's focus on just the peak temperature question to start with here:

There is no way this system could achieve a transient peak higher than the steady-state level

What about a sudden increase in insolation increasing the temperature of the internal black body. This increased heat would take time to conduct through and equilibrate.

First, where on earth could a "sudden increase in insolation" come from? The Sun suddenly brightened itself? You claim you're trying to get clear-sky numbers; there's nothing in your set-up brighter than the sun through the clear sky. If you're talking about when it switches from cloudiness to sun, and you get a transient peak in temperatures, that's telling us something important about your system: there is more than just radiative heat flow going on. Because radiative equilibration would be very quick and monotonic upwards (as any surrounding absorbers heat up, they radiate back to the main absorber, heating it further). Something else is going on. Maybe it's evaporation of water that condensed during the cloudy periods. You should show all your data.

so you need to report the peak temperatures

As mentioned previously, I did and this was stated in at least 2 places.

What you stated was:

these were based on the maximum values under stable conditions achieved for a period of about 30 minutes

- perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but it sounds like you're saying the temperatures you reported were the highest that were sustained for about 30 minutes, and you're not reporting transient maximum values that were higher than those sustained ones. You also talked about (and repeated in your comment above):

maximum temperatures could raise temperatures transiently above an equilibrium maximum.

- so which did you report, "transient" maximum, or "equilibrium" maximum? Last time you had a graph of the full temperature curve, if you actually report those this time, you'll resolve the question clearly.

I doubt anybody here expected a large increase in temperatures in the two-jar case, so your interpretation of the quiz "results" above is once again a sign that you're not being an honest broker. My expectation was clear in my first comment:

it should reach a higher temperature, if there is any measurable change

. Your results certainly cannot exclude my, or most likely anybody else's expectation from the truth, either. Null results are fine as science, but drawing extravagant conclusions from them (as you start to, and many commenters above seem eager to go to great lengths on) is truly making a mockery of real science.

In your comment #5 you even went so far as to completely misunderstand my point about T_blackbody - mentioning your system didn't reach my estimate of 75 C. Well, if 75 C was the true appropriate value of T_blackbody associated with the proper OLR number (to balance total incoming radiation), all it tells us is that your actual "greenhouse ratio" was less than 1; that means nonradiative heat loss in your system was large enough to swamp any enhancement of the expected radiative temperature of your absorber. But given that you're now saying the sun was "overhead", we have no idea whatsoever what the absorbing vs. radiating area of your system was, so 75 C is pretty unlikely anyway.

If your resolve is to repeat this with better controls, then that's good, go ahead and do it. Report your full results too, and other pertinent measurements and properties of the stuff you're using, and it'll be a little closer to a real experiment.

No, I think there was plenty of time for it to stabilize and condense, as evidenced by the water on the inside of the jar, after adding the water. I believe the cooling was probably due to the water coolant cycle set up, enhancing the cooling of the sides of the jar.

And yes, increasing opacity does not necessarily increase overall temperature, where there are multiple effects in play. It the same as in the atmosphere, if you focus on small radiative effects, and deprecate order of magnitude larger effects like clouds.

David #56
"The cynics said that the the temperature would be unchanged as the absorption of IR by water was too small. They were wrong. Latent heat is way more powerful influence relatively."
Again, this is just off the point. Your stated aim in your first post was "We can test the theory that increasing opacity increases temperature very easily". You haven't actually answered the claim that adding water does not significantly increase the opacity on this scale.

I didn't say that the temperature would be unchanged. It was always possible that latent heat would reduce it, as it does in an evaporative cooler. That has nothing to do with what you were trying to demonstrate. It also has nothing to do with the Earth's energy budget. On Earth, every molecule of water that evaporates subsequently condenses, so there is no long term heating or cooling from this effect. It is only on the short time scale of your experiment, where you evaporate water and do not subsequently condense it all in the measurement interval, that you get temporary cooling.

The fact that water cools through latent heat uptake is simply a fault in the experiment design. It masks your ability to achieve your stated aim of demonstrating something about opacity.

Nick, AFAIK the steel greenhouse was mentioned as a comment by Willis Essenbach. Steve has never given it the nod. From my reading of the history, climate modelers gave up on closed form models because of many problems they were having with it (Ramanathan I think) and went to simulations over 10 years ago. The unfortunate side effect is the opacity of explanation we have now.

I think these closed form models have much more utility than given credit. I think Miskolczi has picked up the ball again in this area, and pointed out some areas where he thinks it was going wrong. So yes, I haven't seen a more sophisticated explication of the closed form. GCMs are not this.

I still don't know if I agree with M yet. That's the main reason I have been playing around with these models.

David #52
"RealClimates toy model is the best the professionals have offered."
David, this is just silly. Professionals use GCM's for climate, LBL's for radiation and CFD packages like Fluent for configurations like yours. RC made it very clear that their example was to help understand how blocking IR could raise temperatures, and was not attempting to model the Earth's atmosphere. Their example has been used before in many places; in fact you used it yourself here, calling it the steel greenhouse model, and attributing it to ClimateAudit. Should we call it the CA model?

#38 David
Again, I emphasise my view that IR doesn't play much of a role here at all, so a lot of your concepts, like OLR, are just inappropriate. In fact, I was thinking that using sunlight as a heat source is not only unnecessary, but a real drawback. It doesn't matter what causes the heating at the sensor and on the floor - it might as well be electrical. Sunshine varies a lot during the day, and you don't really know how much just got absorbed by the glass, which confuses things a lot. If you use reliable, reproducible electric heating you have --- an electric oven. Actually what you have made has a lot in common with a solar cooker

With IR out of the picture, there's no point in looking to the "RC model". But if you insist, it is still very different. It assumes perfect conduction across layers, so both sides radiate equally, and that dominates the arithmetic. Here the temperature drop across the glass is large (you compared it with the lapse rate), so none of that applies.

Again, I don't think it is right to talk of doubling the IR absorption layer of glass. MY interpretation of the extra glass could be reduced to this - you can consider the same 1-jar problem; all the second jar does is to provide it with a higher ambient. So it's bound to be warmer. I suspect that it is not as much warmer as one might expect because of the reduction in sunlight (esp near-IR) getting through. The actual heat source in the interior is different.

I think you need to clarify the difference between OLR as nett radiation passing through the system, compared with it's unique extra property at TOA (which you don't have) of also being the outgoing flux. This shows at M7, which you mention. The basis for M7 is still very unclear, and I suspect there is none, but the original suggestion was that it was energy balance at the surface. If so, then OLR is there not because of its role as TOA flux but as the nett IR flux through the surface. In you case, those are very different quantities.

Incidentally, you might like to review your reason for currently believing M7 to be true.

Like this:
The failure of models to settle the sign of the water vapour feedback induces doubts about the whole process of modelling at the present time.

One thing very noticable about the water introduction was the 'trendiness' introduced. Its the sort of impression you only get from doing it. Its possible water promotes the direction of a trend, to a point. Then energetic constraints bring it back to center, which is somewhat lower than without it.

I should add that an experiment like this is only going to be illustrative. There is no pretension of 'new science'. If it illustrates conservation of energy, fine, in the context that unbounded AGW defies conservation of energy that would be even better ;-). From my POV the results were as follows:

Experiment 1. Addition of a few mls of water, temperatures decrease. The cynics said that the the temperature would be unchanged as the absorption of IR by water was too small. They were wrong. Latent heat is way more powerful influence relatively.

Experiment 2. Doubling of the IR absorption with a second jar (50% to 75% say). Contrary to the intuition of many that the 'blanket' effect would be exerted, the temperature was largely unchanged. Energetic constraints of the surfaces of the black body and the inner and outer jar surfaces is a more powerful influence.

Geoff #54

A problem with AGW theory is its lack of small-scale specific experimentation with CO2 and other GHG.

Good point we need more experiments like this and this i.e. small scale experiments involving the species that are worrying people.

One of David’s under-discussed experiments was the addition of a few ml of water to the (near) equilibrium in the first experiment. If that was not evidence of negative feedback, then I’d be delighted to hear what it was.

It could be evidence that water always cools if it was negative feedback it will resist both warming and cooling and if you are happy to take it form this old control freak integrators in the system and the ocean is a huge one can resist warming and cooling without any feedback being involved at all.

Please remember that the basis of theoretical physics evolved from simple apparatus like glass prisms, Wheatstone bridges, "Sealing wax and string".

A problem with AGW theory is its lack of small-scale specific experimentation with CO2 and other GHG. Slip over to Climate Audit, read Gerry North's post of today and see if you can see any reference to GHG. To be fair, he does mention water vapour and clouds.

One of David's under-discussed experiments was the addition of a few ml of water to the (near) equilibrium in the first experiment. If that was not evidence of negative feedback, then I'd be delighted to hear what it was.

"RealClimates toy model is the best the professionals have offered. This is just a home experiment done in my spare time. "

LOL. You are getting all kinds of criticisms about your experiment, which involves measurable quantities; whereas, many folks praise and sanctify the simple paper-only thought experiment at RC.

cohenite: I wouldn't read too much into it at this stage. I am surprised that I can find no similar experiments conducted in a laboratory. Kind of like being unable to find no engineering style exposition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. RealClimates toy model is the best the professionals have offered. This is just a home experiment done in my spare time. But Santer the serial series truncator has no such excuse.

eric:

"I misquoted you. I should have written Su=2*Eu. I guess I was confused because FM says SU=1.5*EU."

Yes, you evidently ARE confused, because FM says Su = 2 Eu.

"Upon rereading your statement, I realize that it actually seems ambiguous.
I interpreted your statement to mean that the experiment was irrelevant to the validity of the equation one way of the other because it was flawed. "

I just can't figure out how to view the experiment in such a way as to make this relationship make sense. But David has an interesting interpretation above that I have to think about...

Eric and Arthur: You guys are the ones who are touting the importance of the greenhouse effect to surface temperatures, so why are you both so negative, relative to David's experiments with real greenhouses? We just could learn something, even if all the experimental details aren't worked out to a your satisfaction at this point. You tone is one of disparagement, rather than one of helpfulness. Why?

One can only hope that David's experiment has the same effect on AGW as Angstrom's and Koch's experiment did with Arrhenius's theories. The same criticisms of Angstrom's tube, that it treats the atmosphere as a unit, or a single pane of glass, is being levelled here. The AGW theory depends on multiple layers of absorbing CO2/glass petitions which raise the photosphere/OLR. Observations are not supporting this despite the convolutions and sophistry about a THS and Stratospheric cooling. But an interesting experiment would be to have multiple glass containers around the core instead of just one, sort of like transparent Russian boxes. It wouldn't be like the atmosphere but it may demonstrate something; and would verisimilutude be enhanced if the outer layers had increasing amounts of CO2 in them?

jae: Having said that, though, one of M’s equations that certainly does not “fit” is the Su = 2Eu relationship.

If the net energy in is distributed evenly between the heat source (central black body) and the heat sink (the jars) then there would be a 2:1 relationship between potential energy (Su), and radiated energy (Eu), only this would come from simple radiation balance at equilibrium, and not the virial theorem.

Eric,
The particular equation in the Miscolzci paper you have referenced is simply a statement of that energy in = enegy out in a stationary state, i.e. conservation of energy.

If you accept this equation M7: Eu-Ed+Su-F=OLR then its a short step to Su=1.5*OLR as a practical upper limit of surface temperatures, irrespective of GHG absorption. Current temperatures are at this level. And this seems to be the crucial step. If its correct, the whole AGW model falls in a heap.

Eric, As a statement of intent, I suppose you could say it is to find out to what extent such small scale experiments could inform us about greenhouse processes. Noor for example has a number of similar experiments in the wiki document, what conclusions can be drawn? If you say none, because its not like the like the atmosphere, OK in what way exactly, functionally that is? You don't throw out small scale experiments because say, the mode of heat transport in one is convection and in the other is conduction. At the abstract level they are the same.

Jae,
I misquoted you. I should have written Su=2*Eu. I guess I was confused because FM says SU=1.5*EU.

Your statement was:
"Having said that, though, one of M’s equations that certainly does not “fit” is the Su = 2Eu relationship. I dunno, but it is a very interesting experiment."

Upon rereading your statement, I realize that it actually seems ambiguous.
I interpreted your statement to mean that the experiment was irrelevant to the validity of the equation one way of the other because it was flawed.

Another possible alternative interpretation that the measured results of the experiment falsify the equation?
Does that mean that the uncertainties in the setup are well enough resolved that we can tell this is the case?

Eric, are these examples of what you regard as evidence of sound scientific reasoning for Arthur's comment?

There is no way this system could achieve a transient peak higher than the steady-state level

What about a sudden increase in insolation increasing the temperature of the internal black body. This increased heat would take time to conduct through and equilibrate.

so you need to report the peak temperatures

As mentioned previously, I did and this was stated in at least 2 places.

You also did not indicate the angle between the sun and your black body

The configuration with an overhead sun was obvious from the schematic.

I find it unlikely that your jars are strong infrared absorbers

From references on the web, ordinary glass absorbs around 50% IR.

Some of the many ways Arthur seems to be shooting blanks. Nothing against him personally but I don't have time or inclination to be argumentative about every trivial point.

I appreciate your interest and input. The implied criticism that this crude home setup has to be comparable to a published laboratory experiment is tiresome. It obviously isn't. As I said at the beginning, the 2 jar experiment was setup as a test or readers insights into the gross behavior of the system. The analogy of 1 jar vs 2 jars to doubling the IR absorption of the atmosphere is not something I have promoted, or even mentioned. Maybe I would, but not before running another more controlled version.

jae 36,

I am glad to see that you recognize that Su=1.5Eu doesn't fit the case of the glass jar.

You say the experimental results are interesting. Does that mean that the experiment illustrates a particular principle of the theory of heat or radiation, or is it interesting because no one can figure out what the results mean?

I don’t know about you, but I have always had to do many preliminary experiments to develop an acceptable setup.

perfectly valid process in my book I don't know what sort of engineer Eric is supposed to be but in doing my designs I put down what I think I need for that I do the design from that I run a simulation. If it doesn't do what I want I modify design, the requirements list or both I might do this several times then I prototype it's an iterative process sometimes for simple systems it only takes one run through and I get a working system.

I don't see why it should be any different designing experiments which I think by their very nature will contain more unknowns before an experiment is actually run.

I don't understand why better insulation will improve the experimental accuracy. I can't figure out what the experiment is supposed to prove.

Can you state the objectives of the experiment, including the scientific theory, with equations that you are seeking to verify, or property of a material that you wish to measure? I am baffled.



Can you relate it to the quantities that you are going to measure?

Hi Eric, I agree there are things learned that would help in a next generation of experiment that would increase accuracy: concurrent measurements of replicated jars or wells for example, in order to control for environmental variations. I would also simplify the geometry, and embed flat layers in EPS foam.

I don't know about you, but I have always had to do many preliminary experiments to develop an acceptable setup. I always run numeric analysis multiple times before I was confident in the results.

David 28,

The particular equation in the Miscolzci paper you have referenced is simply a statement of that energy in = enegy out in a stationary state, i.e. conservation of energy. Are you saying the objective of your experiment is to verify that conservation of energy holds, because this is what is implied ?
It doesn't seem to me that we need an experiment such as you have designed to show that.

I can't figure out the swcientific objectives of your experiment with the 2 jars.

Whatever you do, it is obvious that you can't use fluctuating ambient conditions, involving sunlight, time of day, to make measurements of something resembling a steady state. This seems like an elementary thing, which should be the first consideration for anybody with a scientific education of any sort.

Arthur 15:
You have hit the nail on the head. What you have said is evidence of sound scientific reasoning, not arrogance as one poster claims.

We definitely need more careful analysis of the experiments were done at the front end.

What formula was actually being verified?

How did it relate to the measurements of temperature that were made?

What was the size of effects that would interfere with the measurement of the desired quantities? Were any measurements made of these effects?

How is the amount of solar and IR radiation from the atmosphere controlled for the different conditions that are being tested?

These are elementary considerations for the design of experiments that all experimentalists would have all mapped out before the design of an experiment is complete, and certainly before any conclusions have been drawn.

Too many posters were are eager to draw conclusions, before this type of analysis has been done. There is a kind of cheerleading mentality rather than a scientific one at work.

Some of the same posters engaging in this kind of non-scientific thinking are very quick to criticize scientists who support AGW for what they believe are unscientific practices which support AGW.

It is pretty clear that what has been done and proposed as an experiment here needs vast improvement, and has had a null result with regard to proving anything about the limitation of the greenhouse effect in the earth, which was the original intent.

Nick:

You can’t absorb significant IR in the gas, and you can’t have an external face that radiates into space - ie without back-radiation. You also can’t emulate the lapse rate that is an important part of the real effect.

The idea in my mind at least was that the drop in temperature across the glass emulated the lapse rate. The ambient temperature emulates a baseline source function, OLR in the atmosphere and ambient here. The temperature profile and flow are qualitatively similar, highest where the sunlight lands, ramping down to the outside, combination of radiative and convective flows just like the atmosphere.

Another thing, you say convection complicates things. Convection simply conforms to the radiative profile, providing a mechanism for flow. What does it matter if its convection or conduction, except for rates, that don't matter at equilibrium?

And another thing, convection is contained in the earth system when viewed as a whole. Ie the difference is that in the greenhouse experiment there is a thick slab of conduction and a thin convection layer, in the atmosphere there is a thin slab of conduction and a thick convection layer.

A lot of these complaints seem like a lack of imagination. Models are never exact, else they wouldn't be models.

Another point: the doubling of the IR absorption layer of glass in the experiment makes a minimal difference to temperature. You say the 'trend is correct' but the magnitudes are way off. Plug another layer into the atmospheric greenhouse layer models, such as RealClimates. The difference predicted is considerable. We are talking about gross behaviour here.

I had a look at the RealClimate model relative to the FM model, and a comparison would be useful. The only difference would be that the GHG layer in the FM model would be thick, with a temperature gradient, so that temperature at surface equals temperature lower atmosphere. In the RealClimate model, the temperature discontinuity exists between the surface and the GHG layer, which at least, identifies the vital point of contention.

It appears that these large increases greenhouse effect due due to extra layers, that provide the AGW scare factor from a theoretical perspective, result from the fiction of maintained temperature discontinuity between layers. When you constrain the opposing layers to be the same temperatures, you don't get this multiplication effect from additional layers. And it is this temperature equality between surface and atmosphere that is central to FMs model.

To take the analogy further, consider M's equation 7, and the sequence of temperatures across the glass: Ambient, Glass temperature, Black body (no jar), Measured max temperatures. These would conceivably have values 37C, 50C, 50C, and 63C. Now M7, matching them up is (-Eu)+Ed-(F)+Su=OLR. Now the temperature increase measured was around 26C, so the temperature increase of OLR~+26C seems about right to make the equation work. Lets consider the match to the symbols equivalences for the moment, not exactitudes for the moment. And of course all the energetic constraints in FM2007 flow from this relationship.

In comparison, you could also fit the RealClimate model to the temperatures. The glass temperature as the GHG layer, the surface temperature, and an inferred emissivity. So its not like the experiment prefers one or the other.

<abbr>davidss last blog post..Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2</abbr>

Another thing to consider with the "greenhouse" in this experiment is the fact that solar radiation is about half near IR. Some of this is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, but some is also absorbed by the glass, thereby heating it and affecting the temperature profile accross the glass. I don't know what effect that has.

Nick:

"Because of the GE, it gets amplified, so at the ground 390 W/m2 goes up, but is balanced by backradiation (and convection is a complication). The maximum amplification is the Greenhouse factor, which FM claims is theoretically 1.5.

In this bottle, the radiation from the outer surface cannot be identified with the nett radiation. Unlike TOA, there is back radiation from the environment. Without that identification, FM’s argument for 1.5 doesn’t apply."


It seems to me that the "back-radiation" from the environment is simply a property of the ambient air, which is radiating according to a temperature of 38 C in this case. 390 watts has nothing to do with this particular case; that's supposedly the case for the "average global temperature" of about 15 C. The glass surface is hotter than the ambient, so the net radiation is outward at all times. The ambient temperature is the boundary for the system.

Having said that, though, one of M's equations that certainly does not "fit" is the Su = 2Eu relationship. I dunno, but it is a very interesting experiment.

Geoff, excellent point: ***With increasing numbers there is an increased probability of the serendipitous or the seminal comment that changes the world view of important matters.***

I appreciate Dave's experiment not because it proves/disproves anything (yet), but because it raises some perhaps profound questions about "consensus" science.

<abbr>CoRevs last blog post..21 Nov 2008 Articles & Interesting Finds/Posts</abbr>

#30 Jan Pompe

Thank you for the nice compliment. I can assure you that I have lost a lot of acuity over the years and I also have to work much harder at understanding. As I once wrote to David, I have had the luck to lead an extremely diverse scientific life, but that has really made me jack of all trades and master of none. It is now easier for me to visualise mistakes of others than suggest improvements. Reactive now, used to be proactive. For that I am sorry because I do not pull my weight here and I try to overcome the deficiency with some odd-ball light stuff.

Please keep up your contributions (which I enjoy) and encourage others to join in. With increasing numbers there is an increased probability of the serendipitous or the seminal comment that changes the world view of important matters.

jae #26
OK, I'll try to say it another way. OLR, which appears in Su=1.5 OLR, is a special quantity. It's the nett throughflow. On Earth, it's the 235 W/m2 which arrives as sunlight, flows through the system and emerges at TOA. Because of the GE, it gets amplified, so at the ground 390 W/m2 goes up, but is balanced by backradiation (and convection is a complication). The maximum amplification is the Greenhouse factor, which FM claims is theoretically 1.5.

In this bottle, the radiation from the outer surface cannot be identified with the nett radiation. Unlike TOA, there is back radiation from the environment. Without that identification, FM's argument for 1.5 doesn't apply.

David #29
It's very hard to suppress convection without removing air. If heat is to move by IR, you need to have a temperature difference between the walls, to create an imbalance between IR in and out. That temperature difference will inevitably drive convection, which will reduce the temperature difference..

But there are basic things you just can't do on this scale to emulate the greenhouse effect. You can't absorb significant IR in the gas, and you can't have an external face that radiates into space - ie without back-radiation. You also can't emulate the lapse rate that is an important part of the real effect.

David #29

ick: In order to reduce convection and measure IR, how about this one. Attach the sensor to a black plate on EPS foam, then lower IR absorbing glass close but not touching the plate.>

Try a non-contact thermometer "calibrate" it against the contact temperature reading. If you use a cheap one I can almost guarantee that the difference will give you a measure of the emissivity it may not be very precise but will give an idea of what is actually being emitted. For example the one I got for ~$40 from Jaycar measures 37C on my stainless steel urn when the water is boiling. This suggest emissivity of .48 which is not too bad check type 301 stainless steel which is what they make these thing out of. At ~100C it's radiating 524 W/m^2 where a black body would be 1097 W/m^2. This way we can get an idea of the emissivity of glass the glass.

Geoff #23

Feminist Modernist.

Please keep my daughter and her friends out of this.:-o

I am having to read FM over and over and I suggest that others might benefit from close study instead of a quick flick.

It's hard work for those of us who have not specialised in this field for the past 30 years as Ferenc has. I have found it hard work and I have worked with various aspects of spectrography not contact measurement within the framework of making the transducers needed to control production processes. I had to refresh much of what I've forgotten as well as dig in text books for material I haven't come across before.

Unlike some I can't claim a priori knowledge of absolutely everything. I for one appreciate your presence here.

Nick: In order to reduce convection and measure IR, how about this one. Attach the sensor to a black plate on EPS foam, then lower IR absorbing glass close but not touching the plate. Convection is maintained. If the greenhouse effect is solely due to the black body temperature of the plate, and blocked convection, the temperature would not change. Else, an increase is an IR effect.

Alternatively, you could put the black plate in a small well, invert the foam block and illuminate from below with a mirror. Convection would be suppressed. Then add the glass layer.

<abbr>davidss last blog post..Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2</abbr>

You have to break this down;
Set up equations for each layer.
In a gas, Convection and Radiation
In glass, conduction. block IR, but allow visible,

Try plastic, sandwich wrap ? Good IR transmission ?

David #25
By measured IR I just mean the one-way flux, which is what an instrument measures. Mostly there is an upward flux and a downward flux, and the difference is the nett flux. The unique thing about TOA is that there is no downward, so upflux=OLR.

Arthur's calculation is IR-based; I've said that I think convection/conduction is what matters. He did a heat balance for the sensor based on IR emission from the sensor balancing solar plus back IR from 20C ambient. It's clear that 20C is too low - if the outside is 48 the inside is higher.

My estimate of the thermals goes like this. You have a fixed heat source at the sensor - say Arthur's 318 W/m2. It's not quite fixed; the glass absorbs a bit of sunlight - maybe a lot. Anyway, through the air in the bottle, convection dominates IR. The reason is that convection responds to temperature gradient; if there is a big temperature difference, there is a big heat flow. That means that there can't be a big difference, and that is why IR transfer is low. The interior wall is only slightly cooler than the sensor, and the IR almost balances each way.
Then the outward heat flux is conducted through the glass, where there is a bigger temperature drop, down to 48C if that was a 1-glass reading. Then there is a mixture of IR and convective loss to the environment. This is driven by the total flux, so this external temp should be about constant.

If you add an extra glass, that means two extra temperature differences along the way - one for glass conduction and one for IR/convection through an extra air gap. That is why the temp goes up. As I said, just like an extra blanket.

The RC model would behave in the same way, only more so. There IR is the only heat transport considered, and the layers are perfect conductors. Although the trend is right, it's not a good analogue.

As I say, IR isn't suppressed - it is balanced. Whenever something heats, convection raises all surfaces inside the cavity to nearly the same temp, so IR can be (almost) ignored, being equal in all directions.

Nick:

"That’s where this analogy goes all wrong. What is special about OLR and TOA is that it is not at equilibrium with space. Instead there is no back-radiation at all, and that is why it is important in the theory. In most of the atmosphere there is a nett upflux which is smaller than the measured upflux, but at TOA the nett flux and the measured flux are equal. That’s why it has a special significance, and turns up in this formula."

WTF are you saying here? You lost me entirely. Please rephrase in Western American English. Leave out the AGW accents.

Hi Nick, This blog is about using numeracy to be self-correcting, so I am not trying to be right all the time, but more trying to find ways to prove myself and others right or wrong. So it would be an interesting topic to explore themes such as in what way does a model not represent accurately. Your statement leaves more questions for me. I know Bo if thats what you are referring to as a constant that comes out of an equation. I don't know what you mean be measured flux and net flux. What is an unmeasurable flux?

If Arthur is right, that the maximum temperature of the greenhouse is a function of the maximum temperature of the blackbody inside it, then that explains why adding layers doesn't increase temps much. What is wrong then with the RealClimate layer model that predicts incrementing of surface temperatures with each additional layer? That would be a good subject for a post also.

Are you saying there is no temperature increase attributable to back-IR from the glass? Actually, when the black body alone is in the same configuration as it was in the jar, kind of upright, it had a temperature of about 53C, which is about the same temperature as the maximum temperature in water. Are these cases where the IR is suppressed, so the back-IR is responsible for about +10C over configurations without it?

The outside surface of the glass was measured at 48C for what that is worth.

<abbr>davidss last blog post..Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2</abbr>

#21 jae
"and the ambient temp of 37 gives OLR = 524 w/m-2 (the very outer skin of the glass—the radiation temperature–is assumed to be at equilibrium with the surrounding air)."
That's where this analogy goes all wrong. What is special about OLR and TOA is that it is not at equilibrium with space. Instead there is no back-radiation at all, and that is why it is important in the theory. In most of the atmosphere there is a nett upflux which is smaller than the measured upflux, but at TOA the nett flux and the measured flux are equal. That's why it has a special significance, and turns up in this formula.

The outside of the glass does not have this property at all. There is a lot of back radiation. I have objected, with your intermittently enthusiastic endorsement, that IR has little role in this situation, which is dominated by convection and conduction through walls and boundary layers. But even if you overlook that, there is no IR analogy between the outer surface and TOA.

Please remember that those who disagree with David's conclusion are also disagreeing with me and his quotation of my submission as an explanation. Inter alia, I have either owned, used or monitored laboratories and done experiments for more than 35 years so I did not arrive at a conclusion by Googling. I am also 125 kg and 1.96 m of latent muscle.

It was important to understand that there were small effects that could not be designed out easily, (some I mentioned privately) but one had to look at the larger picture and what its purpose was.

Thank you, jae, for starting to put it in context with FM terms. (That does not mean Frequency Modulated, or Feminist Modernist. It means Ferenc Mickolczi, which is a bugger of a name to remember to spell). I am having to read FM over and over and I suggest that others might benefit from close study instead of a quick flick.

Arthur,

maybe you could do an experiment to your own standards and report the results on the blog??

It is fun to speculate about how David’s glass planet might mimic the Earth, using Miskolczi’s equations. Assuming everything is BB here, the internal temp of 62 C gives Su = 714 wm-2, and the ambient temp of 37 gives OLR = 524 w/m-2 (the very outer skin of the glass—the radiation temperature--is assumed to be at equilibrium with the surrounding air).

So, Su = 1.36 OLR. Not quite M’s 1.5, but not too far off. It looks like this small greenhouse is not quite as effective as Earth’s overall greenhouse. I suspect this is probably due to convective losses at the outer surface. At the TOA there are no convective losses, only pure radiative losses. David said there was a slight breeze, which could account for more loss here than in Experiment No. 2, which had Su = 1.45 OLR, IIRC.

G = 714 – 524 = 190; Gn = 190/714 = 0.266 (compared to M’s approx 0.4).

Fo (solar insolation upon the glass) here should be equal to OLR = 524 w/m^2. We don’t actually know what the solar insolation was, but this is a very reasonable number for a sunny area at 38 C (100 F). Quite a bit is probably lost by reflection in this type of setup.

It looks like Ed = Su = Aa, here (air temperature inside is in equilibrium with the “surfaces.”)

Eu = OLR, in this case, since there is no St (atmospheric window ?) or K (convection, etc). Any “lapse rate” occurs through both glass shells and the air between them.

Su – OLR = Ed –Eu

1.36 OLR – OLR = 1.36 OLR – OLR.

Just like on Earth, Su – OLR heats the atmosphere, and Ed – Eu is the reaction of the atmosphere to this heating.

Interesting…

Arthur #15: For someone who appears to know what he is talking about, you get a lot of things wrong. You are like a student who gets sore the examiner when they didn't read the exam question correctly.

You say I didn't report peak temperatures but I said in the paper:

The start temperature, and the maximum temperature achieved during an interval of about one hour were recorded.

And again:

The results of a number of runs are shown below. As far as possible these were based on the maximum values under stable conditions achieved for a period of about 30 minutes.

#17 jae
The spacing between the jars is a variable.
There is a minimum energy flow distance.
We need equations to separate, and enumerate the conduction, convection, radiation. All are temperature dependent.

This basic setup, has great possibilities, to determine more and more equations. Maximum Entrophy Prodection Proof ? Here we come ?

# 15 Arthur Smith's arrogance. -- Can he see why ? what produced this demeaning attitude? Perhaps Arthur Smith can look at his anger, while we look for improvements in the experimental setup.

Try the experiment in a closed room. Use a Sunlamp, instead. Different size jars, to seperate convection, conduction, and radiation effects.Move off center, to get another equation ?

Arthur, perhaps you are getting too hung up on details and can't see the forest for the trees. The radiation is what it is. The RELATIONSHIPS are what is important here, I think.

Arthur #15

What a joke - David, have you actually done any real science experiments (as opposed to college/school) before?

I think I should go easy on the insults if I were you.

You also did not indicate the angle between the sun and your black body, or the relevant areas that I asked about - 75 C applies only if the Sun impinges at an angle of 90 degrees relative to the axis of your cylindrical black body - and it also is under an assumption of 1000 W/m^2 solar input - I’m surprised you haven’t tried to get numbers for any of these things.

What possible relevance could this have with respect to the comparison as long as the angle of incidence is the same for both?

Your conclusion about radiative equilibrium is also false:

The facing surfaces of the jar and the blackbody are in radiative equilibrium, and therefore at the same temperature as the black body.

- they probably are at the same temperature, but because they are in contact through a convective medium, the intervening air.

Zeroth law Arthur

>if two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

If that law wasn't a valid one all our contact thermometry would have no firm basis. - think about it.

I find it unlikely that your jars are strong infrared absorbers - you haven’t provided much evidence for that, and some glass can transmit infrared with almost no attenuation (fiber optics).

At the price they charge for IR grade SiO2 glass I don't think so.

What a joke - David, have you actually done any real science experiments (as opposed to college/school) before?

If "gusts of wind increase convectional cooling, [and reduced...] measured temperatures up to 10C" then you have *not* met the conditions of preventing heat transfer by anything but radiative means, which was the condition of my assessment.

The fact that you saw peak temperatures higher than what you are reporting here means that you did not achieve a radiative steady state, and you are not reporting temperatures that reflect true clear-sky solar input. There is no way this system could achieve a transient peak higher than the steady-state level, so you need to report the peak temperatures even if they weren't maintained. In fact, last time you reported entire graphs of the temperature curve; what happened to those graphs this time?

You also did not indicate the angle between the sun and your black body, or the relevant areas that I asked about - 75 C applies only if the Sun impinges at an angle of 90 degrees relative to the axis of your cylindrical black body - and it also is under an assumption of 1000 W/m^2 solar input - I'm surprised you haven't tried to get numbers for any of these things.

Your conclusion about radiative equilibrium is also false:

The facing surfaces of the jar and the blackbody are in radiative equilibrium, and therefore at the same temperature as the black body.

- they probably are at the same temperature, but because they are in contact through a convective medium, the intervening air.

I find it unlikely that your jars are strong infrared absorbers - you haven't provided much evidence for that, and some glass can transmit infrared with almost no attenuation (fiber optics). If they aren't infrared absorbers to any great extent, the radiative exchange with the black body will be irrelevant to their temperature or the black body's. If they *are* strong infrared absorbers, then they will have a "black body" radiation temperature that is lower than the central absorber simply because their total radiating area is much larger (this is also the situation when you surround the absorber with water); either way the temperature won't be radiatively matched with the central body.

But I do note you seem to have given up the explicit claim that ambient temperature represents "OLR" - even though you're still talking about quite irrelevant "ratios" in the discussion.

Let's see the actual peak temperatures, graphs if possible, and results for different geometries, and maybe we can have an honest discussion about the science...

Cohenite #13

Makes you wonder why they make modern warships out of aluminium.

It burns much hotter than PP as well and the incendiaries used in some missiles e.g. the exocet burn hot enough to ignite the aluminium superstructure. I know you were having a joke but the choice of aluminium to build the superstructure does seem to have been a very bad one.

So Jan, polypropylene PP is a much better insulator than aluminum? Makes you wonder why they make modern warships out of aluminum.

David I think it will be cooler and your little experiment I think showed that already. 2 reasons the first it takes a bit more effort to warm it the other is it will transfer it's heat to the walls of the container more readily than air will. As for solid state it will depend on the material.

Some relevant information
Here

and some relevant (maybe) data
here

I would say that was very close Jan, considering convective losses. Next time I would also consider fabricating a mounting platform out of EPS that fits into the jar mouths, so it nice and tight, and the metal lids are eliminated. Today was clear but with a very slight breeze.

What do you think the effect of filling it with water should be? I tried that today, and the max temp was 10C cooler, and I am fairly sure it equilibrated. What about gas vs liquid vs solid state?

Cheers

David #5

A bit closer to my estimate of 66C (for 45% incident absorption) and I think it will be quite difficult to achieve even that, with a passive system no matter how well designed. I did expect the extra protection would get it up a bit more and I think it did. Like you say concurrent runs would be better. I would expect the two jar case to take longer t get warm.

I agree with Arthur in that I don't expect ambient to make much difference especially with improved convective isolation I don't agree that there would be a maximum of 75C as that would imply an absorption of incoming of 39% I think that is a bit low.

Lighten up people. I am going to be in and out next week, so please stay polite.

<abbr>David Stockwells last blog post..Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2</abbr>

#7 And I think you observed that CO2 hell got a majority!

David, you are a stirrer.

Funny, The results are like the AGW issue in minature with the AGW zealots saying we are all going to burn in CO2 hell, and the skeptics saying that the effect is barely, if at all, detectable.

The recorder was sitting in the shade. But its in a little courtyard with high brick walls. Still its been hot too. I would be prepared to believe there is a slight increase with 2 jars that would need a more accurate setup to detect. The blackbody temperature is nowhere near the 75C temperatures suggested by Arthur. So thats what I got.

<abbr>David Stockwells last blog post..Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2</abbr>

#3
Yes, I voted for an increase, and explained my reasons. It seems to me that 2 jars generally gave higher temperatures, weighed down by just one run with 2 jars which was 5C below anything else. So I was curious about whether that was done under the same conditions.

I'm also curious about how ambient was measured. The temperatures seem high.

Nick, did you vote? Never mind; the way I see this is that science and democracy are not quite in accord ie: more people voted for the wrong answer; and we all live in glass bottles not yellow submarines.

Sequential runs Nick. I was just when I could pop in and out of work. Simultaneous duplicate experiments would be much, much better.

<abbr>David Stockwells last blog post..Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2</abbr>

David,
It's most unclear what you actually did. Did you do sequential runs - 1 hour with 1 jar, one with 2? Or did you have two sensors, and run them at the same time? That seems to me to be the only sensible basis for pairing. Otherwise, as you say, you are comparing runs with unequal insolation and external conditions (wind, cloud etc).