Miskolczi Revisited

Just posted on arXiv: The virial theorem and planetary atmospheres by Viktor T. Toth.

Abstract
We derive a version of the virial theorem that is applicable to diatomic planetary atmospheres that are in approximate thermal equilibrium at moderate temperatures and pressures and are sufficiently thin such that the gravitational acceleration can be considered constant. We contrast a pedagogically inclined theoretical presentation with the actual measured properties of air.

  • http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

    Toth takes his potential energy relative to the Earth's surface. That makes sense, and you can get a virial type expression relating that to KE. Neal King and I did that (for curved Earth) in the discussion at the CA Bulletin Board, unfortunately now inaccessible.But Miskolczi used PE relative to infinity. This assigns to the molecules a KE as if they were in orbit, with corresponding nutty results.However, it didn't matter, because he never made any rational connection between the energies he postulated and the IR fluxes that actually appeared in his equations. There wasn't any.

  • http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

    Toth takes his potential energy relative to the Earth’s surface. That makes sense, and you can get a virial type expression relating that to KE. Neal King and I did that (for curved Earth) in the discussion at the CA Bulletin Board, unfortunately now inaccessible.

    But Miskolczi used PE relative to infinity. This assigns to the molecules a KE as if they were in orbit, with corresponding nutty results.

    However, it didn’t matter, because he never made any rational connection between the energies he postulated and the IR fluxes that actually appeared in his equations. There wasn’t any.

    • suricat

      Nick, I find the Miscolczi interpretation intriguing and I’ve previously said so on the now inaccessible CA bulletin boards.

      Surely this paper is for a ‘dry atmosphere’ and can’t relate to Earth’s ‘wet’ troposphere.

      Having said that, there isn’t much difference between them. If we take ‘latent transport’ as a ‘damper’ to KE we find that this is only an exchange between KE and PE! After all, KE and PE are only the inverse of each other within the same environment. However, a change of phase can generate uncertainty on the KE/PE state of energetic resolution. Yet another reason why I consider the tropo below 5-8 km to be an ‘evaporative exchanger’ for insolation energies.

      Personally, I think the answer to the Miscolczi virial relationship is dependant upon the CC relationship of near surface constant RH for all temps (of course, this relies on the constant ‘partial pressure’ of the gas mix involved).

      Best regards, suricat.

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

        The commonality of super Clausius-Clapeyron behaviour has attracted a lot of interest in recent years. Google: ‘super Clausius-Clapeyron’
        You might also like to read what Pauluis has written about the atmosphere as a Dehumidifier versus a Heat Engine.
        The best place is probably the Kleidon & Lorenz MEP Red Book: Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy. Springer, 2005.
        There is no ‘answer’ to the ‘Miskolczi virial relationship’ because he got it all wrong.

        • suricat

          Thanks for the Google Steve, but the nearest pertinent hit was;
          http://www2.ir3s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/indru/kickoff/sugiyama.pdf
          but SCC behaviour is a weather property and not a climate property. I think it’s important not to confuse the two.

          “The best place is probably the Kleidon & Lorenz MEP Red Book: Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy. Springer, 2005.”

          There’s no way that I’ll spend about a hundred quid to read another take on MEP. Suffice to say that I’m familiar with the concept. Losses to attractors are almost everywhere!

          “There is no ‘answer’ to the ‘Miskolczi virial relationship’ because he got it all wrong.”

          Perhaps, but of greater import, where did he get it all wrong? To the best of my knowledge Miskolczi stated that ‘CO2 displaced H2O vapour within Earth’s atmosphere which resulted in a constant optical depth’ (this is not a literal quote). That being the case, what is it that defines the ‘partial pressure’ which determines the CC constant for a planetary system? Is it the ‘gas mix’?

          CO2 has an affinity to mix with water, but this doesn’t mean to say that CO2 displaces water vapour to cause it’s precipitation.

          Any ideas?

          Best regards, suricat.

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

            Sorry, I’ve been away and busy. This might help:

            http://jump.fm/YPHRV

  • raydart

    Nick, I find the Miscolczi interpretation intriguing and I've previously said so on the now inaccessible CA bulletin boards.Surely this paper is for a 'dry atmosphere' and can't relate to Earth's 'wet' troposphere.Having said that, there isn't much difference between them. If we take 'latent transport' as a 'damper' to KE we find that this is only an exchange between KE and PE! After all, KE and PE are only the inverse of each other within the same environment. However, a change of phase can generate uncertainty on the KE/PE state of energetic resolution. Yet another reason why I consider the tropo below 5-8 km to be an 'evaporative exchanger' for insolation energies.Personally, I think the answer to the Miscolczi virial relationship is dependant upon the CC relationship of near surface constant RH for all temps (of course, this relies on the constant 'partial pressure' of the gas mix involved).Best regards, suricat.

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

    The commonality of super Clausius-Clapeyron behaviour has attracted a lot of interest in recent years. Google: 'super Clausius-Clapeyron'You might also like to read what Pauluis has written about the atmosphere as a Dehumidifier versus a Heat Engine.The best place is probably the Kleidon & Lorenz MEP Red Book: Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy. Springer, 2005.There is no 'answer' to the 'Miskolczi virial relationship' because he got it all wrong.

  • suricat

    Thanks for the Google Steve, but the nearest pertinent hit was;http://www2.ir3s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/indru/kickoff/su…but SCC behaviour is a weather property and not a climate property. I think it's important not to confuse the two.”The best place is probably the Kleidon & Lorenz MEP Red Book: Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy. Springer, 2005.”There's no way that I'll spend about a hundred quid to read another take on MEP. Suffice to say that I'm familiar with the concept. Losses to attractors are almost everywhere!”There is no 'answer' to the 'Miskolczi virial relationship' because he got it all wrong.”Perhaps, but of greater import, where did he get it all wrong? To the best of my knowledge Miskolczi stated that 'CO2 displaced H2O vapour within Earth's atmosphere which resulted in a constant optical depth' (this is not a literal quote). That being the case, what is it that defines the 'partial pressure' which determines the CC constant for a planetary system? Is it the 'gas mix'?CO2 has an affinity to mix with water, but this doesn't mean to say that CO2 displaces water vapour to cause it's precipitation.Any ideas?Best regards, suricat.

  • DavidLHagen

    Recommend evaluating Essenhigh's closed form model of standard atmosphere profiles in this and other climate model discussions. E.g., this could be compared with Miskolczi's averaging of the empirical radiosonde temperature altitude lapse data. See:Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S−S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion EmissionsRobert H. EssenhighEnergy Fuels, 2006, 20 (3), 1057-1067 • DOI: 10.1021/ef050276y”This analytical solution, believed to be original here, to the 1D formulation of the (1905−1906) integral (S−S) Equations of Transfer, governing radiation through the atmosphere, is developed for future evaluation of the potential impact of combustion emissions on climate change. The solution predicts, in agreement with the Standard Atmosphere experimental data, a linear decline of the fourth power of the temperature, T4, with pressure, P, and, at a first approximation, a linear decline of T with altitude, h, up to the tropopause at about 10 km (the lower atmosphere). From these two results, with transformation using the Equation of State, the variations of pressure, P, and density, ρ, with altitude, h, are also then obtained, with the predictions again, separately, in substantial agreement with the Standard Atmosphere data up to 30 km altitude (1% density). The analytical procedure adopts the standard assumptions commonly used for numerical solutions of steady state, one dimensionality, constant flux directional parameter (μ), and a gray-body equivalent average for the effective radiation absorption coefficient, k, for the mixed thermal radiation-active gases at an effective (joint-mixture) concentration, p. Using these assumptions, analytical closure and validation of the equation solution is essentially complete. Numerical closure is not yet complete, with only one parameter at this time not independently calculated but not required numerically for validation of analytical closure. This is the value of the group-pair (kp)o representing the ground-level value of (kp), the product of the effective absorption coefficient and concentration of the mixed gases, written as a single parameter but decomposable into constituent gases and/or gas bands. Reduction of the experimental value of (kp)o to values of k for a comparison with relevant band data for water and CO2 shows numerical magnitudes substantially matching the longest wavelength bands for each of the two gases. Allowing also for the maximum absorption percentages, α°, of these two bands for the two gases, respectively, 39% for water and 8.5% for CO2, these values then support the dominance of water (as gas and not vapor) at about 80%, compared with CO2 at about 20%, as the primary absorbing/emitting (“greenhouse”) gas in the atmosphere. These results provide a platform for future numerical determination of the influence on the T, P, and ρ profiles of perturbations in the gas concentrations of the two primary species, carbon dioxide and water, and it provides, specifically, the analytical basis needed for future analysis of the impact potential from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, because of fossil-fuel combustion, in relation to climate change.”

  • DavidLHagen

    In his 2009 thesis, Sreekanth Kolan similarly applies the Schuster-Schwarzschild (S-S) equations. See: Study of Energy Balance between Lower and Upper“Abstract Separate energy budgets for the lower atmosphere (0-11 km) and upper atmosphere (> 11 km) are obtained in this report. The Schuster-Schwarzschild (S-S) integral equations of radiative transfer (Schuster 1905; Schwarzschild 1906, 1914) governing the radiation through atmosphere are solved to obtain the radiative fluxes that are required for the energy budget. The back radiation obtained from this analysis agrees with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) data. The standard temperature, pressure and density data required for the analysis is obtained from US Standard Atmosphere (1976). This analytical procedure uses the standard assumptions like one dimensionality, effective absorption coefficient (k) for a mixture of gases, constant flux directional parameter and quasi-static equilibrium. For the lower atmosphere, it has been assumed that all the clouds lie in the 0-11 km region. The ground level value of absorption coefficient group (kp), (kp)o is also obtained. ‘p’ is the partial pressure of the mixture of radiative gases.”

  • Anonymous

    Recommend evaluating Essenhigh’s (almost) closed form model of standard atmosphere profiles in this and other climate model discussions. E.g., this could be compared with Miskolczi’s averaging of the empirical radiosonde temperature altitude lapse data. See:

    Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S−S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions
    Robert H. Essenhigh
    Energy Fuels, 2006, 20 (3), 1057-1067 • DOI: 10.1021/ef050276y

    “This analytical solution, believed to be original here, to the 1D formulation of the (1905−1906) integral (S−S) Equations of Transfer, governing radiation through the atmosphere, is developed for future evaluation of the potential impact of combustion emissions on climate change. The solution predicts, in agreement with the Standard Atmosphere experimental data, a linear decline of the fourth power of the temperature, T4, with pressure, P, and, at a first approximation, a linear decline of T with altitude, h, up to the tropopause at about 10 km (the lower atmosphere). From these two results, with transformation using the Equation of State, the variations of pressure, P, and density, ρ, with altitude, h, are also then obtained, with the predictions again, separately, in substantial agreement with the Standard Atmosphere data up to 30 km altitude (1% density). The analytical procedure adopts the standard assumptions commonly used for numerical solutions of steady state, one dimensionality, constant flux directional parameter (μ), and a gray-body equivalent average for the effective radiation absorption coefficient, k, for the mixed thermal radiation-active gases at an effective (joint-mixture) concentration, p. Using these assumptions, analytical closure and validation of the equation solution is essentially complete. Numerical closure is not yet complete, with only one parameter at this time not independently calculated but not required numerically for validation of analytical closure. This is the value of the group-pair (kp)o representing the ground-level value of (kp), the product of the effective absorption coefficient and concentration of the mixed gases, written as a single parameter but decomposable into constituent gases and/or gas bands. Reduction of the experimental value of (kp)o to values of k for a comparison with relevant band data for water and CO2 shows numerical magnitudes substantially matching the longest wavelength bands for each of the two gases. Allowing also for the maximum absorption percentages, α°, of these two bands for the two gases, respectively, 39% for water and 8.5% for CO2, these values then support the dominance of water (as gas and not vapor) at about 80%, compared with CO2 at about 20%, as the primary absorbing/emitting (“greenhouse”) gas in the atmosphere. These results provide a platform for future numerical determination of the influence on the T, P, and ρ profiles of perturbations in the gas concentrations of the two primary species, carbon dioxide and water, and it provides, specifically, the analytical basis needed for future analysis of the impact potential from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, because of fossil-fuel combustion, in relation to climate change.”

    • Anonymous

      In his 2009 thesis, Sreekanth Kolan similarly applies the Schuster-Schwarzschild (S-S) equations. See:
      Study of Energy Balance between Lower and Upper
      “Abstract
      Separate energy budgets for the lower atmosphere (0-11 km) and upper atmosphere (> 11 km) are obtained in this report. The Schuster-Schwarzschild (S-S) integral equations of radiative transfer (Schuster 1905; Schwarzschild 1906, 1914) governing the radiation through atmosphere are solved to obtain the radiative fluxes that are required for the energy budget. The back radiation obtained from this analysis agrees with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) data. The standard temperature, pressure and density data required for the analysis is obtained from US Standard Atmosphere (1976). This analytical procedure uses the standard assumptions like one dimensionality, effective absorption coefficient (k) for a mixture of gases, constant flux directional parameter and quasi-static equilibrium. For the lower atmosphere, it has been assumed that all the clouds lie in the 0-11 km region. The ground level value of absorption coefficient group (kp), (kp)o is also obtained. ‘p’ is the partial pressure of the mixture of radiative gases.”

  • AJAG

    This is my first post? or comment ever. I have followed the discussions about the Virial Theorem on this blog for some time and I think there is a misconception about this theorem. In it's simplest form it relates potential and kinetic energy in a volume of gas, for instance, where the kinetic energy is that of the gas molecules mv2/2 (only linear motion, no vibrations or rotations). This directly describes the gas temperature. The potential energy is the one between the gas molecules, not including a constant gravitational force. This is the way the gas laws would be formulated and applied on the surface of the earth, or up in the atmosphere. Also, a uniform velocity of the gas volume (due to the rotation of the earth), or the constant earth's gravity do not enter the basic definition of the Virial Theorem. See for instance “Classical Mechanics” by Herbert Goldstein ,pp 82 to 85. In this basic case the VT is the one Miskolsczi has used:2KE=PE.

  • AJAG

    This is my first post? or comment ever. I have followed the discussions about the Virial Theorem on this blog for some time and I think there is a misconception about this theorem. In it’s simplest form it relates potential and kinetic energy in a volume of gas, for instance, where the kinetic energy is that of the gas molecules mv2/2 (only linear motion, no vibrations or rotations). This directly describes the gas temperature. The potential energy is the one between the gas molecules, not including a constant gravitational force. This is the way the gas laws would be formulated and applied on the surface of the earth, or up in the atmosphere. Also, a uniform velocity of the gas volume (due to the rotation of the earth), or the constant earth’s gravity do not enter the basic definition of the Virial Theorem. See for instance “Classical Mechanics” by Herbert Goldstein ,pp 82 to 85. In this basic case the VT is the one Miskolsczi has used:
    2KE=PE.

    • Anonymous

      Congratulations. Keep it up.

    • AJAG

      After studying Goldstein’s derivation of the Virial Theorem more carefully I like to make the following corrections to my post made 2 days ago: The gas (air) is actually under the influence of a central force, caused by the earth’s mass M, which can be assumed to be concentrated at the center of the earth. This force for a molecule of mass m is P=kMm/r^2, and the potential energy V=-kMm/r. The derivation also assumes a perfect gas where the forces of interaction between the molecules are assumed to be zero.
      This does not change the conclusion that the Virial Theorem for a volume of air is given by 2KE=PE.

      • http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

        Well, to confuse the issue, the paper linked at the top here says that for an monatomic atmosphere, it’s 2KE=3PE, or 2KE=5PE for diatomic.

        Neal King worked all this out nearly two years ago, in the form of questions to FM, never answered.

        But the even more basic question is, what on earth does the V Thm have to do with the equation FM writes down about IR fluxes.

        I notice that you are using the PE relative to infinity. That’s the one appropriate to molecules in orbit. Try putting those numbers in 2KE=PE and you’ll get orbital velocities, which is all wrong. The appropriate PE is relative for the state where there is no KE – the molecules have no thermal motion. So that is relative to the mass being at the surface, not infinity. Toth gets that right.

  • davids99us

    Congratulations. Keep it up.

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

    Sorry, I've been away and busy. This might help:http://jump.fm/YPHRV

  • AJAG

    After studying Goldstein's derivation of the Virial Theorem more carefully I like to make the following corrections to my post made 2 days ago: The gas (air) is actually under the influence of a central force, caused by the earth's mass M, which can be assumed to be concentrated at the center of the earth. This force for a molecule of mass m is P=kMm/r^2, and the potential energy V=-kMm/r. The derivation also assumes a perfect gas where the forces of interaction between the molecules are assumed to be zero.This does not change the conclusion that the Virial Theorem for a volume of air is given by 2KE=PE.

  • http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

    Well, to confuse the issue, the paper linked at the top here says that for an monatomic atmosphere, it's 2KE=3PE, or 2KE=5PE for diatomic.Neal King worked all this out nearly two years ago, in the form of questions to FM, never answered.But the even more basic question is, what on earth does the V Thm have to do with the equation FM writes down about IR fluxes.I notice that you are using the PE relative to infinity. That's the one appropriate to molecules in orbit. Try putting those numbers in 2KE=PE and you'll get orbital velocities, which is all wrong. The appropriate PE is relative for the state where there is no KE – the molecules have no thermal motion. So that is relative to the mass being at the surface, not infinity. Toth gets that right.

  • josecabeza

    I'm not a physicist but a geologist with not deep mathematical knowledge, and English is not my mother tongue. Anyway I'm thinking that Miskolkci theory could be rearranged without the virial theorem, supposing an initial moment (just as a menthal model) with no water in the atmosphere as soon as water is evaporated and atmosphere initiates its not transparency effect and begin to heats, it will begin to emit heat to the space. But at the same time clouds will begin to appear and to reflect. In one moment the heat it is emitted will be equilibrated with the OLR, because that OLR will be less an less, too. That excepted, I consider that the reasoning of miskolkczi the semitransparency and the potential of heating by doubling CO2 of 0,26ºC is essentially correct.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not a physicist but a geologist with not deep mathematical knowledge, and English is not my mother tongue. Anyway I’m thinking that Miskolkci theory could be rearranged without the virial theorem, supposing an initial moment (just as a menthal model) with no water in the atmosphere as soon as water is evaporated and atmosphere initiates its not transparency effect and begin to heats, it will begin to emit heat to the space. But at the same time clouds will begin to appear and to reflect. In one moment the heat it is emitted will be equilibrated with the OLR, because that OLR will be less an less, too. That excepted, I consider that the reasoning of miskolkczi the semitransparency and the potential of heating by doubling CO2 of 0,26ºC is essentially correct.

  • cohenite

    Isn't it great Nick, Miskolczi just won't die; I went back and reread some of your and Neal King's critiques of M; this from NK:”Likewise, in Section 3.1 you describe a relationship between [KE] and EU. But [KE] is thetotal kinetic energy, and EU is an energy flux: How do you identify a flux with a bulkquantity? Again, what are the actual equations that define this relationship?”http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2…I don't know what the connecting eqn is but the connection surely is the constant OD and the variation of SH with CO2 levels; the ^ in energy flux is = the ^ in bulk constituents; and isn't that happening regardless of whether it is nutty or not?

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

    Pinker’s paper showed pretty strongly that on the surface the Earth was getting a lot more shortwave radiation (i.e. sunlight) over the period 1983-2001, probably due to less clouds (see below). If this extra sunlight did really hit the surface it can explain most of the warming, and carbon dioxide becomes irrelevant, unless you can simultaneously show that there was some other factor that neutralized the extra sunlight. It is known mean global cloud cover for the period mid-1983 to mid-2008 was 66.4±1.5% (all errors at ± one standard deviation level).It was at temporary maximum of about 68.9% in about 1986 – 1988 and declined to about 64.4% in about 1999 – 2001. This period was characterized by global warming.Since about 2001 global cloud cover has recovered to be close to the 27-year average. This was a period of negligible additional warming. The 2008/10 data suggests average global cloud cover has recently continued to rise above the 27-year 66.4% average.Over the last decade from 1999-2001 to 2008-2009 mean global cloud optical thickness increased above the 27-year average of 3.9±0.3% to an annual average of about 4.4% i.e. the clouds were getting denser.Over the same period the global mean cloud top pressure fell from the long term 27-year mean of 573±15 millibars to around 553 millibars i.e. the mean altitude of clouds was getting higher.A reducing cloud cover trend over periods of annual and greater timescales increases surface insolation. An increased insolation trend of course leads to increased surface warming. This in turn leads to increased land plant growth, evapotranspiration (ET) and increased emission of biogenic CCN. On the oceans increased SSTs causes increased cyanobacterial primary productivity and hence increased emission of biogenic CCN (as well as reduced surface albedo due to the increasing frequency of blooms).So eventually the trend (to increased surface insolation) is reversed to one of increasing cloud cover. More low clouds, more dense clouds, more energetic convection, more cloud getting higher etc. All this leads to a reduced Bond albedo as a consequence of the increased realization of latent heat.IMHO in a climate of slowly increasing atmospheric CO2 level and also an increasing nitrogen pollution of coastal shelf waters (NB: something which has never applied before), this can only tend to slowly increase the generation RATE of low clouds and to increase their mean optical density (i.e. increase their reflectivity) hence driving up the Bond albedo.Put simply this is a well-adjusting ‘AGW’ world. Lucky for us this is one very watery world.It is possible to make an ‘energy balance snapshot in time’ of this system in MS Excel in such a way that the effect on surface temperature AFTER the realization of the Latent Heat in the atmosphere caused by the earlier heating and hence ET has taken effect. See:http://jump.fm/CSOMXI might add that this (static) spreadsheet is the ‘egg’ i.e. the whole sheet can easily be reversed (actually mirror-imaged) about the current global mean state (e.g. as described by Kiehl, Trenberth and Fasullo 2009) to show the ‘chicken’ which laid that egg!It also suffices to show us just how badly wrong Miskolczi was. For example:His supposedly constant normalized greenhouse factor g is only 0.333 in the clear sky extreme.Average S-U/OLR is closer to 1.666 (5/3) not 3/2.The so called virial relation A-A = E_D is untrue and A-A/E_D is about 1.075±0.010 – still very constant but not 1.000!Yoy can't even get the Miskolczi LW tau to lie between 1.5 and 2.0 unless you add on the upwelling fraction of latenet and sensible heat leaving via TOA to the truly transmitted LW from BOA S-T.BTW, for evidence of the trend in plant growth over the above-mentioned period see e.g:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/

  • davids99us

    “Pinker’s paper showed pretty strongly that on the surface the Earthwas getting a lot more shortwave radiation (i.e. sunlight) over theperiod 1983-2001, probably due to less clouds (see below).”Ah, but what if it was getting less cloudy because it was getting warmer.

  • cohenite

    Isn’t it great Nick, Miskolczi just won’t die; I went back and reread some of your and Neal King’s critiques of M; this from NK:

    “Likewise, in Section 3.1 you describe a relationship between [KE] and EU. But [KE] is the
    total kinetic energy, and EU is an energy flux: How do you identify a flux with a bulk
    quantity? Again, what are the actual equations that define this relationship?”

    http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/m_questions-4.pdf

    I don’t know what the connecting eqn is but the connection surely is the constant OD and the variation of SH with CO2 levels; the ^ in energy flux is = the ^ in bulk constituents; and isn’t that happening regardless of whether it is nutty or not?

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

      Pinker’s paper showed pretty strongly that on the surface the Earth was getting a lot more shortwave radiation (i.e. sunlight) over the period 1983-2001, probably due to less clouds (see below).

      If this extra sunlight did really hit the surface it can explain most of the warming, and carbon dioxide becomes irrelevant, unless you can simultaneously show that there was some other factor that neutralized the extra sunlight.

      It is known mean global cloud cover for the period mid-1983 to mid-2008 was 66.4±1.5% (all errors at ± one standard deviation level).

      It was at temporary maximum of about 68.9% in about 1986 – 1988 and declined to about 64.4% in about 1999 – 2001. This period was characterized by global warming.

      Since about 2001 global cloud cover has recovered to be close to the 27-year average. This was a period of negligible additional warming.

      The 2008/10 data suggests average global cloud cover has recently continued to rise above the 27-year 66.4% average.

      Over the last decade from 1999-2001 to 2008-2009 mean global cloud optical thickness increased above the 27-year average of 3.9±0.3% to an annual average of about 4.4% i.e. the clouds were getting denser.

      Over the same period the global mean cloud top pressure fell from the long term 27-year mean of 573±15 millibars to around 553 millibars i.e. the mean altitude of clouds was getting higher.

      A reducing cloud cover trend over periods of annual and greater timescales increases surface insolation. An increased insolation trend of course leads to increased surface warming. This in turn leads to increased land plant growth, evapotranspiration (ET) and increased emission of biogenic CCN.

      On the oceans increased SSTs causes increased cyanobacterial primary productivity and hence increased emission of biogenic CCN (as well as reduced surface albedo due to the increasing frequency of blooms).

      So eventually the trend (to increased surface insolation) is reversed to one of increasing cloud cover. More low clouds, more dense clouds, more energetic convection, more cloud getting higher etc. All this leads to a reduced Bond albedo as a consequence of the increased realization of latent heat.

      IMHO in a climate of slowly increasing atmospheric CO2 level and also an increasing nitrogen pollution of coastal shelf waters (NB: something which has never applied before), this can only tend to slowly increase the generation RATE of low clouds and to increase their mean optical density (i.e. increase their reflectivity) hence driving up the Bond albedo.

      Put simply this is a well-adjusting ‘AGW’ world. Lucky for us this is one very watery world.

      It is possible to make an ‘energy balance snapshot in time’ of this system in MS Excel in such a way that the effect on surface temperature AFTER the realization of the Latent Heat in the atmosphere caused by the earlier heating and hence ET has taken effect. See:

      http://jump.fm/CSOMX

      I might add that this (static) spreadsheet is the ‘egg’ i.e. the whole sheet can easily be reversed (actually mirror-imaged) about the current global mean state (e.g. as described by Kiehl, Trenberth and Fasullo 2009) to show the ‘chicken’ which laid that egg!

      It also suffices to show us just how badly wrong Miskolczi was. For example:

      His supposedly constant normalized greenhouse factor g is only 0.333 in the clear sky extreme.

      Average S-U/OLR is closer to 1.666 (5/3) not 3/2.

      The so called virial relation A-A = E_D is untrue and A-A/E_D is about 1.075±0.010 – still very constant but not 1.000!

      Yoy can’t even get the Miskolczi LW tau to lie between 1.5 and 2.0 unless you add on the upwelling fraction of latenet and sensible heat leaving via TOA to the truly transmitted LW from BOA S-T.

      BTW, for evidence of the trend in plant growth over the above-mentioned period see e.g:

      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560

      • Anonymous

        “Pinker’s paper showed pretty strongly that on the surface the Earth
        was getting a lot more shortwave radiation (i.e. sunlight) over the
        period 1983-2001, probably due to less clouds (see below).”

        Ah, but what if it was getting less cloudy because it was getting warmer.

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

          “Ah, but what if it was getting less cloudy because it was getting warmer.”

          That of course is the nub of the whole matter! Which is the chicken and which is the egg, you might say?

          Lets explore this….

          Over arid and savannah landscapes I think you might just be able to argue that it could get less cloudy as it got warmer.

          But how to reconcile this with the 20th century ‘declining pan evaporation over the continents’? Farquhar et al say this is due to reduced evaporative demand and reduced land wind speed.

          We might certainly infer the pan evaporation record is dominated by location in such environments i.e. very few Class A pans in the Amazon or Congo jungles or in the great boreal forests.

          How could you argue your point for the oceans? Primary productivity favours warmer water surely? My April 2009 NM-posted article on the Great Southern Ocean showed its negative CO2 anomaly (below global mean) certainly increased most rapidly 1982 – 1990 – 2001. BTW – I’ve now extended that spreadsheet and graph to 2008 if you want an updated copy.

          Do we need to (slowly) warm up the oceans to make the clouds which make the water which rains out on the land which makes for more ET/CCN which make for more cloud which….

          Regardless, I’m sure you’d agree your point does lead one inevitably to contemplate a multiplicity of breeds of chickens and eggs of many hues, methinks.

          My inclination is to jump into that chicken pen with Occams Razor and lay about me with great vigor!

          • Anonymous

            “But how to reconcile this with the 20th century ‘declining pan evaporation over the continents’? Farquhar et al say this is due to reduced evaporative demand and reduced land wind speed.

            How could you argue your point for the oceans?”

            Because when surface temperature T is warmer, the difference between the forcing Te (which we assume to be constant), and T is less, which reduces the heat flow (i.e dQ/dt=a(Te-T)). Evaporation is a measure of rate of flow of heat, not temperature. Another reason for less cloud when the surface is warmer, apart from less condensation.

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

            david

            Can you define Te which seems here to be a BOA temperature rather than a true forcing (W/m^2)?

            Why should it be constant? It is recognised that the BOA forcing as a function of cloud cover is about -0.3 – -0.4 W/m^2/% cloud cover, isn’t it?

            I agree evaporation is a measure of rate of flow of heat, not temperature. Also on the land it is ET rather than E which applies.

          • Anonymous

            Te is the equlibrium temperature you would expect in a stable,
            non-oscillating system, due to solar insolation forcing. The
            assumption is that it is constant, in order to describe how
            temperature and clouds can still vary together. In reality, the
            day/night cycle etc is the mechanism, but at the level of abstratcion
            of mean temperatures, warmer temperatures overall should reduce the
            potential heat flow overall.

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

            “The
            assumption is that it is constant, in order to describe how
            temperature and clouds can still vary together.”

            I can’t see how this is sustainable over multi-annual timescales. Over the period 1986-88 to 1999-2001 mean cloud cover declined from 68.9% to 64.4% i.e. about 4.5%. According to my little spreadsheet model, and neglecting any long term variations in emissivity, this suggests surface temperatures increased about 0.60 C over that period.

            Your assumption is not required, IMHO, except at much shorter (seasonal?) down to diurnal timescales.

            Indeed it (the assumption) forces one to abandon the global heat balance over longer timescales and I can’t see that. Neither could our irrascible old buddy Jan Pompe if I recall (;-).

            It’s a bit like my catchment hydrologic modeling. Over longer timescales one is forced to assume a zero change in the soil water stores. This is justifiable in the sense that the major variables are daily ET and slow non-linear behaviour in any groundwater reservoir.

          • Anonymous

            “I can’t see how this is sustainable over multi-annual timescales.”

            Good question. The ocean could be storing the heat over longer ~60
            year time scales, via longer term oscillations of PDO, AMO. The
            evidence of this is strong. Mor correctly, the ocean stores the range
            of temperature oscillation from its max to its min.

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

    “Ah, but what if it was getting less cloudy because it was getting warmer.”That of course is the nub of the whole matter! Which is the chicken and which is the egg, you might say?Lets explore this….Over arid and savannah landscapes I think you might just be able to argue that it could get less cloudy as it got warmer. But how to reconcile this with the 20th century 'declining pan evaporation over the continents'? Farquhar et al say this is due to reduced evaporative demand and reduced land wind speed. We might certainly infer the pan evaporation record is dominated by location in such environments i.e. very few Class A pans in the Amazon or Congo jungles or in the great boreal forests.How could you argue your point for the oceans? Primary productivity favours warmer water surely? My April 2009 NM-posted article on the Great Southern Ocean showed its negative CO2 anomaly (below global mean) certainly increased most rapidly 1982 – 1990 – 2001. BTW – I've now extended that spreadsheet and graph to 2008 if you want an updated copy.Do we need to (slowly) warm up the oceans to make the clouds which make the water which rains out on the land which makes for more ET/CCN which make for more cloud which….Regardless, I'm sure you'd agree your point does lead one inevitably to contemplate a multiplicity of breeds of chickens and eggs of many hues, methinks.My inclination is to jump into that chicken pen with Occams Razor and lay about me with great vigor!

  • davids99us

    “But how to reconcile this with the 20th century 'declining pan evaporation over the continents'? Farquhar et al say this is due to reduced evaporative demand and reduced land wind speed. How could you argue your point for the oceans?”Because when surface temperature T is warmer, the difference between the forcing Te (which we assume to be constant), and T is less, which reduces the heat flow (i.e dQ/dt=a(Te-T)). Evaporation is a measure of rate of flow of heat, not temperature. Another reason for less cloud when the surface is warmer, apart from less condensation.

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

    davidCan you define Te which seems here to be a BOA temperature rather than a true forcing (W/m^2)?Why should it be constant? It is recognised that the BOA forcing as a function of cloud cover is about -0.3 – -0.4 W/m^2/% cloud cover, isn't it?I agree evaporation is a measure of rate of flow of heat, not temperature. Also on the land it is ET rather than E which applies.

  • davids99us

    Te is the equlibrium temperature you would expect in a stable,non-oscillating system, due to solar insolation forcing. Theassumption is that it is constant, in order to describe howtemperature and clouds can still vary together. In reality, theday/night cycle etc is the mechanism, but at the level of abstratcionof mean temperatures, warmer temperatures overall should reduce thepotential heat flow overall.

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

    “Theassumption is that it is constant, in order to describe howtemperature and clouds can still vary together.”I can't see how this is sustainable over multi-annual timescales. Over the period 1986-88 to 1999-2001 mean cloud cover declined from 68.9% to 64.4% i.e. about 4.5%. According to my little spreadsheet model, and neglecting any long term variations in emissivity, this suggests surface temperatures increased about 0.60 C over that period.Your assumption is not required, IMHO, except at much shorter (seasonal?) down to diurnal timescales. Indeed it (the assumption) forces one to abandon the global heat balance over longer timescales and I can't see that. Neither could our irrascible old buddy Jan Pompe if I recall (;-).It's a bit like my catchment hydrologic modeling. Over longer timescales one is forced to assume a zero change in the soil water stores. This is justifiable in the sense that the major variables are daily ET and slow non-linear behaviour in any groundwater reservoir.

  • davids99us

    “I can't see how this is sustainable over multi-annual timescales.”Good question. The ocean could be storing the heat over longer ~60year time scales, via longer term oscillations of PDO, AMO. Theevidence of this is strong. Mor correctly, the ocean stores the rangeof temperature oscillation from its max to its min.

  • cohenite

    Steve and David; I assume you guys have seen the latest Franks paper on atmospheric temperature and evaporation:http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040…Franks says this about his paper which is based on a study of the MDB:”Senior climate change researchers have claimed that higher temperatures lead to higher moisture evaporation and that this is why the Murray Darling Basin has experienced such a harsh drought,” Associate Professor Franks said.”This is incorrect and ignores the known physics of evaporation.”During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun's radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.”Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.”Therefore any statement that the drought experienced in the Murray Darling Basin is a direct result of CO2 emissions is fundamentally flawed.”If, as Steve says, the cloud variation in the Pinker time frame is responsible for ~ 0.6C then really there has been no AGW effect; the effect has been caused by cloud variation allowing more SW to hit the deck and unless AGW can explain a connection between cloud variation and CO2, or more importantly ACO2, then AGW is irrelevant. Can you 2 guys knock something up before the weekend, send it to Rudd so he can continue to dismantle the AGW apparatus, which he began with Garrett, and we can start worrying about real issues again.

  • davids99us

    What if it was like the following mechanism, only instead of playing out on the 1-3 year subharmonic, it plays out on the 20-60year subharmonic, where the 20year CRF serves as an 'excitation':”Subharmonic resonance of global climate to solar forcingAuthors: A. Bershadskii http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1024It is shown that, the wavelet regression detrended fluctuations of the monthly global temperature data (land and ocean combined) for the period 1880-2009yy, are completely dominated by one-third subharmonic resonance to annual forcing (both natural and anthropogenically induced). Role of the oceanic Rossby waves and the resonance contribution to the El Nino phenomenon have been discussed in detail.”CO2 increase in this case could serve as an impulse (or delta as in Beenstocks paper) but not a long term effect.

  • cohenite

    Steve and David; I assume you guys have seen the latest Franks paper on atmospheric temperature and evaporation:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040598.shtml

    Franks says this about his paper which is based on a study of the MDB:

    “Senior climate change researchers have claimed that higher temperatures lead to higher moisture evaporation and that this is why the Murray Darling Basin has experienced such a harsh drought,” Associate Professor Franks said.

    “This is incorrect and ignores the known physics of evaporation.

    “During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun’s radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.

    “Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.

    “Therefore any statement that the drought experienced in the Murray Darling Basin is a direct result of CO2 emissions is fundamentally flawed.”

    If, as Steve says, the cloud variation in the Pinker time frame is responsible for ~ 0.6C then really there has been no AGW effect; the effect has been caused by cloud variation allowing more SW to hit the deck and unless AGW can explain a connection between cloud variation and CO2, or more importantly ACO2, then AGW is irrelevant. Can you 2 guys knock something up before the weekend, send it to Rudd so he can continue to dismantle the AGW apparatus, which he began with Garrett, and we can start worrying about real issues again.

    • Anonymous

      What if it was like the following mechanism, only instead of playing out on the 1-3 year subharmonic, it plays out on the 20-60year subharmonic, where the 20year CRF serves as an ‘excitation':

      “Subharmonic resonance of global climate to solar forcing
      Authors: A. Bershadskii http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1024

      It is shown that, the wavelet regression detrended fluctuations of the monthly global temperature data (land and ocean combined) for the period 1880-2009yy, are completely dominated by one-third subharmonic resonance to annual forcing (both natural and anthropogenically induced). Role of the oceanic Rossby waves and the resonance contribution to the El Nino phenomenon have been discussed in detail.”

      CO2 increase in this case could serve as an impulse (or delta as in Beenstocks paper) but not a long term effect.

    • Anonymous

      As soon as you mention resonance everyone goes on crank-alert!

    • Anonymous

      When you factor in a store of long term natural variation, like the oceans, variations in solar forcing must have a much larger impact than the same level of CO2 forcing. Its a bit like a swing. A small push in-sync with the swing will over many cycles lead to a large amplitude oscillation. But a constant push, like in increase in ACO2 will only displace the mid-point slightly. This is why we haven’t been able to explain the large 20 year signal in the temperature data, from the small observed insolation variation.

      Because clouds and temperature vary together, and a host of different effects conspire to make hot days hotter, and cool days cooler, and the excesses are absorbed by the ocean, it sets up a type of momentum allowing the heat balance to exceed (or stay below) its equilibrium value for long periods, only held in check ultimately by the restoring force of thermal equilibrium.

      You don’t need CO2 to explain the last 30 years warming when you have a natural ocean variations that can stay under or over budget for that period of time.

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

        I agree completely with all that David.

        In essence setting the system in balance for each and every value of the Bond albedo is equivalent to regarding the oceans as a shallow swamp of (say) 50 m depth.

        Thus my little spreadsheet model (and the model of Trenberth et al) is only useful as a tool to tell us what happens if the ocean-as-swamp condition applies.

        It certainly helped me to see the many flaws in Miskolczi Theory because, as you would acknowledge Miskolczi doesn’t concede there is any dynamic(s) at work outside that condition. Indeed it was impossible to get him to even acknowledge the critical significance of latent and sensible heat inside that condition thus e.g. his LW IR ‘tau’ is no such thing.

        However, one other thing my model does do is to roughly reproduce the published ‘consensus values’ on short term SW and LW CRFs at the surface quite well.

        So, at the end of the day I would agree 100% with you that the forces imposing different mean global cloud covers on the overall system may well lie outside of the model which imposes the ocean-as-swamp condition e.g. natural ocean variations.

        Again this is akin to my catchments which may lie on top of significant semi-confined groundwater reservoirs. One can occasionally observe a long slow hump in stream baseflow which is the ‘ghost’ if you will of a major groundwater recharge event which might have occurred as much as 30 years previously. I have even got isotopic evidence (tritium) which proves that about 50±30% of the water in Sydney’s water reservoirs originated as rain more than 50 years previously (when a drought didn’t apply). This does not stop them claiming that the modern AGW ‘drought’ could dry the reservoirs right up. Strangely they have never woken up to the implications of the fact that none of the reservoirs ever get below about 45% full.

        • Anonymous

          Of course M’s is an equilibrium theory and so can’t be expected to represent dynamics.

          For my theory to work, there needs to be an ocean turnover in the order of 60 years, to maintain the warm vs cold phases. This would require an ocean curren of around 2cm/sec by my calculations, based on a round trip of 40,000km and 60 years, which AFAIK is in the right ballpark for deep ocean currents.

          While current GCMs don’t seem to represent oscillations on the 60year time frame, it would not be expected unless they had oceanographic components that represented deep ocean currents. A ‘swamp’ can’t represent such a slow oscillation.

          If any models do have potential for such long time frame ocean components, it would be worthwhile to look for it.

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

            Further to this, I wonder whether you have considered the influence of the entire global photoautotrophic biomass as a possible store of long term variation?

            It is evident that, in the absence of other limitations, the magnitude of the global biomass increases when surface insolation increases.

            If we take just the (simpler) case of the land for example, it is now known that annual evapotranspiration (ET) is a relatively simple function of annual precipitation and the % distributions of forest (>70% canopy), heathland and shrubbery, and grassland – the latter in that order. About 89% of the variance in ET is explained by this simple function (Zhang et al, 1999, 2001, 2004 – some of the highest citation index papers in modern geography).

            What this means is that if the overall climatic heat pump is working at a constant rate giving a constant annual precipitation, % forest naturally increases at the expense of % heathland, swamps etc and % heathland, swamps etc increase at the expense of % grassland (as biomass increases) Thus for constant annual precipitation, annual ET goes slowly upwards as the biomass increases due to the slow trend towards more trees.

            As annual ET goes up then cloud cover slowly increases (aided by higher CCN production), then insolation goes down, surface temperatures decrease and so on and so forth.

            To paraphrase you, your 20 year signal may also simply reflect, in just one example, the typical mean lifetime of trees. You don’t need CO2 to explain the last 30 years warming when you have natural continental plant biomass variations that can stay under or over budget for that period of time, varying Bond albedo ‘on the fly’, via low cloud cover variation.

            Thinking about it from an MEP viewpoint, I note that biotic entropy increases with increasing biomass too (entropy decreases when every cell dies, increases when every cell is born). Biological evolution is just another clever way nature found to accelerate its thermodynamic evolution i.e. accelerate its production of entropy.

            I won’t bore you with another long spiel as to how this also works with oceanic photoautotrophic biomass. Trust me (;-).

            So, please also consider the vast global photosynthetic biomass as another ‘ocean’ easily and equally capable of long slow oscillations affecting global climate.

          • Anonymous

            For the cycle time to be 60 years, the deep water flows would have to be as localized as the surface flows (Gulf Stream e.g.). They’re not. Once the surface water sinks, it undergoes turbulent mixing with the deep water and the turnover time of that tank is on the order of 1,000 years, not 60 years.

          • Anonymous

            That would blow that theory if there was no oscillating store of heat.

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

            Speaking of long cycles I am reminded of the work of the Swiss (Philipona,Wild etc) which claimed to detect part of a long cycle for the reduction in dimming (‘brightening’) over the period 1950s – 1980s attributed to improved air emissions controls in Europe and North America.

            However, curiously, they also claimed to have detected (from proxy records) a similar period of solar brightening in the early 1900s i.e. pre-WWI.

            This I found highly implausible given that Britain and Germany were raising their industrial production (based on coal, steel making and no emissions controls whatsoever) which resulted in an orgy of materiel and human expenditure 1914 – 1918. At the same time USA and Japan were rapidly turning into industrial powers as well.

            Anthropogenic brightening in early 1900s? I think not.

  • davids99us

    As soon as you mention resonance everyone goes on crank-alert!

  • DavidLHagen

    Note Will J.R. Alexander shows precipitation and runoff in Southern Africa correlates with the 22 year double solar cycle. That could provide external forcing.Linkages between, solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse, Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 49, Number 2 June 2007, 32-44Climate Change in Disarray – An African PerspectiveBy Will Alexander, University of Pretoria, SouthWillis Eschenbach shows evidence for dynamic diurnal and annual tropical cloud/temperature correlation.Sense and Sensibility

  • davids99us

    When you factor a store of long term natural variation in the oceans ACO2, variations in solar forcing must have a much larger impact than the same amount of CO2 forcing. Its a bit like a swing. A small push in-sync with the swing will over many cycles lead to a large amplitude oscillation. But a constant push, like in increase in ACO2 will only displace the mid-point slightly. This is why we haven't been able to explain the large 20 year signal in the data, from the observed variation.Because clouds and temperature vary together, and a host of different effects conspire to make hot days hotter, and cool days cooler, and the excesses are absorbed by the ocean, it sets up a type of momentum allowing the heat balance to exceed (or stay below) its equilibrium value for long periods, only held in check ultimately by the restoring force of thermal equilibrium.You don't need CO2 to explain the last 30 years warming when you have a natural ocean variations that can stay under or over budget for that period of time.

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

    I agree completely with all that David. In essence setting the system in balance for each and every value of the Bond albedo is equivalent to regarding the oceans as a shallow swamp of (say) 50 m depth.Thus my little spreadsheet model (and the model of Trenberth et al) is only useful as a tool to tell us what happens if the ocean-as-swamp condition applies. It certainly helped me to see the many flaws in Miskolczi Theory because, as you would acknowledge Miskolczi doesn't concede there is any dynamic(s) at work outside that condition. Indeed it was impossible to get him to even acknowledge the critical significance of latent and sensible heat inside that condition thus e.g. his LW IR 'tau' is no such thing.However, one other thing my model does do is to roughly reproduce the published 'consensus values' on short term SW and LW CRFs at the surface quite well.So, at the end of the day I would agree 100% with you that the forces imposing different mean global cloud covers on the overall system may well lie outside of the model which imposes the ocean-as-swamp condition e.g. natural ocean variations. Again this is akin to my catchments which may lie on top of significant semi-confined groundwater reservoirs. One can occasionally observe a long slow hump in stream baseflow which is the 'ghost' if you will of a major groundwater recharge event which might have occurred as much as 30 years previously. I have even got isotopic evidence (tritium) which proves that about 50±30% of the water in Sydney's water reservoirs originated as rain more than 50 years previously (when a drought didn't apply). This does not stop them claiming that the modern AGW 'drought' could dry the reservoirs right up. Strangely they have never woken up to the implications of the fact that none of the reservoirs ever get below about 45% full.

  • davids99us

    Of course M's is an equilibrium theory and so can't be expected to represent dynamics. For my theory to work, there needs to be an ocean turnover in the order of 60 years, to maintain the warm vs cold phases. This would require an ocean curren of around 2cm/sec by my calculations, based on a round trip of 40,000km and 60 years, which AFAIK is in the right ballpark for deep ocean currents.While current GCMs don't seem to represent oscillations on the 60year time frame, it would not be expected unless they had oceanographic components that represented deep ocean currents. A 'swamp' can't represent such a slow oscillation. If any models do have potential for such long time frame ocean components, it would be worthwhile to look for it.

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

    Further to this, I wonder whether you have considered the influence of the entire global photoautotrophic biomass as a possible store of long term variation? It is evident that, in the absence of other limitations, the magnitude of the global biomass increases when surface insolation increases.If we take just the (simpler) case of the land for example, it is now known that annual evapotranspiration (ET) is a relatively simple function of annual precipitation and the % distributions of forest (>70% canopy), heathland and shrubbery, and grassland – the latter in that order. About 89% of the variance in ET is explained by this simple function (Zhang et al, 1999, 2001, 2004 – some of the highest citation index papers in modern geography). What this means is that if the overall climatic heat pump is working at a constant rate giving a constant annual precipitation, % forest naturally increases at the expense of % heathland, swamps etc and % heathland, swamps etc increase at the expense of % grassland (as biomass increases) Thus for constant annual precipitation, annual ET goes slowly upwards as the biomass increases due to the slow trend towards more trees. As annual ET goes up then cloud cover slowly increases (aided by higher CCN production), then insolation goes down, surface temperatures decrease and so on and so forth. To paraphrase you, your 20 year signal may also simply reflect, in just one example, the typical mean lifetime of trees. You don't need CO2 to explain the last 30 years warming when you have natural continental plant biomass variations that can stay under or over budget for that period of time, varying Bond albedo 'on the fly', via low cloud cover variation. Thinking about it from an MEP viewpoint, I note that biotic entropy increases with increasing biomass too (entropy decreases when every cell dies, increases when every cell is born). Biological evolution is just another clever way nature found to accelerate its thermodynamic evolution i.e. accelerate its production of entropy.I won't bore you with another long spiel as to how this also works with oceanic photoautotrophic biomass. Trust me (;-).So, please also consider the vast global photosynthetic biomass as another 'ocean' easily and equally capable of long slow oscillations affecting global climate.

  • davids99us

    It just seems to fit doesn't it. Stability to me means the solution to conservation relations, so the notion of stable cycles (and non-stable equilibria) is easy to take. If the THC is responsible for the PDO/AMO cycles, then these must be the longest cycles attributable to ocean currents (as they can't be much longer than one circumference). A longer cycle must be due to some other endogeneous process (such as biotic, glacial nutrient related, who knows) or else be truely external to the system.

  • Anonymous

    It just seems to fit doesn’t it. Stability to me means the solution to conservation relations, so the notion of stable cycles (and non-stable equilibria) is easy to take.

    If the THC is responsible for the PDO/AMO cycles, then these must be the longest cycles attributable to ocean currents (as they can’t be much longer than one circumference). A longer cycle must be due to some other endogeneous process (such as biotic, glacial nutrient related, who knows) or else be truely external to the system.

  • dewittpayne

    For the cycle time to be 60 years, the deep water flows would have to be as localized as the surface flows (Gulf Stream e.g.). They're not. Once the surface water sinks, it undergoes turbulent mixing with the deep water and the turnover time of that tank is on the order of 1,000 years, not 60 years.

  • josecabeza

    May be there are many others, but for me is being very interestign to read these links in order to begin to understand what the Virial Term may meanhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1954AJ…..59..137HAnd the ones titled “Virial Theorem made easy” http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/virial.html which has another links inside that could be useful for people with no deep knowledge of physics like “Can gravity decrease entropy?=” http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.htmlBecause in fact all those terms of potential and kinetic energy are variations of energy in time

  • Anonymous

    May be there are many others, but for me is being very interestign to read these links in order to begin to understand what the Virial Term may mean

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1954AJ…..59..137H

    And the ones titled “Virial Theorem made easy”

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/virial.html

    which has another links inside that could be useful for people with no deep knowledge of physics like

    “Can gravity decrease entropy?=”

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html

    Because in fact all those terms of potential and kinetic energy are variations of energy in time

  • davids99us

    That would blow that theory if there was no oscillating store of heat.

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

    Speaking of long cycles I am reminded of the work of the Swiss (Philipona,Wild etc) which claimed to detect part of a long cycle for the reduction in dimming ('brightening') over the period 1950s – 1980s attributed to improved air emissions controls in Europe and North America. However, curiously, they also claimed to have detected (from proxy records) a similar period of solar brightening in the early 1900s i.e. pre-WWI.This I found highly implausible given that Britain and Germany were raising their industrial production (based on coal, steel making and no emissions controls whatsoever) which resulted in an orgy of materiel and human expenditure 1914 – 1918. At the same time USA and Japan were rapidly turning into industrial powers as well. Anthropogenic brightening in early 1900s? I think not.

  • cohenite

    Doesn't the 60 year [PDO] cycle pretty much correlate with OHC;http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/200…Eespecially after thew recent NODC adjustment;http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif

  • davids99us

    Yes, but you would have to identify the actual 60 year current cyclein order to confirm theory that ocean heat causes the increase insurface temperature and decrease in clouds, or at least that they varytogether over time in a synchronized way.

  • cohenite

    Doesn’t the 60 year [PDO] cycle pretty much correlate with OHC;

    http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fig3.png

    Eespecially after thew recent NODC adjustment;

    http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif

    • Anonymous

      Yes, but you would have to identify the actual 60 year current cycle
      in order to confirm theory that ocean heat causes the increase in
      surface temperature and decrease in clouds, or at least that they vary
      together over time in a synchronized way.

      • Jan Pompe

        Don’t we need a sample period longer than 55 years to actually identify that we have a ~60 year period cycle?

        • Anonymous

          “identify the actual 60 year current cycle” I mean the physical location and velocity of ocean currents.

          • Jan Pompe

            Thanks David wasn’t sure what your were getting at there.

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

      Any idea where this whopping +10% increase in OHC between 1970 and 2010 went?

      Shouldn’t this have manifested itself somehow in an increased rate of surface pCO2 rise due to the reduced CO2 solubility. Or did all that warm water sink rapidly below say 50 m or so (;-)?

      Doesn’t seem to be any warm water near the Great Southern Ocean below 40 S (SO) as the rate of increase in surface CO2 levels over the whole SO actually decreased relative to the rate of increase in the global mean surface CO2 over 1983 – 2008 at least.

      This means that the rate of increase in surface CO2 levels over the whole SO actuallu decreased even more rapidly relative to the rate of increase in the NH oceanic mean surface CO2.

      This points to less not more mixing between NH and SH at least near the surface.

      http://jump.fm/DOHSO

      We seek it here, we seek it there, that mysterious submarine ‘hot spot’.

      • Anonymous

        Your file sharing service made my antivirus software nervous so I didn’t download the spreadsheet. There’s a big jump in OHC somewhere between 2000 and 2004 that seems too big to be true. I think they’re still having trouble reconciling ARGO measurements with the older measurements. If the jump were really that large, it would have shown up in the sea level measurements. It doesn’t.

  • Jan Pompe

    Don't we need a sample period longer than 55 years to actually identify that we have a ~60 year period cycle?

  • davids99us

    “identify the actual 60 year current cycle” I mean the physical location and velocity of ocean currents.

  • Jan Pompe

    Thanks David wasn't sure what your were getting at there.

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

    Any idea where this whopping +10% increase in OHC between 1970 and 2010 went? Shouldn't this have manifested itself somehow in an increased rate of surface pCO2 rise due to the reduced CO2 solubility. Or did all that warm water sink rapidly below say 50 m or so (;-)?Doesn't seem to be any warm water near the Great Southern Ocean below 40 S (SO) as the rate of increase in surface CO2 levels over the whole SO actually decreased relative to the rate of increase in the global mean surface CO2 over 1983 – 2008 at least.This means that the rate of increase in surface CO2 levels over the whole SO actuallu decreased even more rapidly relative to the rate of increase in the NH oceanic mean surface CO2. This points to less not more mixing between NH and SH at least near the surface.http://jump.fm/DOHSOWe seek it here, we seek it there, that mysterious submarine 'hot spot'.

  • cohenite

    Hi Steve; I thought OHC was based on a 700 metre depth parameter; that being the case the variation in OHC and the response period to PDO would mean that long-time storage is non-existent; that is that part of the ocean is part of the heat transfer network; that combined with the variation in TOA radiation flux per Pinker and Lindzen would seem to show that the difference between equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity is not much.

  • dewittpayne

    Your file sharing service made my antivirus software nervous so I didn't download the spreadsheet. There's a big jump in OHC somewhere between 2000 and 2004 that seems too big to be true. I think they're still having trouble reconciling ARGO measurements with the older measurements. If the jump were really that large, it would have shown up in the sea level measurements. It doesn't.

  • cohenite

    Hi Steve; I thought OHC was based on a 700 metre depth parameter; that being the case the variation in OHC and the response period to PDO would mean that long-time storage is non-existent; that is that part of the ocean is part of the heat transfer network; that combined with the variation in TOA radiation flux per Pinker and Lindzen would seem to show that the difference between equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity is not much.

  • http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/ Bob Tisdale

    Cohenite: You have to divide OHC data into ocean-basin subsets to determine what's causing the variations. The rise in OHC (NODC) for most ocean basins (excluding North Atlantic and North Pacific) are a product of ENSO:http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dom…The North Atlantic OHC is impacted by ENSO and AMOC and sea level pressure (NAO):http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-at…And the North Pacific is greatly impacted by sea level pressure (NPI):http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pa

  • Anonymous

    F. Miskolczi has replied to a disparaging comment I made on a thread at The Air Vent. He claims to have corresponded with Toth and convinced him that he (Miskolczi) dealt with degrees of freedom properly elsewhere in his paper. I didn’t much like the tone of his posts and don’t want to play any more, although I admit that I basically poked him in the eye with a sharp stick. If anyone else wants to play, it’s this thread: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/

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

      Ferenc Miskolczi just this morning on the Air Vent (#232):

      “Although I do not have excel and I am not familiar with spreadsheets, I shall be happy to go through your work – if you make it available in a simple text file…”

      27 years after the release of Lotus 123!

      And I thought Jan Pompe was pulling my leg.

      • Anonymous

        Cool. Spreadsheets are very inefficient.

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

          I plead the Mark Twain amendment.

        • Anonymous

          Inefficient, yes, but much easier to interpret what’s going on than code. I wonder what M.’s reaction would have been if Steve had offered him an R script.

          I still don’t understand how tau, which seems to be a mathematical construct like the global average surface temperature, can somehow be related to thermodynamics. A global average tau only means something for a single slab atmosphere, which is a toy model.

          • Anonymous

            He uses Matlab I think.

  • dewittpayne

    F. Miskolczi has replied to a disparaging comment I made on a thread at The Air Vent. He claims to have corresponded with Toth and convinced him that he (Miskolczi) dealt with degrees of freedom properly elsewhere in his paper. I didn't much like the tone of his posts and don't want to play any more, although I admit that I basically poked him in the eye with a sharp stick. If anyone else wants to play, it's this thread: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/rad

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

    Ferenc Miskolczi just this morning on the Air Vent (#232):”Although I do not have excel and I am not familiar with spreadsheets, I shall be happy to go through your work – if you make it available in a simple text file…”27 years after the release of Lotus 123! And I thought Jan Pompe was pulling my leg.

  • cohenite

    Give it to him Steve; but preserve your copyright.

  • davids99us

    Cool. Spreadsheets are very inefficient.

  • cohenite

    Give it to him Steve; but preserve your copyright.

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

    I plead the Mark Twain amendment.

  • dewittpayne

    Inefficient, yes, but much easier to interpret what's going on than code. I wonder what M.'s reaction would have been if Steve had offered him an R script.I still don't understand how tau, which seems to be a mathematical construct like the global average surface temperature, can somehow be related to thermodynamics. A global average tau only means something for a single slab atmosphere, which is a toy model.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m an idiot. Miskolczi is correct about the Virial Theorem. However, that doesn’t mean that the rest of his theory is correct. The conclusion I should have drawn from Toth is that the Virial Theorem statement is a trivial result and is already included in Physical Meteorology. It should have been obvious when Toth used the Virial Theorem to calculate the heat capacity of a molecular gas.Physical Meteorology already uses the heat capacity in, for example, the dry adiabatic lapse rate, g/Cp. The obvious conclusion then is that any stable atmospheric temperature profile, from dry adiabatic to isothermal for example, will comply with the Virial Theorem. Yes, an isothermal atmosphere has a higher kinetic energy than an atmosphere with a dry adiabatic lapse rate, but it also has an altitude vs pressure profile that drops less rapidly than an dry adiabatic atmosphere so the gravitational potential energy is higher too. But it’s the atmospheric temperature profile and resulting density profile that determines the optical thickness for a well-mixed ghg. Forcing from CO2 is quite a bit higher in the Tropics than in the Arctic because the atmosphere in the arctic is colder and denser and the optical thickness for the same concentration of CO2 is less. So saying that the atmosphere is governed by the Virial Theorem tells us nothing we don’t already know.

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

      I don’t know so much about the Virial Theorem (which is somehow supposed to lead to the global (cloudy sky) average S_U to S_U = 3OLR/2.

      By my estimations (from scouring the published literature) the S_U/OLR for the typical range of average global cloud covers (NCAR data) is typically closer to 5/3 than 3/2. That ratio is certainly consistent with at least 85% of published global heat budgets over the last 15 years and anyone can verify that for themsleves.

      Just to stir the possum a little more, one other thing I have concluded is that Miskolczi’s A_A = E_D i.e. his so-called Kirchoff’s Law equality only applies (away from the clear sky extreme) if, and only if, his S_T flux from the surface somehow doesn’t actually arrive at TOA in its entirety.

      Maybe this is why DeWitt agrees with A_A = E_D too (stated on the Air Vent)?

      So e.g. the cartoons Fig. 2 in M&M04 and Fig. 1 in M07 do not appear to be strictly true when they show S_T as departing BOA.

      In fact, by comparison with equivalent (cloudy sky) estimations by practically everyone else the (higher) Miskolczi S_T(s) must somehow be diminished along the way, perhaps by a partial downwards reflection of LW IR (to become part of E_D) off clouds.

      Hey, we know this actually occurs, and Miskolczi never mentions it, so why not?

      Perhaps this is why Miskolczi can have an S_T of ~60 W/m^2 at the global average cloud cover and everyone else has (or imply) a value of about 35 – 40 W/m^2. Take that extra 20 – 25 W/m^2 and add it to E_D and bingo – you get a balance with A_A (which =S_U – S_T by definition).

      As Thayer Watkins has pointed out , there is indeed a significant component of LW IR transmitted from BOA which is reflected off the bottoms of low clouds, especially evident at night.

      http://www.applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm

      Make me wonder if, in considering Ts and Te, FM forgot to ensure that the whole body of surface up/down radiative data he based his whole house of cards on was diurnally balanced. Now there’s a scary thought!

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

        Sorry, typo, I meant to say:

        “So e.g. the cartoons Fig. 2 in M&M04 and Fig. 1 in M07 do not appear to be strictly true when they show S_T as departing TOA”.

  • dewittpayne

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm an idiot. Miskolczi is correct about the Virial Theorem. However, that doesn't mean that the rest of his theory is correct. The conclusion I should have drawn from Toth is that the Virial Theorem statement is a trivial result and is already included in Physical Meteorology. It should have been obvious when Toth used the Virial Theorem to calculate the heat capacity of a molecular gas.Physical Meteorology already uses the heat capacity in, for example, the dry adiabatic lapse rate, g/Cp. The obvious conclusion then is that any stable atmospheric temperature profile, from dry adiabatic to isothermal for example, will comply with the Virial Theorem. Yes, an isothermal atmosphere has a higher kinetic energy than an atmosphere with a dry adiabatic lapse rate, but it also has an altitude vs pressure profile that drops less rapidly than an dry adiabatic atmosphere so the gravitational potential energy is higher too. But it's the atmospheric temperature profile and resulting density profile that determines the optical thickness for a well-mixed ghg. Forcing from CO2 is quite a bit higher in the Tropics than in the Arctic because the atmosphere in the arctic is colder and denser and the optical thickness for the same concentration of CO2 is less. So saying that the atmosphere is governed by the Virial Theorem tells us nothing we don't already know.

  • davids99us

    He uses Matlab I think.

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

    I don't know so much about the Virial Theorem (which is somehow supposed to lead to the global (cloudy sky) average S_U to S_U = 3OLR/2. By my estimations (from scouring the published literature) the S_U/OLR for the typical range of average global cloud covers (NCAR data) is typically closer to 5/3 than 3/2. That ratio is certainly consistent with at least 85% of published global heat budgets over the last 15 years and anyone can verify that for themsleves.Just to stir the possum a little more, one other thing I have concluded is that Miskolczi's A_A = E_D i.e. his so-called Kirchoff's Law equality only applies (away from the clear sky extreme) if, and only if, his S_T flux from the surface somehow doesn't actually arrive at TOA in its entirety. Maybe this is why DeWitt agrees with A_A = E_D too (stated on the Air Vent)?So e.g. the cartoons Fig. 2 in M&M04 and Fig. 1 in M07 do not appear to be strictly true when they show S_T as departing BOA. In fact, by comparison with equivalent (cloudy sky) estimations by practically everyone else the (higher) Miskolczi S_T(s) must somehow be diminished along the way, perhaps by a partial downwards reflection of LW IR (to become part of E_D) off clouds. Hey, we know this actually occurs, and Miskolczi never mentions it, so why not?Perhaps this is why Miskolczi can have an S_T of ~60 W/m^2 at the global average cloud cover and everyone else has (or imply) a value of about 35 – 40 W/m^2. Take that extra 20 – 25 W/m^2 and add it to E_D and bingo – you get a balance with A_A (which =S_U – S_T by definition).As Thayer Watkins has pointed out , there is indeed a significant component of LW IR transmitted from BOA which is reflected off the bottoms of low clouds, especially evident at night.http://www.applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htmMake me wonder if, in considering Ts and Te, FM forgot to ensure that the whole body of surface up/down radiative data he based his whole house of cards on was diurnally balanced. Now there's a scary thought!

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

    Sorry, typo, I meant to say:”So e.g. the cartoons Fig. 2 in M&M04 and Fig. 1 in M07 do not appear to be strictly true when they show S_T as departing TOA”.

  • Anonymous

    IMO, A_A is only approximately equal to E_D. If there is a temperature inversion, as in sub-Arctic winter in MODTRAN, then E_D will be larger than A_A. In all other cases, E_D should be slightly less than A_A.

    I don’t see why the S_U to OLR ratio should be constant. It should be a function of both ghg concentration and cloud cover. It looks to me as if one should treat the cloud top as the surface rather than the ground for cloud covered sky. That may be how M gets an S_T value of 60W/m2. In TFK09 it’s 70 W/m2, 40 from the surface and 30 from the cloud tops, if I read the cartoon correctly. Then you have to add the coupling between the cloud top and bottom and the coupling between the cloud bottom and the ground. Addition of a well-mixed ghg like CO2 should have an effect on cloud top temperature. That can be estimated for low clouds using MODTRAN, but mid-level clouds are going to be more difficult because you can’t ignore the atmospheric contribution to absorption/emission between the ground and the cloud bottom for mid-level clouds. I think MODTRAN only has low and high level (cirrus) clouds as options.

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

      “IMO, A_A is only approximately equal to E_D. If there is a temperature inversion, as in sub-Arctic winter in MODTRAN, then E_D will be larger than A_A. In all other cases, E_D should be slightly less than A_A.”We agree on that.”I don’t see why the S_U to OLR ratio should be constant. It should be a function of both ghg concentration and cloud cover.”We agree on that. But…..kinda jettisons Miskolczi’s ‘Virial Theorem hypothesis” though! I thought in your previous post you were claiming to be an idiot and that Miskolczi was right on that one? I’m confused. Or is that what you mean when you say; “However, that doesn’t mean that the rest of his theory is correct.”? Sort of an enormous ‘rest of his theory’ though – like much of the whole edifice.”It looks to me as if one should treat the cloud top as the surface rather than the ground for cloud covered sky”In a sense you are right. And to give him fair credit Miskolcizi did thoroughly discuss that issue in a number of places.”That may be how M gets an S_T value of 60W/m2.” Yes, that is essentially exactly what I pointed out on Niche Modeling oh about 2 years ago now, and have just now restated in terms of well, does it include a downward-reflected portion of his S_T?”In TFK09 it’s 70 W/m2, 40 from the surface and 30 from the cloud tops, if I read the cartoon correctly.”Correct and so does just about every other published global heat budget more or less.So the question yet again arises. What does Miskolczi include in that 60 W/m^2? More of the latent heat (total ~80 W/m^2) than the ~50 W/m^2 (~62.5%) that typically downwells (according to the mainstream literature)? Doesn’t seem at all likely as that only occurs during rain or ice formation and Miskolczi’s measurements are purported to get a much narrower variability range of E_D:A_A. So, what about the only thing which appears in that famous cartoon – using T,F&K09 (say) the ~333 W/m^2 ‘Back Radiation’ (E_D in Miskolczi formalism):333 + 60 – 40 = 353 ~ 356 (i.e. A_A)353/356 = 0.992 ~ 1.00So, I return to my question. Is Miskolczi so clever that he has defined S_T as that which strictly is not absorbed between BOA and TOA BUT also includes that which is reflected off the bottoms of clouds to be incorporated into his E_D and hence not all of his S_T departs TOA (as part of OLR) despite his own cartoons?It’s a reasonable proposition (albeit at odds with his cartoons). If as he insists A_A=E_D and it is critical to his theory (which it is), maybe this is where Miskolczi explicitly (and legitimately?) departs from all the mainstream literature global heat budgets, which as Zagoni recently noted have A_A/E_D ~ 1.08 typically ranging 1.00 at clear sky though 1.11 at total cloud cover).I always thought Miskolczi did himself a big disservice by lumping all his (supposedly non-radiative) unknowables into that horrible K term. This is yet more evidence for that – and even raises the possibility of a forgotten truly radiative term within K.

      • Anonymous

        Miskolczi is correct when he says that the Virial Theorem requires the ratio of potential energy per degree of freedom (in his case z) of kinetic energy to be 2:1. So for all three degrees of freedom (x, y and z) the ratio is 2:3. Barton Paul Levenson did a back of the envelope sort of calculation and found 0.78 for the ratio of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy for one particular atmospheric profile. That’s pretty close to the correct value of 0.667. If you include vibration and rotation, you get two more degrees of freedom which is why gamma in the adiabatic expansion equation for a molecular gas, PV^gamma, is gamma=(alpha +1)/alpha where alpha is the number of degrees of freedom divided by 2 or 5/2 for a diatomic molecular gas. But this is all known and included in all the equations used by physical meteorologists. It means that for a given temperature profile and surface, the pressure and density profiles are fixed. It doesn’t imply that a specific temperature profile is required. When you throw in the additional constraint of buoyancy, then you have a maximum lapse rate that is stable, but any lapse rate that is less than the maximum is stable. Throwing in radiation forces the lapse rate to be positive but less than or equal to the adiabatic rate. Throwing in a condensable gas like water vapor makes things even more complicated.

        The problem with overall radiation budgets and A_A/E_D may be something like the sum of the products is not equal to the product of the sums. For any individual example, the ratio looks to be much closer to 1 than 1.08, more like 1.02-1.04. But it may also have to do with mid-level clouds. Since I don’t have a way of calculating that situation, I can’t be sure.

        The question then is how does M. go from something that ‘everyone’ knows to his conclusion that there is a maximum level of greenhouse heating and that we’re already there. Without having gone into it as deeply as you have, my guess is that some parameter or combination of parameters has been assumed to be constant when it really isn’t.

        • http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

          “Miskolczi is correct when he says that the Virial Theorem requires the ratio of potential energy per degree of freedom (in his case z) of kinetic energy to be 2:1.”
          But he didn’t say that in his paper; he said:
          “The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem: the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of the
          total gravitational potential energy.”

          Of course, this comes back to the unsolved mystery of that these fluxes have to do with PE and KE anyway.

          • Anonymous

            Miskolczi claims in his correspondence on the thread at The Air Vent that he was referring to just the kinetic energy in the z direction. He quoted an email from Toth to that effect.

            “…..Regarding the final clause in my paper, I found it important to stress that the degrees of freedom must be considered, while at the same time, I did not wish to actually criticize Ferenc’s paper. A good thing, too, because in his latest e-mail, Ferenc made it clear that he did account for the degrees of freedom, he just did it differently (rather than accounting for it in his expression of the virial theorem, he only considered the kinetic energy per the vertical translational degree of freedom to begin with.) I do find this a little confusing (I don’t think this is clearly explained in his paper) but the result is correct, and that’s what matters in the end…”

            If that’s what me meant to say rather than what he actually said, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, then we should drop the virial theorem argument and concentrate on the real unsolved mystery which is indeed as you stated.

  • dewittpayne

    IMO, A_A is only approximately equal to E_D. If there is a temperature inversion, as in sub-Arctic winter in MODTRAN, then E_D will be larger than A_A. In all other cases, E_D should be slightly less than A_A.I don't see why the S_U to OLR ratio should be constant. It should be a function of both ghg concentration and cloud cover. It looks to me as if one should treat the cloud top as the surface rather than the ground for cloud covered sky. That may be how M gets an S_T value of 60W/m2. In TFK09 it's 70 W/m2, 40 from the surface and 30 from the cloud tops, if I read the cartoon correctly. Then you have to add the coupling between the cloud top and bottom and the coupling between the cloud bottom and the ground. Addition of a well-mixed ghg like CO2 should have an effect on cloud top temperature. That can be estimated for low clouds using MODTRAN, but mid-level clouds are going to be more difficult because you can't ignore the atmospheric contribution to absorption/emission between the ground and the cloud bottom for mid-level clouds. I think MODTRAN only has low and high level (cirrus) clouds as options.

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

    “IMO, A_A is only approximately equal to E_D. If there is a temperature inversion, as in sub-Arctic winter in MODTRAN, then E_D will be larger than A_A. In all other cases, E_D should be slightly less than A_A.”We agree on that.”I don't see why the S_U to OLR ratio should be constant. It should be a function of both ghg concentration and cloud cover.”We agree on that. But…..kinda jettisons Miskolczi's 'Virial Theorem hypothesis” though! I thought in your previous post you were claiming to be an idiot and that Miskolczi was right on that one? I'm confused. Or is that what you mean when you say; “However, that doesn't mean that the rest of his theory is correct.”? Sort of an enormous 'rest of his theory' though – like much of the whole edifice.”It looks to me as if one should treat the cloud top as the surface rather than the ground for cloud covered sky”In a sense you are right. And to give him fair credit Miskolcizi did thoroughly discuss that issue in a number of places.”That may be how M gets an S_T value of 60W/m2.” Yes, that is essentially exactly what I pointed out on Niche Modeling oh about 2 years ago now, and have just now restated in terms of well, does it include a downward-reflected portion of his S_T?”In TFK09 it's 70 W/m2, 40 from the surface and 30 from the cloud tops, if I read the cartoon correctly.”Correct and so does just about every other published global heat budget more or less.So the question yet again arises. What does Miskolczi include in that 60 W/m^2? More of the latent heat (total ~80 W/m^2) than the ~50 W/m^2 (~62.5%) that typically downwells (according to the mainstream literature)? Doesn't seem at all likely as that only occurs during rain or ice formation and Miskolczi's measurements are purported to get a much narrower variability range of E_D:A_A. So, what about the only thing which appears in that famous cartoon – using T,F&K09 (say) the ~333 W/m^2 'Back Radiation' (E-D in Miskolczi formalism):333 + 60 – 40 = 353 ~ 356 (i.e. A_A)353/356 = 0.992 ~ 1.00So, I return to my question. Is Miskolczi so clever that he has defined S_T as that which strictly is not absorbed between BOA and TOA BUT also includes that which is reflected off the bottoms of clouds to be incorporated into his E_D and hence not all of his S_T departs TOA (as part of OLR) despite his own cartoons?It's a reasonable proposition (albeit at odds with hsi cartoons). If as he insists A_A=E_D and it is critical to his theory (which it is), maybe this is where Miskolczi explicitly (and legitimately?) departs from all the mainstream literature global heat budgets, which as Zagoni recently noted have A_A/E_D ~ 1.08 typically ranging 1.00 at clear sky though 1.11 at total cloud cover).I always though Miskolczi did himself a big disservice by lumping all his (supposedly non-radiative) unknowables into that horrible K term. This is yet more evidence for that – and even raises the possibility of a forgotten truly radiative term within K.

  • dewittpayne

    Miskolczi is correct when he says that the Virial Theorem requires the ratio of potential energy per degree of freedom (in his case z) of kinetic energy to be 2:1. So for all three degrees of freedom (x, y and z) the ratio is 2:3. Barton Paul Levenson did a back of the envelope sort of calculation and found 0.78 for the ratio of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy for one particular atmospheric profile. That's pretty close to the correct value of 0.667. If you include vibration and rotation, you get two more degrees of freedom which is why gamma in the adiabatic expansion equation for a molecular gas, PV^gamma, is gamma=(alpha +1)/alpha where alpha is the number of degrees of freedom divided by 2 or 5/2 for a diatomic molecular gas. But this is all known and included in all the equations used by physical meteorologists. It means that for a given temperature profile and surface, the pressure and density profiles are fixed. It doesn't imply that a specific temperature profile is required. When you throw in the additional constraint of buoyancy, then you have a maximum lapse rate that is stable, but any lapse rate that is less than the maximum is stable. Throwing in radiation forces the lapse rate to be positive but less than or equal to the adiabatic rate. Throwing in a condensable gas like water vapor makes things even more complicated.The problem with overall radiation budgets and A_A/E_D may be something like the sum of the products is not equal to the product of the sums. For any individual example, the ratio looks to be much closer to 1 than 1.08, more like 1.02-1.04. But it may also have to do with mid-level clouds. Since I don't have a way of calculating that situation, I can't be sure.The question then is how does M. go from something that 'everyone' knows to his conclusion that there is a maximum level of greenhouse heating and that we're already there. Without having gone into it as deeply as you have, my guess is that some parameter or combination of parameters has been assumed to be constant when it really isn't.

  • http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com Nick Stokes

    “Miskolczi is correct when he says that the Virial Theorem requires the ratio of potential energy per degree of freedom (in his case z) of kinetic energy to be 2:1.”But he didn't say that in his paper; he said:“The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem: the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of thetotal gravitational potential energy.”Of course, this comes back to the unsolved mystery of that these fluxes have to do with PE and KE anyway.

  • dewittpayne

    Miskolczi claims in his correspondence on the thread at The Air Vent that he was referring to just the kinetic energy in the z direction. He quoted an email from Toth to that effect.

    “…..Regarding the final clause in my paper, I found it important to stress that the degrees of freedom must be considered, while at the same time, I did not wish to actually criticize Ferenc’s paper. A good thing, too, because in his latest e-mail, Ferenc made it clear that he did account for the degrees of freedom, he just did it differently (rather than accounting for it in his expression of the virial theorem, he only considered the kinetic energy per the vertical translational degree of freedom to begin with.) I do find this a little confusing (I don’t think this is clearly explained in his paper) but the result is correct, and that’s what matters in the end…”

    If that's what me meant to say rather than what he actually said, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, then we should drop the virial theorem argument and concentrate on the real unsolved mystery which is indeed as you stated.

  • dewittpayne

    Miskolczi claims in his correspondence on the thread at The Air Vent that he was referring to just the kinetic energy in the z direction. He quoted an email from Toth to that effect.

    “…..Regarding the final clause in my paper, I found it important to stress that the degrees of freedom must be considered, while at the same time, I did not wish to actually criticize Ferenc’s paper. A good thing, too, because in his latest e-mail, Ferenc made it clear that he did account for the degrees of freedom, he just did it differently (rather than accounting for it in his expression of the virial theorem, he only considered the kinetic energy per the vertical translational degree of freedom to begin with.) I do find this a little confusing (I don’t think this is clearly explained in his paper) but the result is correct, and that’s what matters in the end…”

    If that's what me meant to say rather than what he actually said, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, then we should drop the virial theorem argument and concentrate on the real unsolved mystery which is indeed as you stated.

  • Anonymous

    Why Greenhouse Gases, with high IPCC Global Warming Potentials, and in low present day concentrations, might lower global average temperatures (negative Global Warming Potential)

    Away from Polar Regions, the Saturated Greenhouse Effect, has a lot of Sunlight to warm the surface — To keep the Greenhouse Factor constant (=1/3), effect of adding a Greenhouse gas, replacing H2O, will change ground pressure slightly, resulting in a (plus or minus) surface temperature change.

    At the Polar Regions, there is little Sunlight, very lttle H2O to act as a greenhouse gas, and snow reflects, resulting in little warming — However — introducing a Greenhouse Gas, which, at present, is in very low concentration, will increase radiation to space, cool, and increase the downdraft into the Antarctic Vortex.

Bad Behavior has blocked 67945 access attempts in the last 7 days.