tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post1859834396579836102..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Three new papers challenge understanding of the physics of the atmosphere, AGWUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-82276993222574613042014-03-06T14:45:55.283-08:002014-03-06T14:45:55.283-08:00Thanks, HS. I think my argument is better stated (...Thanks, HS. I think my argument is better stated (especially the first sentence here doesn't seem to make much sense as I'm reading it now :p) on Joe Postma's site. But the gist is the same ...Kristiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90650174974295500412014-03-05T18:41:08.777-08:002014-03-05T18:41:08.777-08:00HS, there is definitely a connection between the p...HS, there is definitely a connection between the planetary radiative flux measured from space and the temperature gradient between the solid planetary surface and the atmospheric level through which this final flux is going. I say 'final', because the measured flux is a total flux, accumulated upward from the surface through all atmospheric layers, all making their small contributions, until we reach ToA, which is above the convection top, or the tropopause.<br /><br />This goes for all planets.<br /><br />However, there is NO connection between the theoretical BB emission temperature calculated for the planet from the measured final flux and the physical temperature of this atmospheric layer.<br /><br />For instance, on Earth, the mean global tropopause temperature (at an average of ~12 km) is around 210K. If you track the lapse rate going downward from this you will reach the surface at 288K, quite naturally. The tropopause is still Earth's 'radiative surface' to space. Because only from this level on ALL energy is transported outward through radiation. THIS is where we reach the 239 W/m^2. Below it, the radiative flux would be less intense. At the surface it is only 50-60 W/m^2.<br /><br />So why is there no connection between the flux-calculated BB temperature of a planet and the physical temperature of its actual 'radiative surface', its ToA?<br /><br />Because the atmosphere is a gas, a volume of gas. It doesn't radiate from ONE particular solid surface (like a proper BB) according to the temperature of this particular surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't work on a volume of gas.<br /><br />So how come, then, we can so predictably find the surface temperature of the Earth by just knowing the temperature of the 'radiating surface' (ToA) and the lapse rate? The answer really is, it couldn't be otherwise.<br /><br />The surface temperature is set FIRST. The surface is where the heating from the Sun originally takes place. From here the heat is then propagated upwards through the atmospheric column by way of convection along the lapse rate-established temperature gradient/profile. Until we reach the convection top and gravity finally overcomes the buoyancy from the original surface heating.<br /><br />The tropopause is at 210K because the surface is at 288K, not the other way around. The lapse rate does not work downwards, just as little as heat propagates downwards.<br /><br />The 288K value, then, must be set by something else. One part is the solar input. The other part is the atmospheric weight on the surface. Gravity + mass.<br /><br />It works, however, in a different way than you might think ...Kristiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50062131301564843552014-02-27T21:20:22.207-08:002014-02-27T21:20:22.207-08:00Victor,
Your latest comment will not be published...Victor,<br /><br />Your latest comment will not be published as it is full of ad homs, and frankly, you should be ashamed of your hostile and derogatory comments towards the Connolly family and their scientific method, made PRIOR to even reading their paper! That is pathetic, arrogant, anti-scientific and evidence that you are an ostrich practitioner of the CAGW religion. ByeMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2250408301655586552014-02-25T17:44:12.788-08:002014-02-25T17:44:12.788-08:00Well, let's have a look at some of your ad hom...Well, let's have a look at some of your ad homs:<br /><br />"P.S. Can I have your bets on whether Anthony Watts will report on this family of Dragon Slayers?"<br /><br />"I am afraid that this is a typical idea among climate ostriches, but that is not the way science works."<br /><br />"Unfortunately for the Connolly family the most likely explanation is that their empirical analysis is not able to find the relationship because it is not designed in a way that it could find the relationship. <b>I did not read the paper yet..."</b> LOLOL " the method is thus wrong."<br /><br />"we should ask the Connolly family, why it in not freaking cold on Earth? How do they explain the warm surface temperature on Earth?"<br /><br />and here's one about me:<br /><br />"I have no hope that HockeySchtick will admit this, but I am very curious what our local host and writer of 3 manuscripts on the greenhouse effect, Ronan Connolly, thinks of this adventurous Hockey idea."<br /><br />I have nothing to "admit." Unlike you, I've documented all my assertions and have nothing to hide nor "admit."<br /><br />So, what specific scientific objections do you have to the following post?: <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-earths-climate-is-self-regulating.html<br /><br />MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-40405548098310211382014-02-25T17:02:47.929-08:002014-02-25T17:02:47.929-08:00Everything but the content is irrelevant for the s...Everything but the content is irrelevant for the scientific merit. However, such questions are important for the <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/01/peer-review-helps-fringe-ideas-gain.html" rel="nofollow">credibility of the article</a>, when it is published. As it stands these articles in this journal would have the same credibility as a blog post, where also the author himself decides whether it is worth publishing. Then one has to wonder, why they go through all that effort to make it look like a scientific journal. I would thus advice the Connolly's to publish there work elsewhere. Anthony Watts can publish his manuscript in Open Peer Review Journal.<br /><br />Peer review is more than just asking for reactions. Imagine what would happen in case several scientists would review an article and would come to the conclusion that there are too many fundamental mistakes and that the manuscripts should not be published. The authors, as editors then make a decision whether to ignore these reviews and publish anyway or not. That is where the pal-review comes in, where pal is quite an understatement. The editorial decision should be independent, at least if you want to build a credible scientific journal.<br /><br />I have written some comments there, they are also welcome to comment at my blog.<br /><br />Maybe you should have a look at the definition of an ad hom. Wikipedia writes: "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument". For the fairness of the editorial decisions, it makes a difference whether the editor is also the author. I have trouble seeing that as irrelevant. For my comments on the science, I do not recall using some fact about the authors as argument. Could you provide an example?<br /><br />In the scientific community, an honest appraisal of the situation and criticism is valued as part of making things better. I find it very strange, that someone here calls for less criticism. <br /><br />Everyone can publish in Climate of the Past. There is a publishing fee to support the journal. Someone has to do the work and the readers do not pay for that. <a href="http://www.climate-of-the-past.net/general_information/financial_support.html" rel="nofollow">For people unable to pay this fee can be annulled</a>. This is typically used for authors from poor countries. I have no experience with that, but would expect that also citizen scientists can use this option. Just ask.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-22510393814430591522014-02-25T16:08:21.659-08:002014-02-25T16:08:21.659-08:001. They link to their website on the first page of...1. They link to their website on the first page of the scientific paper, which is very open about the ownership. This is adequate notice for anyone who wishes to investigate ownership, which is irrelevant to scientific merit.<br /><br />2. The papers are all still open for anyone peer-review, which is the exact opposite of pal-review and gate-keeping, so if you have a specific problem with the scientific claims, you should comment there, rather than ad homs & criticizing a completely open, genuine scientific effort. <br /><br />Climate of the Past is for the Past. BTW do you have to be a member of the EGU to publish in that Journal, and is there a charge to the authors to publish an open access article?MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44446303824560069042014-02-25T13:08:13.964-08:002014-02-25T13:08:13.964-08:00They make that clear on their blog. However, peopl...They make that clear on their blog. However, people visiting their journal and reading their manuscripts are not informed that the authors, editors and owners are all the same. <br /><br />We have seen in the scandal around the journal "Pattern Recogntion in Physics" that some of your folks find that an ideal situation. I am with Anthony Watts, Steven Mosher and PopTech and see this as pal review and as a big problem for publishing controversial papers.<br /><br />For other people publishing in such a journal may be a nice service. <br /><br />There is, by the way, already an open review and open access journal in climatology: Climate of the Past.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-79894576251793214942014-02-25T08:44:49.908-08:002014-02-25T08:44:49.908-08:00They make that very clear, and I for one think it&...They make that very clear, and I for one think it's fantastic they have created an open peer review journal that's free for scientists to submit papers and is open access to both peer-review and viewing. Fabulous & the way science really should be done without gatekeepers, pal-review, and the expense to authors to publish an open-access article.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-74326675883070709902014-02-25T03:19:33.132-08:002014-02-25T03:19:33.132-08:00The manuscripts were submitted to a new journal th...The manuscripts were submitted to <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/02/global-warming-solved-in-open-peer.html" rel="nofollow">a new journal that is owned by the authors of the manuscripts</a>. They could also simply have written a blog post.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com