tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.comments2015-08-29T14:25:19.605-07:00THE HOCKEY SCHTICKMSnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7619125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-222686366414262322015-08-29T14:25:19.605-07:002015-08-29T14:25:19.605-07:00I am using radiative forcing in the sense that the...I am using radiative forcing in the sense that the IPCC claims increased CO2 is causing the surface to warm by a radiative forcing of ~1.5 W/m2. This is an incorrect application of the Stefan Boltzmann law as discussed in many of these posts. MShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-89420418209453301492015-08-29T14:08:11.428-07:002015-08-29T14:08:11.428-07:00Martin, thanks for your interest. I've written...Martin, thanks for your interest. I've written over 50 posts on this topic, but here are some starting points, in addition to the 40+ links I posted above. <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/debunking-myths-strawmen-about-gravito.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation-predicts.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.htmlMShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-66876154624074643592015-08-29T09:01:53.188-07:002015-08-29T09:01:53.188-07:00An Internet correspondent encouraged me to read th...An Internet correspondent encouraged me to read this paper and other material on your site. I have two quick questions.<br /><br />- At various places you mention 'radiative forcing'. Is this used in the sense defined by the IPCC <em>‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’</em>(eg in response to a change in CO2 level) (i(AR4 The Physical Science Basis. 2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing). If, as seems possible, you are using it in some other sense, please would you point me to the definition you are using.<br /><br />- Please would you point me to a reference where I can read up on the<em> "Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory"</em>.<br /><br />Thank you for your help.Martin Ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16759151769102778220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90532030347137692032015-08-27T19:26:42.519-07:002015-08-27T19:26:42.519-07:00John,
"This doesn't mean CO2 doesn't...John, <br />"This doesn't mean CO2 doesn't absorb radiant energy."<br /><br />Of course not<br /><br />"It means there is so much that it has already absorbed all it can"<br /><br />CO2 does indeed absorb and emit as much 15 micron IR "as it can," but CO2 is a mere passive IR radiator that merely delays passage of radiative heat loss to space by a few milliseconds, easily reversed and erased at night. <br /><br />In addition, increased CO2 increased Cp, which is inversely related to temperature change by the lapse rate equation<br /><br />dT/dh = -g/Cp<br /><br />thus increased GHGs decrease the lapse rate, increase convective cooling of the surface. <br /><br />Please read why Maxwell, the most famous physicist in history on the topics of heat and radiation knew way back in 1872 why the Poisson relation and gravito-thermal effect alone explains the atmosphere, and also see the Poisson relation also perfectly describes 2 additional planets not in the paper discussed in this post. <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/maxwell-established-that-gravity.htmlMShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64917748934480146402015-08-27T16:53:26.903-07:002015-08-27T16:53:26.903-07:00Tried to reply, but not sure if it went through. F...Tried to reply, but not sure if it went through. Figured out how to read the paper. Still digesting. The gist of my point is: My assertion is that this paper provides evidence of saturation. The moon and Triton have so little CO2 that it won't enter into any estimate of temperature. Earth is near saturation. Mars is much higher, hence saturated and Venus even higher. As such a dimensional analysis of CO2 versus temperature will find little or no correlation with any of these 5 bodies. This doesn't mean CO2 doesn't absorb radiant energy. It means there is so much that it has already absorbed all it can. Saturation is known in combustion problems. See https://johneggert.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/leckners-curves/ If this is a duplicate (ish) post, please feel free do delete it.johneggerthttps://johneggert.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-32389076438779601562015-08-27T16:36:29.971-07:002015-08-27T16:36:29.971-07:00I figured out how to view the entire paper after I...I figured out how to view the entire paper after I'd posted. Still digesting it. As I said. If CO2 does reach a point of saturation, then at concentrations above that, something else will impact surface temperature. Three of the 6 bodies observed have concentrations at or above saturation. One of them (the moon) has no atmosphere, one (Triton) so small an atmosphere that, from a radiative physics point of view, there is none, and the last is Titan. An application of dimensional analysis would find a poor correlation between concentration and temperature if the concentration exceeds the saturation limit of the gas. Earth has the lowest amount of CO2 from a radiative point of view, Mars next and then Venus. Given that Earth is almost at saturation, increases beyond this, such as seen on Venus and Mars, will not result in higher absorption, hence there will be poor correlation to temperature. Note that saturation is known in other fields that study radiative heat transfer. See: "https://johneggert.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/leckners-curves/"<br /><br />Cheersjohneggerthttps://johneggert.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-4970198852573236382015-08-27T15:58:46.802-07:002015-08-27T15:58:46.802-07:00Thanks Peter for the Titan reference and the inter...Thanks Peter for the Titan reference and the interesting relation to speed of sound. The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document on page 18 also calculates the speed of sound on the basis of the specific heats, gas constant, molecular mass, etc in equation (50), and which looks very similar to the atmospheric temperature profile.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.htmlMShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-26569714164941950312015-08-26T18:53:12.302-07:002015-08-26T18:53:12.302-07:00Concur MS, John do download the paper -as I said i...Concur MS, John do download the paper -as I said in comment above not obvious how to do but click on the frame window; the overprinted paper is there as a pdf. As a process engineer you will likely understand dimensional analysis. The equation derived comes purely from the data You do not have to agree with the terms used in the paper such as 'forcing" and "photo force" etc <br />Mentioning Titan, the comment here (I mentioned above)<br /> http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7103 <br />may interest. This mentions a relation in atmospheres with the speed of sound - an interesting concept.ProfEngPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00673665773661963874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-20302396343738773952015-08-26T14:22:17.470-07:002015-08-26T14:22:17.470-07:00John, the full paper is available in the window ab...John, the full paper is available in the window above. Titan does fit the model to within 1.45C, which is still a very good fit, and the authors state in the paper that the data is more uncertain on Titan in comparison to the other 5 planets. The HS greenhouse equation also predicts the surface temperature and temperature profile perfectly on Titan as well as Earth. <br /><br />The 2nd figure I posted above clearly shows that the models incorporating greenhouse gas partial pressures have a standard error at least 20+ times worse than the model 12 which only uses surface pressure and solar insolation, and nearly perfectly predicts surface temperature on planets with GHG concentrations ranging from 0 to 96+%.<br /><br />CO2 & H2O are IR-active gases which cool the surface for the many reasons I've pointed out and linked to above. The 33K "GHE" is entirely due to atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, as the giants of physics I list above first pointed out in the 1800's.MShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86901366597365035692015-08-26T13:39:23.754-07:002015-08-26T13:39:23.754-07:00An interesting paper. I'm not going to purchas...An interesting paper. I'm not going to purchase it, so can't fully speak to anything in it. My understanding of the effect of CO2 on radiative heat transfer comes from combustion engineering, not climate science. In that field, one generally assumes constant pressure. Gasses get heated by small quantities of participating media, such as CO2 or water vapour. The heating of a gas in contact with a hot surface by radiation is near 0 for dry CO2 free air. The heating of the gas is entirely due to convection and conduction. Add a small amount of CO2 or water and the heating from radiation exceeds the heating from convection and conduction at temperatures in the range of 500°C and higher. When something gets between a hot surface and a cold surface and itself gets hot, it reduces the rate of heat transfer from the hot surface to the cold surface until the hot surface is hot enough that thermal equilibrium is achieved. That's why we insulate.<br /><br />What this paper may support is the assertion that for the three bodies with an atmosphere and that fit the model (note that Titan does not fit the model), the concentration of CO2 is sufficiently high that saturation has occurred. As such, there should be little correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. For earth, the path length of CO2 at surface is 1 bar X 300/1,000,000 X 1 = 0.0003. For Mars, the bath length of CO2 at surface is 0.006 bar X 1 = 0.006 (the atmosphere of Mars can be approximated as 100% CO2). Hence even though Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than Earth, in terms of radiative forcing, there is MUCH more CO2 present. About 20 times more. Venus of course if off the charts.Titan on the other hand is not saturated. My interpretation of this article is: It says nothing about the GHG effect. It does provide evidence of saturation of CO2. <br /><br />It has been shown that, at STP CO2 reaches saturation at approximately 800 ppm (actually 500 bar cm, which roughly corresponds to 800 ppm). At 400 ppm it is so close as to be 0. There should be some minor warming from 270 ppm to 400 ppm.<br /><br />That there is an explanation for the correlation found that does not change the fact that CO2 and water are greenhouse gases makes sense as the "greenhouse effect" is known and measured and used in a lot of fields other than climate.<br /><br />Cheersjohneggerthttps://johneggert.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-38493520102399666812015-08-26T09:29:59.465-07:002015-08-26T09:29:59.465-07:00"Positive water vapor feedback." There ..."Positive water vapor feedback." There may well be a tendency of positive water vapor feedback in the surface boundary layer. It is limited to this volume at the surface by, the availability of a source of water and the extremely short mean free path of IR at this surface humidity and pressure. Perhaps the 2xCO2 may add less than a watt to this LOCAL effect. (not additional energy just redistribution of warming effect in this turbulent boundary). No matter if it is true what ever quantity one wishes to accept.<br />For purposes of discussion take total surface warming from solar insulation @ 160 watts. Further take the (negative feedback) IR radiation window radiation to space as 40 watts. Leaving 120 watts required to be radiated to space by other means. Looking around for other means we have convection of heated surface atmosphere and most notably latent heat of water vaporization as the only physical phenomenal available. Regardless of the complexity of all the physical phenomena which have entertained (and payed) physicists for the last three decades, The transport of energy to the effective radiation altitudes and radiation by water and water vapor molecules of IR to space must of necessity do the job since nature has no other available tools. Thus (if) any addition (or redistribution) to the atmosphere of heating and water vaporization with attendant addition to convection must enhance this cooling physics to the overall planet energy balance. <br />. <br />This is by definition: Cooling response to warming, ie.a negative feedback. "Mother nature" has solved all of the complex equations throughout the random chaotic atmosphere to arrive at the net effect of 120 watts cooling. Thus we do not need to verify in nitty gritty detail how She does it, the fact remains that She must and does it using water vapor as her only tool. Thus all water vapor physics at any altitude are the only mechanism which will lead to cooling to create a planet energy balance. <br />The contention by warmists that this particular (CO2 driven) increase in water vaporization will suddenly subtract from the 120 watts of cooling by water vapor is logically ludicrous<br /><br />It goes without saying tho the alarmists say it best; without positive feedback (as you have pointed out in all of your discussions of negative feedback), there can be no significant global warming. <br />The laws of conservation of energy have triumphed again.<br />Dr Lindzen; thank you for your steadfast determination, despite the slings and arrows, to bring encouragement and sanity to this logically ludicrous and contentious discussion. Ronald Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08347149109527264456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-35890185642935513442015-08-26T06:35:20.468-07:002015-08-26T06:35:20.468-07:00Stupidity squared. CFC destruction of ozone in th...Stupidity squared. CFC destruction of ozone in the stratosphere caused the cooling an d allowed more UVB radiation to hit earth. Doesn't seem to be many real scientists anymore. Bob AshworthAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-37291832975714407432015-08-25T02:14:17.229-07:002015-08-25T02:14:17.229-07:00Fundamental dimensions, mass, length, charge and t...Fundamental dimensions, mass, length, charge and time apply everywhere.<br />Charge is important at all scales, atomic and planetary. For example solar wind, ionosphere, magnetic fields.<br />rogerrabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17717000945653083490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44535699039119057472015-08-24T17:26:13.856-07:002015-08-24T17:26:13.856-07:00Thanks Peter once again for your helpful comments....Thanks Peter once again for your helpful comments. Much appreciated. MShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-21928995027479930442015-08-24T17:05:48.482-07:002015-08-24T17:05:48.482-07:00In dimensional analysis T stands for time. Force h...In dimensional analysis T stands for time. Force has the dimensions MLT^-2ProfEngPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00673665773661963874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-47357011482556431162015-08-24T12:55:49.926-07:002015-08-24T12:55:49.926-07:00Yes the whole CAGW hypothesis is based upon the fa...Yes the whole CAGW hypothesis is based upon the false assumption that GHGs are true blackbodies to which the SB law can be applied, as well as a false assumption of constant atmospheric emissivity. Agreed with your conclusion on CO2 & CH4. MShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68726599301587876322015-08-24T08:51:43.550-07:002015-08-24T08:51:43.550-07:00Hmm, good points.
How would charge be applicable ...Hmm, good points. <br />How would charge be applicable in a planetary context?MShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-38094598223790401712015-08-24T08:11:32.116-07:002015-08-24T08:11:32.116-07:00 They say temperature( T) is a a fundamental dimen... They say temperature( T) is a a fundamental dimension. It is not.<br />According to the Gas Law T is a function of pressure (p) and volume(v)<br />p is force/area =Nm^-2 = kgms^-2m^-2 <br />pv = kgms^-2m^-2m3 =kgm^2s^-2 =kgx velocity^2<br />T can be reduced to kg, m and s.<br />A better candidate for fundamental dimension is charge, q.<br />Even m = density/volume can be reduced to length.<br /><br />rogerrabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17717000945653083490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-36497597003457266692015-08-24T00:05:55.315-07:002015-08-24T00:05:55.315-07:00I think that there are enough evidences about the ...I think that there are enough evidences about the relationship between the long-term (from 100 to 1000 years) solar activity changes and the global temperature. The new studies about the possible mechanism are welcome. There is another excellent relationship in the medium range time range from 1 to 100 years with correlation r2 being better than 0.95. This model is called an astronomical harmonic climate model (AHCM). In my latest article I have combined the solar effects and the AHCM getting an estimated temperature with correlation r2 being 0.97 from 1880 to 2010. Here is the link to the paper http://www.scienpress.com/journal_focus.asp?main_id=59&Sub_id=IV&Issue=1564<br />In my web page you can find other material based on the scientific papers: http://www.climatexam.com/<br />Antero Ollilahttp://www.climatexam.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-8529695539919891932015-08-23T22:36:41.263-07:002015-08-23T22:36:41.263-07:00No need to comment so strongly. The author of this...No need to comment so strongly. The author of this 2015 paper refers to their previous 2014 paper in the text and has it in the reference list. The authors mention a few things such as greenhouse gases, photons and other alarmist terms which maybe necessary to get it published. The is nothing new in dimensional analysis and dimensionless numbers (which I should have put in my comment further down).. The fourth edition of Chemical Engineering Handbook states that the Buckingham Pi method was introduced in 1914 and rigorously proved in 1951. If "scientists" have not heard of it, this is because they are not engineers. Volokin et al have used actual data to determine a relationship between dimensionless numbers. This makes more sense than wrong assumption about equations most scientists do not understand and trying to make models with dimensional data that can not be compared and then if the model does not work fiddle with the data.<br />For your information the original S-B equation was determined for SURFACES in a VACUUM and for so-called BLACK BODIES. Emissivity correctly defined attempts to adjust for grey bodies. Prof Hoyt Hottel attempted to adjust for gases by changing the formula on one side to a volume basis by including path length and partial pressures. No one has satisfactorily overcome the problem of a vacuum with the S-B equation other than adjust temperatures for other means of heat transfer occurring at the same time. There is evidence that convection and phase change with an atmosphere spread and equalise the temperature around a globe so radiation from the sun only applies to the top of the atmosphere. If you want to call convection by gases around a surface and phase change of water/water vapor a greenhouse effect so be it. but radiation absorption and emission by CO2 and CH4 make no measurable contribution on Earth. ProfEngPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00673665773661963874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-72928493173513650712015-08-23T20:45:58.621-07:002015-08-23T20:45:58.621-07:00Atmospheric density does not change the parts per ...Atmospheric density does not change the parts per million concentration of an atmospheric gas. <br /><br />Mars' atmosphere is still 95% CO2 regardless of its density. Earth's is 0.04% CO2 regardless of its density. <br /><br />Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration has changed by 1/100ths of 1% since 1900. Kenneth Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00198431792165032103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-59228472011722511282015-08-23T17:54:49.939-07:002015-08-23T17:54:49.939-07:00Thanks MS for your comment. Must have missed the p...Thanks MS for your comment. Must have missed the post on the Chilingar et al 2014 paper which I have downloaded. It repeats some of the information in the 2008 paper. However, the paper is wrong about CH4. The first sentence on P826 is completely wrong. CH4 is not a large absorber of infra red radiation. It is a minor trace gas except on Titan where it has some effect similar to water on earth due to evaporation and condensation but CH4 has no radiation absorption or emission effect there unlike water and water vapor on Earth.<br />Also, equation 7 in the Chilingar paper is wrong - it should be<br />CH4 +O3 >CH3OH +O2. CH3OH is highly soluble in water and this is one mechanism for removal of CH4 from the atmosphere. Have a look at this https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/ProfEngPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00673665773661963874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-47288960202545588162015-08-23T14:00:47.084-07:002015-08-23T14:00:47.084-07:00Thanks very much Mark for your continued support a...Thanks very much Mark for your continued support and getting the word out on other blogs as well. <br /><br />Best regards. MShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-87950909582440870142015-08-23T13:11:13.941-07:002015-08-23T13:11:13.941-07:00And yet another group sees that it is solar insola...And yet another group sees that it is solar insolation plus the mass of the atmosphere that dictates the temperatures of the planet. This is good news even if they didn't acknowledge the giants that came before them and even if they don't have it exactly right. Any group that sees that CO2 is not the driver of the climate is welcome on the skeptic side. <br /><br />Stepan Widle said up above that it was known to the science of our schooldays in the 1960s (70s for me) that surface temperatures of planets with atmospheres was related to atmodspheric density which in turn was determined by mass plus gravity and manifests in the form of pressure at the surface. And he is right of course. <br /><br />Keep up the great work you do here. I don't comment much as many of my comment just go off into space (my fault I am sure) but I read them all. <br /><br />~ Markmarkstovalhttps://markstoval.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-33910094826545881072015-08-23T12:55:48.238-07:002015-08-23T12:55:48.238-07:00The supposed sensitivity for doubled CO2 is indeed...The supposed sensitivity for doubled CO2 is indeed close to zero, and is actually slightly negative ~2K due to increased CO2 slightly increasing the heat capacity Cp of the atmosphere, and accelerating convective cooling. This is explained in the latest Chilingar et al paper I linked to above. MShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com