tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post3138229631548576257..comments2024-09-09T00:23:57.023-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why the effective radiating level (ERL) is always located at the center of mass of the atmosphere & not controlled by greenhouse gas concentrationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-78905902070016986622017-12-01T16:37:45.145-08:002017-12-01T16:37:45.145-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-37566060877630735842016-12-28T08:50:06.481-08:002016-12-28T08:50:06.481-08:00great, send me a document attached to an email to ...great, send me a document attached to an email to hockeyschtick@gmail.com<br /><br />ThanksMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63810413508264541412016-12-27T19:32:52.590-08:002016-12-27T19:32:52.590-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-66156555556482971192016-12-27T13:55:03.287-08:002016-12-27T13:55:03.287-08:00Congratulations!
Would you be interested in posti...Congratulations!<br /><br />Would you be interested in posting your derivation as a guest post?<br /><br />Best regards.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-59755729891110306232016-12-27T13:53:27.161-08:002016-12-27T13:53:27.161-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2559434397162109052016-12-26T20:29:28.863-08:002016-12-26T20:29:28.863-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-32730841847951293182016-11-03T22:53:46.881-07:002016-11-03T22:53:46.881-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-40196536842815053012016-11-03T22:18:37.896-07:002016-11-03T22:18:37.896-07:00Luke you are definitely on the same tracks that I ...Luke you are definitely on the same tracks that I took the only thing you now need is the assumption that gravity and gravitational potential energy must be in continual local and total thermodynamic equilibrium at every point in the atmosphere With "real" or kinetic energy. That's why the lapse rate is simply the ratio of gravitational "-" potential energy (PE)/Cp the great problem of people understanding this simple fact is the pay and did not assume the entire atmosphere always must be inperfect equilibrium with gravity! Therefore both dynamic and kinematic viscosities of the entire kinematic + gravitational PE atmosphere must be always in local + total thermodynamic equilibrium at every point in time and space. Game over for not just 99% of CO2 alarm, but 100%. I can't go into the details yet but I have a very very big news about a breakthrough on this issue I think. <br /><br />Regards, and thanks for your interest. Let me know how you are doing and if you have any other questions, thank you. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-12253961785585203752016-11-03T21:59:54.740-07:002016-11-03T21:59:54.740-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-51912774894091897382016-11-03T04:19:33.265-07:002016-11-03T04:19:33.265-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-88521569543229882762015-09-21T13:26:53.995-07:002015-09-21T13:26:53.995-07:00Martin, I'm not avoiding replying on anything....Martin, I'm not avoiding replying on anything. I've already said on this blog a million times N2 and O2 are not IR active gases. <br /><br />It is true the ERL height has to be zero in a pure N2 atmosphere. However the equilibrium T with Sun is still fixed at the center of mass & kinetic temperature at the point is 255K. <br /><br />My upcoming post will show that the surface T in an earth pure N2 atmosphere would be 25C warmer than the present Ts due to the steeper lapse rate. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-72708709030719949702015-09-20T13:20:07.846-07:002015-09-20T13:20:07.846-07:00MS, you keep avoiding replying on the specific iss...MS, you keep avoiding replying on the specific issues raised in my comments so I will ask you very clearly:<br /><br />Do you know that nitrogen gas, i.e. Dinitrogen or N2 molecules, can not absorb or emit long wave radiation such as visible, infrared or microwave light in it's electronic ground state?<br /><br />This is an experimentally proven fact and well established theoretically. I am sure you are aware of it, right?<br /><br />The Effective Radiative Level (ERL) must therefore by necessity be at the surface for a planet with an atmosphere containing only N2, or any other non-Green-house gas. This is completely independent of the distribution of the gas molecules. It is impossible to radiate energy from higher altitudes in such systems so all energy exchange that occurs between the planet and it's surrounding (sun and space) takes place at the surface. The temperature at the surface then has to be 255 K as determined by the energy balance set by incoming solar energy and outgoing emitted radiation. <br /><br />Best wishes<br />/MartinMartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375993223467646316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64701938467445240782015-09-18T10:21:39.965-07:002015-09-18T10:21:39.965-07:00The gravito-thermal effect is not dependent upon p...The gravito-thermal effect is not dependent upon presence of GHGs. I have an upcoming post (as well as prior posts) explaining why a Boltzmann distribution of a pure N2 Earth atmosphere would have a higher surface temperature than the present atmosphere (i.e. GHGs help COOL the atmosphere). Please see these posts (& Feynman) and check back for my upcoming post that clearly proves this using the lapse rate formula alone.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=boltzmann+distributionMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44640964197544387932015-09-18T08:53:07.358-07:002015-09-18T08:53:07.358-07:00The funny thing is that your theory actually depen...The funny thing is that your theory actually depends on greenhouse gases (GHG). If you would have an atmosphere of pure N2 then only the surface can radiate long wave infrared (IR) or microwave radiation. <br /><br />The N2 molecule lacks an internal dipole moment, hence it can not emit or absorb IR or microwave radiation since by fundamental physical laws a fluctuating dipole moment is required for interactions with or emission of photons. It could still emit very high energy light if it was electronically excited I guess but that requires very high temperatures. Green-house gases have the common characteristic of having internal dipole moments (note, it is not a requirement that the molecule has an overall polarity, cf. CO2) so they can absorb or emit low energy photons. These things are explained in fundamental physical chemistry text books like Atkins Physical Chemistry. <br /><br />So, for a planet with an atmosphere consisting of only N2 the surface is the only place from which radiation can be emitted at temperatures applicable to planets like earth, because the surface is on the contrary full of molecules or materials with internal dipole moments. <br /><br />If N2 was the only gas in earth's atmosphere the surface temperature would have to be the same as that calculated for it without an atmosphere, i.e. 255 K. No gravito-thermal green-house effect then exists, even though the atmosphere has a mass. There would also still be convection due to differential heating at the equator vs. the poles. <br /><br />It thus turns out that your gravito-thermal GHE is actually dependent on GHGs. Isn't that ironic.<br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375993223467646316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-65853891986679154772015-09-14T22:41:57.746-07:002015-09-14T22:41:57.746-07:00Typo, should obviously read "your arguments a...Typo, should obviously read "your arguments are nonsensical."MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-5276409859758751362015-09-14T10:23:43.799-07:002015-09-14T10:23:43.799-07:00"I have read Feynman, I disagree with Feyman&..."I have read Feynman, I disagree with Feyman"<br /><br />That pretty much says it all, and you're arguments are nonsensical. This will thus be the end of this conversation from my side. <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/feynman-explains-how-gravitational.html<br />MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64355406761333326482015-09-14T04:32:06.990-07:002015-09-14T04:32:06.990-07:00I have found your criticism of the theory that CO2...I have found your criticism of the theory that CO2 causes the GHE to be well written and convincing.<br />You also helpfully list many other theories of the amount and cause of the GHE, among them your own.<br />I am asking you to also be critical of your own explanation of the pressure and temperature gradients of the atmosphere. I appreciate your response.<br /><i>IDL obviously only applies to LOCAL THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM along EACH ISOTHERM, which is obviously DIFFERENT AT EACH GEOPOTENTIAL HEIGHT. </i><br />You have used “obviously” twice and the rest in capitals, which is shouting. This shows you are not convinced by your own arguments. <br />The Gas Laws, Boyles Law and Charles Law apply to mass of gas with a single pressure, a single temperature and a fixed volume. The atmosphere does not have these properties. The Gas Laws do not apply. <br />However the Kinetic Theory of Gas (Bernoulli, 1738) and Statistical Mechanics can be applied to any mass of gas in thermal equilibrium, such as the atmosphere. <br />There are not a series of local thermal equilibriums at different heights. There is equilibrium for the whole atmosphere, at least up to the tropopause at 20km. The measured pressure/h is a single continuous smooth curve.<br /><i>"Gas molecules do not cause weight because they are moving." </i><br />Ask your self, why are the crew of ISS weightless ( g at <br /><br /><i>The MASS of air ABOVE each geopotential height is that of the MASS of the remaining atmosphere ABOVE that geopotential height.</i><br />I know there are many tons, mass, above my head. But there is no weight. Solids and liquids cause weight, gasses do not. <br />P(h) = ρgh (7) density = m/v <br />pv =mgh The hydrostatic equation for solid and liquid not gasses.<br />Gas molecules in a gravity field causes the velocity of molecules to change, gravity cannot cause gas to exert weight.<br /><i> All of this is explained time and again in all the GHE posts and Feynman posts</i><br />I have read Feynman, I disagree with Feynman.<br /><i>how does my HS GH equation perfectly reproduce the troposphere on Earth and Titan without any GHGs or radiative forcing other than from the Sun, not GHGs?</i><br />Using your equation, P = e^-((Mgh/(RT)) (15)<br /> h = 10 000m, T = 50C from here (1976 US Standard )<br />http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/tableatmosphere.htm<br />I get p = 20 200pa compared to the 26 400pa in the above table <br />rogerrabbithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17717000945653083490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-10969145122663860162015-09-11T19:42:16.530-07:002015-09-11T19:42:16.530-07:00"You don’t refer to CO2 but your physics is s..."You don’t refer to CO2 but your physics is standard climate science and wrong."<br /><br />Of course it's standard meteorology known since the 1800's, but is actually CORRECT, not "wrong"<br /><br />I have created lots of strawmen, the opposite of what I've said, and then shot down YOUR strawmen. <br /><br />IDL obviously only applies to LOCAL THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM along EACH ISOTHERM, which is obviously DIFFERENT AT EACH GEOPOTENTIAL HEIGHT. <br /><br />"Gas molecules do not cause weight because they are moving." The MASS of air ABOVE each geopotential height is that of the MASS of the remaining atmosphere ABOVE that geopotential height.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but your reply is just too ignorant to waste further time upon. All of this is explained time and again in all the GHE posts and Feynman posts, etc. etc.<br /><br />Please read all of those first before wrongly claiming I'm wrong, and ask yourself the question, how does my HS GH equation perfectly reproduce the troposphere on Earth and Titan without any GHGs or radiative forcing other than from the Sun, not GHGs? MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-83505403848622534032015-09-11T02:47:26.514-07:002015-09-11T02:47:26.514-07:00HS greenhouse equation 01 09 15
You don’t refer to... HS greenhouse equation 01 09 15<br />You don’t refer to CO2 but your physics is standard climate science and wrong.<br />Introduction:<br /> Laws of Physics used:<br />1. Conservation of energy<br />2. Laws of Motion<br />3. Ideal Gas Law (IGL)<br />4. Barometic Equation<br />I agree with 1 and 2.<br />IGL cannot be used for the atmosphere as a whole because T is not the same at each part of the system (not isothermal)<br />You also use the hydrostatic equation (HE) without justification<br />The Barometric Equation is derived and is wrong in theory and does not work in practice.<br />1. Conservation of energy and the ideal gas law<br />What you do here is associate conservation of energy which is not controversial with IGL which is.<br />You introduce ERL, average effective emission level, not physical. The atmosphere emits at all levels.<br />2. Determine the "gravity forcing" upon the atmosphere<br />The purpose of this is to convince (yourself?) that gravity is causing weight.<br />You say “the weight of the atmosphere over 1 square meter of the surface is 10,500 kilograms”.<br />This is not correct. You have calculated the mass over 1 m^2 of surface.<br />This calculation was first made by Pascal in 1648.He can be excused but you know weight is not mass. <br />Gas molecules do not cause weight because they are moving.<br />P(h) = ρgh (7) I don’t accept. Air pressure is not caused by weight. Pressure is in all directions, weight is only down.<br />dP = -ρg dh (8)<br />Why introduce an infinitesimal? No need, not justified. My suspicion is that knowing pressure falls in an exponential curve the differential is introduced so we can later integrate and get the curve we as looking for. Do you have a better explanation?<br />The fatal flaw is here:<br />“We can obtain n/V from the ideal gas law: n/V = P/RT (10)”<br />BE is derived for isothermal T.<br /> Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1508.pdf section 2.3<br />Feynman http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=feynman<br />It is not then possible to let T vary.<br />US Standard Atmosphere calculator does not use the BE you derived.<br />http://planetcalc.com/938/<br />This uses your BE. It is 16% wrong at 10 000m<br />http://web.ist.utl.pt/berberan/data/43.pdf<br />I got this from one of your posts. <br />Page 4 section B.1 the exponential pressure gradient is derived using velocity and gravity, not mass and gravity.<br />We have known since Bernoulli, 1738 that pressure is caused by mv not mg.<br />Your analysis does not mention molecular velocity.<br />rogerrabbithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17717000945653083490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-67998973508826313382015-09-03T22:33:52.044-07:002015-09-03T22:33:52.044-07:00So very true.So very true.Alan Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-81315221175088375932015-09-03T17:16:21.736-07:002015-09-03T17:16:21.736-07:00Direct absorption of incoming solar energy by a la...Direct absorption of incoming solar energy by a layer off the surface of any planet does seek to break the rule but any consequent distortion of the lapse rate slope has to be negated elsewhere in the convective system by distorting the lapse rate slope in an equal and opposite direction.<br /><br />The stratosphere on Earth is similar but the distortion of the lapse rate slope by ozone's capacity for absorbing incoming solar energy in the stratosphere is then reversed in our mesosphere.<br /><br />Note the definition of 'effective' radiating height. It need not be the same as 'actual' radiating height.<br /><br />It can be higher or lower than the point at which radiation is actually sent out to space.<br /><br />Is there a region within the vertical atmospheric column of Venus where the effect of absorption by the clouds at TOA is negated ?<br /><br />Stephen Wildehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07357171106480483956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-29951023064999137812015-09-03T15:23:33.624-07:002015-09-03T15:23:33.624-07:00Venus is a unique case since >90% of solar inso...Venus is a unique case since >90% of solar insolation is absorbed in the nearly opaque cloud layer at the TOA. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-75064774553300622972015-09-03T15:22:21.529-07:002015-09-03T15:22:21.529-07:00OLR increasing not only 15 years, but the past 62+...OLR increasing not only 15 years, but the past 62+ years. Falsifies AGW. <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=van+andel<br /><br />MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50204276358004094532015-09-03T15:20:51.188-07:002015-09-03T15:20:51.188-07:00"Even an 8 year old should be able to grasp s..."Even an 8 year old should be able to grasp such simple concepts."<br /><br />Yes, as Feynman said, if you can't do that, then you really don't understand the science. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-62185225687238662392015-09-03T11:10:44.309-07:002015-09-03T11:10:44.309-07:00Take this hypothesis to an extreme case, Venus. L...Take this hypothesis to an extreme case, Venus. Looks to me like radiative equilibrium with space to that atmosphere is far above median mass.hanelyphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173046002862833762noreply@blogger.com