tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post543927683056337114..comments2021-11-22T23:32:17.443-08:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gasesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-14311763659741540482016-10-30T03:35:00.815-07:002016-10-30T03:35:00.815-07:00Luke,
I am using the adiabatic and barometric form...Luke,<br />I am using the adiabatic and barometric formula. Any atmosphere in any gravitational field must produce a temperature gradient or lapse rate, and as you said a Boltzmann distribution of local kinetic energies due to the force of gravity F = ma = mg. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-71897818522039273632016-10-30T03:23:43.022-07:002016-10-30T03:23:43.022-07:00I want to add that, by definition, there can be no...I want to add that, by definition, there can be no temperature lapse rate in an isothermal atmosphere. The relation T=T(0)-(g/Cp)z is derived from the adiabatic formulae. Regards, LukeLuke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-41533633239272695432016-10-30T03:08:55.240-07:002016-10-30T03:08:55.240-07:00Dear Sir, you should be using the adiabatic formul...Dear Sir, you should be using the adiabatic formulae? Your derived pressure lapse rate is for constant temperature. The principle is sound, however the adiabatic formula cannot have T = 255 at the centre of mass of the column of atmosphere. Although, I understand you have used the average temperature in the isometric formula. I am convinced that the +33C is due to gravitational redistribution of kinetic energies of molecules. I am still working on the problem in my own time. Observations from radiosondes actually give a better fit to pressure with height using the isometric equation you describe, than with the adiabatic formula, this is a bit confusing for me and I am still working on it. The radiosonde data I have looked at shows the average temperature (weighted by mass of course) of the atmospheric column is equal to the OLR measured by satellite - within a couple of percent. I got the OLR data from KNMI. I am looking for a more rigorous demonstration - i.e. resisting the urge to use the isometric equation - that can demonstrate the temperature distribution with height as a function of surface temperature, and account for that 33K difference. Kind regards, LukeLuke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90206660054161922812014-11-30T09:44:43.596-08:002014-11-30T09:44:43.596-08:00And here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/earths-a...And here:<br /><br />http://www.newclimatemodel.com/earths-atmosphere-is-warmed-primarily-by-molecules-that-are-not-greenhouse-gases/<br /><br />Published by Stephen Wilde December 5, 2012 Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63334014341531618822014-11-29T04:23:27.478-08:002014-11-29T04:23:27.478-08:00Its just that normally one assumes that incoming s...Its just that normally one assumes that incoming solar energy is absorbed at the earth surface (except from some reflection) and then warms the air above. Don't you assume that the incoming solar energy is absorbed by the whole atmosphere (more specifically by the center of mass of the atmosphere) and then warms the air and surface below? Otherwise I don't see how your "gravitational forcing" could work...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-3388964345465505712014-11-28T16:33:49.065-08:002014-11-28T16:33:49.065-08:00Yes, you're right. GHGs increase radiative sur...Yes, you're right. GHGs increase radiative surface area to enhance radiative cooling to space. It's analogous to putting a larger heat sink on your microprocessor, which cools more due to a larger radiative surface area (and convection). <br /><br />Additional reasons why this is true and N2 and O2 the true heat "trapping" gases are in this excellent essay:<br /><br />http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdfMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-42793958792863083322014-11-28T15:12:43.398-08:002014-11-28T15:12:43.398-08:00"In your explanation you implicitly assume th..."In your explanation you implicitly assume that the atmosphere absorbs incoming short wave radiation and not the surface of the earth."<br /><br />Completely false. This derivation does not include the solar forcing derivation, which is upcoming in my next post and definitively proves your interpretation is false.<br /><br />"Isn't the atmosphere transparent to short wave radiation?"<br /><br />Mostly, although there is some absorption by Argon which I've been told has some overlapping (weak) lines and a bit by scattering from water vapor droplets and a bit from GHGs too, so I've read but not independently confirmed.<br /><br />"And, you'll always find a planet's black body temperature (255°K in the earth's case) somewhere in its atmosphere."<br /><br />Of course, but these series of posts show the height of the ERL is at the center of mass of the atmosphere, because gravitational forcing, not GHG forcing sets the level of the ERL. <br /><br />"If you then take the planet's actual lapse rate (6.5°K/km) and extrapolate down to the surface, its just tautology that you get the actual surface temperature. You are not refuting the greenhouse effect."<br /><br />You apparently have not understood the point that the entire GHE and lapse rate are determined by gravity, not GHG RF. Please read my next post also for additional proof.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-41702478266462728392014-11-28T14:05:32.749-08:002014-11-28T14:05:32.749-08:00According to AGW theory, only greenhouse gases rad...According to AGW theory, only greenhouse gases radiate to space in LWIR absorption bands. What proponents of the theory seem to forget is that a good absorber is also a good radiator. According to AGW theory all other gases in our atmosphere are inert in terms of LWIR radiation. I would think then that the real heat trapping gases are the non greenhouse gases because they do not radiate to space. According to the theory here, how is heat energy radiated to space in LWIR absorption bands? I understand the idea of heat energy flowing up through the troposphere primarily by convection but how is the energy radiated to space?Will Haashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168168703004645972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-41692052018128313632014-11-28T13:18:30.741-08:002014-11-28T13:18:30.741-08:00In your explanation you implicitly assume that the...In your explanation you implicitly assume that the atmosphere absorbs incoming short wave radiation and not the surface of the earth. Isn't the atmosphere transparent to short wave radiation?<br />And, you'll always find a planet's black body temperature (255°K in the earth's case) somewhere in its atmosphere. If you then take the planet's actual lapse rate (6.5°K/km) and extrapolate down to the surface, its just tautology that you get the actual surface temperature. You are not refuting the greenhouse effect...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-75090409095479762352014-11-28T09:59:01.836-08:002014-11-28T09:59:01.836-08:00This may be of interest in that it overlaps with t...This may be of interest in that it overlaps with the work of MS:<br /><br />http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-gas-constant-as-the-global-thermostat/<br /><br />Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-73548482025942352532014-11-28T09:24:57.737-08:002014-11-28T09:24:57.737-08:00There are many who don't accept the mass/gravi...There are many who don't accept the mass/gravity induced greenhouse effect on the basis that although compressed air warms up during the pumping process it cools down when the pumping stops and so they think gravity cannot be heating the atmosphere via compression.<br /><br />What they miss is that the continuous arrival of solar energy into the system is providing a continuous pumping up of the atmosphere against the continuous force of gravity and so the necessary heat energy is being replenished constantly.<br /><br />In effect there is a closed adiabatic energy loop between surface and atmosphere which is maintained with its own discrete energy content for as long as the sun keeps shining.<br /><br />That discrete adiabatic energy loop allows radiative energy in to match radiative energy out indefinitely.<br /><br />Furthermore, the thermal effect of any radiative capability within the atmospheric gases is simply negated by an adjustment in the adiabatic loop (which involves conduction and convection).<br /><br />That is why the Gas Laws work with no term for the radiative characteristics of the atmospheric gases.<br /><br />Good number work from MS, by the way.Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-70915948098081237752014-11-28T08:31:33.788-08:002014-11-28T08:31:33.788-08:00Very soon, I'm working on one or two more post...Very soon, I'm working on one or two more posts first to further refine the explanation of the theory, then I'll be ready to send it out to whoever wishes to post it for widespread discussion. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-28279494177491481892014-11-28T08:09:18.027-08:002014-11-28T08:09:18.027-08:00MS, when are you ready to put this out on the open...MS, when are you ready to put this out on the open, like WUWT? It would be interesting to see such theory debated with a wider group of participantsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-36757014440936453992014-11-28T03:04:40.255-08:002014-11-28T03:04:40.255-08:00Thanks for all your work on this topic. I have enj...Thanks for all your work on this topic. I have enjoyed your posts immensely. <br /><br />~ MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com