tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post6855439458074693990..comments2021-07-27T03:01:49.984-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The Greenhouse EquationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-66477547446280721002017-03-21T01:01:44.863-07:002017-03-21T01:01:44.863-07:00Unless you can include Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Ura...Unless you can include Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune for calculations of atmospheric temperature using this equation, it remains incomplete. For Venus, especially where we have good physical measurements of atmospheric temperatures, this is a MUST if you wish to fully provide a robust theory. <br />May I suggest that rather than working from the surface up, to make your calculations, you work from the depth at which equilibrium with the solar constant is found (or perhaps solar constant minus the reflected component of the energy) and then work both up AND down, with your equation. UP to find the mean radiating height to space of the energy absorbed at maximum flux lower down. DOWN because the ideal gas laws and conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy must still apply even with zero solar input. <br />Explaining Venus and quantifying conditions there will correct physics, is VITAL to fully falsifying the greenhouse effect/global warming dogma. Wicked Wench Fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05488208056875134837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-25286448933009260082017-03-20T23:37:43.592-07:002017-03-20T23:37:43.592-07:00False. Your comment is nonsense, and here's ho...False. Your comment is nonsense, and here's how you can tell:<br /><br />1. Of course there is no mention of water vapor or humidity because that is unnecessary to determine the atmospheric temperature profile and surface temperature. <br /><br />2. Duh and guess what, the wet adiabatic lapse rate is 1/2 the dry, which means water vapor acts as a strong COOLING agent, NOT warming!<br /><br />So obviously this equation is correct because it perfectly reproduces the US Standard Atmosphere lapse rate. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-37378184503102563522017-03-20T23:25:02.642-07:002017-03-20T23:25:02.642-07:00This is nonsense. Here's how you can tell:
1....This is nonsense. Here's how you can tell:<br /><br />1. there's no reference to humidity or water vapor in that equation.<br /><br />2. the dry adiabatic lapse rate is approximately double the wet adiabatic lapse rate.<br /><br />So, obviously, that equation cannot describe the lapse rate.ncdave4lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022815923433003840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-33127457815391469872014-12-04T04:15:52.295-08:002014-12-04T04:15:52.295-08:00help! am I right?: there is no explicit power to l...help! am I right?: there is no explicit power to lift warm air , but it is just pushed upwards by cold/more dense air, which is pulled downwards by gravity. then there exists Arbeit= work, that poduces warmth ,continuosly through gravity(that is what Heller denies!?) so there is warming by gravity-right? and: denser air has more molekules to be energised/warmed by sun. is that an explanation without equation?- or didnt I get it right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44649175876300782022014-12-02T12:08:44.134-08:002014-12-02T12:08:44.134-08:00It is implicit in my comment that the energy from ...It is implicit in my comment that the energy from the sun with which the density variation interacts is primarily from the sun warmed surface but also from any radiative materials in the atmosphere.<br /><br />Conduction and convection alone cause the greenhouse effect and radiative materials tend to weaken convective overturning by allowing leakage of radiation to space from within the atmosphere.<br />Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64141287892081102552014-11-30T10:54:52.318-08:002014-11-30T10:54:52.318-08:00"It is the density variation with height inte..."It is the density variation with height interacting with energy from the sun."<br /><br />Apart from clouds and stratospheric ozone the atmosphere absorbs very little incident solar radiation. The sun warms the surface which the radiates heat upwards. It does also conduct heat to the lower atmosphere which induces some convection. However the surface cools fastest through radiation.<br /><br />I have just written a post on all this<br /><br /><a href="http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6305" rel="nofollow"> The role of gravity in the greenhouse effect </a><br /><br />A basic Question: Is there a lapse rate on a planet with an atmosphere consisting of 100% nitrogen or argon ?<br />Clive Besthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10486120708699060846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-22994890401272297382014-11-30T07:50:19.299-08:002014-11-30T07:50:19.299-08:00" it does not explain the origin of the pheno..." it does not explain the origin of the phenomena described. "<br /><br />It impliedly tells us that origin.<br /><br />It is the density variation with height interacting with energy from the sun.<br /><br />The denser the air at the surface the more of the available solar input is diverted to conduction and convection.<br /><br />The rate at which density reduces with height as a result of the sttrength of the gravitational field determines the relative proportions of KE (heat) and PE (not heat) carried by each molecule.<br /><br />Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-87095007945329043552014-11-30T02:39:43.032-08:002014-11-30T02:39:43.032-08:00Well done !
Your formula works and I like it. Cor...Well done !<br /><br />Your formula works and I like it. Correct me if I am wrong but I think what the formula is really saying is the following :<br /><br />T(s) = Teff + (H-s)*LR<br /><br />LR = adiabatic lapse rate<br />H = height where atmosphere is half that of surface pressure calculated from hydrostatic pressure distribution. This is then assumed to be the effective height of IR emission to space corresponding to Teff<br /><br />I think this is a very good approximation to reality. However it does not explain the origin of the phenomena described. It is more of a phenomenological formula that explains observations. It does not mean for example that gravity generates any surface warming or for that matter that greenhouse gases are responsible either.<br /><br />The effective emission height being about at a pressure of P(surface)/2 is interesting. This is the height at which there are an equal number of IR active molecules(CO2) below the level as there are above the level. This makes sense as being approximately where outgoing radiation dominates over downward radiation from above. The atmosphere thins out exponentially above.<br /><br />To get a deeper understanding of the physical processes you cannot avoid doing a full radiative transfer calculation. People who tell you the greenhouse effect is obvious are lying. The details are not obvious as each molecule has a different quantum line spectrum.Clive Besthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10486120708699060846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-34866895691557128482014-11-30T02:11:03.562-08:002014-11-30T02:11:03.562-08:00The symbolic solution of the equation requires NO ...The symbolic solution of the equation requires NO such assumptions and is based upon dT=(-g/Cp)dh, where dT is a function of (-g/Cp)dh.<br /><br />Of course, Cp varies constantly at every location on the globe between the dry rate 9.8C/km and the wet rate 5C/km, and the observed global average temporally and spatially is 6.5C/km which when used in the numerical solution perfectly reproduces the global standard average temperature profile within 0.28C!<br /><br />Plug what ever value for Cp into the numerical solution you like, the symbolic equation and theory still holds and absolutely disproves the radiative GHE theory. You cannot have it both ways. Period.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-88817596884600322472014-11-30T01:31:49.072-08:002014-11-30T01:31:49.072-08:00It is not a mathematical tautology, it is a physic...It is not a mathematical tautology, it is a physical one! The temperature function in the troposphere is a straight line. By using the actual lapse rate of 6.5°K/km (your g/C, note that you put C=1.5 in order to obtain the observed 6.5°K/km) you just need one pair of temperature and height (or temperature and pressure) to entirely define the function! You do this by using T=255°K and P=0.5 atm, but you could actually use any other pair of values occuring in the troposphere! <br />I call it tautology because you use real data (lapse rate of 6.5 and T at a certain P) to derive a forumula to predict this same real data. In this way you can neither prove nor disprove conventional greenhouse theory or any other explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-60154703180176313792014-11-30T01:05:37.284-08:002014-11-30T01:05:37.284-08:00Ok that's the last comment I'm allowing on...Ok that's the last comment I'm allowing on this thread that tries to sell the repeatedly debunked radiative GHE, once again repeating the 2nd-law-violating CAGW nonsense that a much colder body makes a much hotter body 33C hotter. It's complete nonsense and I've just provided mathematical proof the CAGW greenhouse effect theory is complete nonsense, and the actual cause of the entire 33C GHE is mass/gravity/pressure not affected by GHGs.<br /><br />The topic of this thread is the equation above. Either state specifically where the mathematical flaw is located or agree with it, but I'm not going to further discuss the CAGW GHE nonsense on this thread.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86766869557084684692014-11-30T01:03:54.382-08:002014-11-30T01:03:54.382-08:00Sadly, you miss the point.Sadly, you miss the point.Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86550977246932031802014-11-30T00:55:22.903-08:002014-11-30T00:55:22.903-08:00GHG's radiate uniformely in every direction.. ...GHG's radiate uniformely in every direction.. so they also radiate back to earth, thus leading to more energy radiated to earth which increases surface temperature. Of course, the energy radiated to space is always the same (thus GHG's do not "allow energy out to space that would otherwise have had to be returned to the surface") and depends only on the distance between earth and sun (and of course the sun's power).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-62019348200686976692014-11-29T21:06:23.726-08:002014-11-29T21:06:23.726-08:00"blah blah...standard atmosphere calculator&q..."blah blah...standard atmosphere calculator"<br /><br />The greenhouse equation corrects for both density and pressure changes with altitude, and in fact the equation calculates the standard atmosphere within 0.28C at every single height from the surface to ~11,000 meters:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation-predicts.html<br /><br />"In any case, in your formula you basically can use any pair of temperature and pressure (altitude) occuring in the real troposphere and you'll always more or less calculate the actual surface temperature."<br /><br />False again. Wolfram Alpha does a simultaneous solution of T on both sides of the equation to solve for the one and only one unique value of the T on both sides, and can be used to produce an even more complex derivation as shown above that has the T only on the left side. That is how Wolfram Alpha simultaneously calculates both Ts and there is one and only one T for each value of the height (s). It is NOT a tautology, and Wolfram Alpha always notifies you if you have any tautologies and irrational solutions, but there are NONE for this equation. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-40060351435893525482014-11-29T18:35:27.454-08:002014-11-29T18:35:27.454-08:00"I also know that the luke-warmers will hate ..."I also know that the luke-warmers will hate it. :-)"<br /><br />Not only the luke-warmers but also the entire trillion dollar CAGW government-science-industrial complex, so I expect everyone to fight this tooth and nail LOL<br /><br />Thanks again Mark for your kind words and best wishesMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-46995823876054910012014-11-29T17:51:00.748-08:002014-11-29T17:51:00.748-08:00Willis, I have responded to your "proof"...Willis, I have responded to your "proof" and alleged refutations with a new post:<br /><br />Why the atmosphere is in horizontal thermodynamic equilibrium but not vertical equilibrium<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-atmosphere-is-in-horizontal.html<br /><br />Hope you now understand why your "proof" is a strawman that confuses horizontal and vertical equilibrium.<br /><br />-BestMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90382756870308618362014-11-29T15:29:25.287-08:002014-11-29T15:29:25.287-08:00GHGs allow energy out to space that would otherwis...GHGs allow energy out to space that would otherwise have had to be returned to the surface in adiabatic descent before being radiated out to space.<br /><br />That is a cooling process.<br /><br />Less energy goes back to the surface in adiabatic descent but the atmosphere has then risen less high so density is higher at the surface.<br /><br />Higher surface density allows a greater part of insolation to be conducted to the air which is a warming effect.<br /><br />Both processes cancel out.<br />Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-51920643766408260802014-11-29T15:24:00.274-08:002014-11-29T15:24:00.274-08:00"You cannot make a system (the earth) warmer ..."You cannot make a system (the earth) warmer by adding mass (the atmosphere) and leaving the source constant (sun) constant. "<br /><br />You can because more mass increases surface density which allows a larger proportion of the solar energy passing through to be retained and for longer within the conductive/convective process.<br /><br />That is why large gas planets get hotter than the Earth despite receiving less sunlight.Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-5895825859936585652014-11-29T14:26:35.581-08:002014-11-29T14:26:35.581-08:00"You cannot make a system (the earth) warmer ..."You cannot make a system (the earth) warmer by adding mass (the atmosphere) and leaving the source constant (sun) constant. You need the greenhouse mechanism to explain this."<br /><br />Ohh??? Please explain how Flagstaff AZ. is always so much cooler than other close by locations (Phoenix, Tuscon, Las Vegas, Death Valley, etc.). It is because Flagstaff is higher (6,910 ft.) in the atmosphere that surrounding, low lying locations (Phoenix [1,086], Tucson [2,389], Las Vegas [2,100]).<br /><br />Pikes Peak in Colorado is 14,115 ft. & 47 degF & Boulder, right close by, is 5430 ft but @64 degF. <br /><br />With weather patterns being basically equal, lower elevation location will be warmer than higher elevation locations due to atmospheric density warming less quickly than lower elevation, higher density locations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-87491549123479352452014-11-29T13:45:02.995-08:002014-11-29T13:45:02.995-08:00Well done. Adiabatic heating is a force to be reck...Well done. Adiabatic heating is a force to be reckoned with, as anyone who lives on the lee side of Rockies knows full well. We call them Chinooks and they can raise temperatures from -30 C to 5 C in a matter of hours.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01431191546043159751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-40148756745292467902014-11-29T13:43:12.951-08:002014-11-29T13:43:12.951-08:00Erm, why are you vetting it in the blogsphere and ...Erm, why are you vetting it in the blogsphere and sending to skeptical physicists?<br /><br />Shouldn't you have you should have it checked out by someone impartial?<br /><br />Surely there are people out there who know their stuff and could give an honest answer one way or the other? <br /><br />Personally, I have some a bit of experience with heat transfer in closed internal systems, but I wouldn't feel completely confident in saying whether you are right about this or have made an error somewhere. <br /><br />Someone can though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-32216649017402871022014-11-29T11:38:13.523-08:002014-11-29T11:38:13.523-08:00"There is no such impedance because convectiv..."There is no such impedance because convective overturning alters to negate the thermal effect of GHGs."<br /><br />What do you mean by this? "Convective overturning" does not "negate" the effect, it simply adapts the atmosphere temperature to the boundary condition which is the earth. So, as the earth's surface warms due to radiation sent back, so does the atmosphere (by convective overturning, as you say). No violation of the 2nd law...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-65306332050861855012014-11-29T11:30:26.121-08:002014-11-29T11:30:26.121-08:00"The adiabatic loop contains a permanent stor..."The adiabatic loop contains a permanent store of gravitational potential energy"<br /><br />Exactly, the atmosphere is a store of energy. But still, it is a store of energy just added to the earth, its still the earth's surface which is the origin of the atmosphere's temperature. You argue that the energy contained in the atmosphere (which we agree is constant) is warming the earth's surface by compression, which is simply not true. You cannot make a system (the earth) warmer by adding mass (the atmosphere) and leaving the source constant (sun) constant. You need the greenhouse mechanism to explain this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-62551472538373667212014-11-29T11:14:12.264-08:002014-11-29T11:14:12.264-08:00"Once one attributes the primary greenhouse e...<i>"Once one attributes the primary greenhouse effect to mass, gravity and insolation then any further effect from GHGs becomes too small to measure."</i><br /><br />Exactly. :-) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-1998315611905875872014-11-29T10:04:50.199-08:002014-11-29T10:04:50.199-08:00Water vapour does radiate without condensing out b...Water vapour does radiate without condensing out but not enough for it to lose its latent energy before it creates more PE than dry air would have done.Stephen Wildenoreply@blogger.com