What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

IT was probably the subsiding movement of the crustal plate, not any other factor.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7a7303477b10f8

[Boston]

once again you are off the mark completely G
one has to wonder if you are simply unable to admit the error in FM's paper
and seeking to engage in another argument completely

FM was kind enough to respond to my request that he correct the error and although he has refused to make the correction has suggested I just leave out mention of Herchhoff's law and ignore equation 4 if I have take issue with some part of its use

to which I responded

Hi Ferenc
thanks for your response
Im sure the apposing view might be getting tiresome and your willingness to correspond is appreciated. I can see that fundamentally you have a point in saying that what Kerchhoff is really saying is that in a balanced system energy in equals energy out and that the value or measurement system associated with that energy need not be constrained to a simple ratio, however that still does not explain why equation 4 does not add up to Aa=Ed when I plug in the accepted values from Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance and apply them to the equation. my bet is that Wm^2 was not held throughout Kiehl and Trenberths calculations but rather the ratio assosiated with Kerchhoff's law, which is why I believe there might be an error in your paper. Basically if the typical value is based on a ratio not exceeding 1 and if you alter the value on one side of the equation to represent Wm^2 then you would need to convert the value on the other side of any equation before you can draw any conclusions from the results or even expect a correct result

can you shed any light on why it is you have not done this or if so where I missed it

thanks again for your time
I owe you a beer
Dan

basically I'd like to see that conversions for the accepted values associated with the conditions defined in equation 4

I must admit your inability to admit that Kerchhoff is misquoted is a bit disturbing and leaves the readers wondering what you are all about

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchho...rmal_radiation

Kirchhoff's law states that:

At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity.

and from
http://www.rumford.com/radiant/formulas.html

Kirchhoff's Law

emissivity = absorbtance at any given wavelength and temperature

Thus "a good absorber is a good emitter" (which has to be true for the object to stay at the same temperature)

This can be expanded into the "common sense" equation that the total incident energy must equal the sum of the absorbed, reflected, and transmitted energy.
Energy = energy absorbed + energy reflected + energy transmitted

Kirchhoff's law is really just common sense: When radiant energy hits any particular material it has to do one of three things:

1) Be absorbed (a perfect black body with emissivity of 1 absorbes all the radiant energy)
2) Be reflected (the opposite of a perfect black body - a material with low emissivity)
3) Pass through the material (transparancy)

The energy of the raditaion absorbed, reflected and transmitted through the material must equal the energy hitting the material.

from
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/ph...hhoffs-law.php

Kirchhoff's Law

A body that is a good radiator (or emitter) is also a good absorber. To understand this, suppose isotropic (i.e., equal in all directions) thermal radiation is incident on a body. Let a be the fraction of the total thermal radiation of all wavelengths absorbed by the body. The remaining fraction is reflected (or transmitted). The dimensionless number a is called absorptivity of the body. We shall soon see that a = e.

A substance whose absorptivity is unity (a = 1) is called a black body. Lampblack is an example, but no substance in practice, is a perfect absorber. The notion of a black body is an idealization. A hollow enclosure maintained at a uniform temperature, with a small opening compared to its size and a conical projection as shown in the figure, is an excellent approximation to a black body. The opening acts as a perfect absorber. Radiation entering the hole suffers innumerable absorptions and diffuse reflections at the interior walls and has negligible chance of coming out. It is eventually absorbed fully, whatever be the material of the walls of the enclosure.

and again
from
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclope...rmal-radiation

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation

Kirchhoff's law in thermodynamics, also called e.g. Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, is a general statement equating emission and absorption in heated objects, proposed by Gustav Kirchhoff in 1859 (and proved in 1861), following from general considerations of thermodynamic equilibrium. (See Kirchhoff's laws for other laws named after Kirchhoff.) Thermodynamics (Greek: thermos = heat and dynamic = change) is the physics of energy, heat, work, entropy and the spontaneity of processes. ... Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (March 12, 1824 - October 17, 1887), a German physicist who contributed to the fundamental understanding of electrical circuits, spectroscopy, and the emission of black-body radiation by heated objects.


An object at some non-zero temperature radiates electromagnetic energy. If it is a perfect black body, absorbing all light that strikes it, it radiates energy according to the blackbody radiation formula. More generally, it radiates with some emissivity multiplied by the blackbody formula. Kirchhoff's law states that: As the temperature decreases, the peak of the black body radiation curve moves to lower intensities and longer wavelengths. ... The emissivity of a material (usually written ) is the ratio of energy radiated to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. ...

At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity.

Here, the absorptivity (or absorbance) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absorbed by the body/surface. In the most general form of the theorem, this power must be integrated over all wavelengths and angles. In some cases, however, emissivity and absorption may be defined to depend on wavelength and angle, as described below. The wavelength is the distance between repeating units of a wave pattern. ...


Kirchhoff's Law has a corollary: the emissivity cannot exceed one (because the absorptivity cannot, by conservation of energy), so it is not possible to thermally radiate more energy than a blackbody, at equilibrium. This has two caveats, however. First, if the surface is diffractive, so that incident energy at one angle is partially reflected to another angle, then the emissivity at one angle can exceed unity, but not the emissivity of power integrated over all angles. Second, if the object is nonlinear (e.g. fluorescent), so that incident power at one wavelength is re-emitted at another wavelength, then the emissivity at some wavelengths can exceed unity, but not the emissivity of power integrated over all wavelengths. Conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics) is one of several conservation laws. ...


This theorem is sometimes informally stated as a poor reflector is a good emitter, and a good reflector is a poor emitter. It is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are typically made of reflective material: they lose little heat by radiation.

in all cases Kerchhoff is calculated as a ratio
FM has altered this and does not appear to have justified the other parameters of the equation, therefor these alterations must be noted in order to validate the equations

they are not

thus there must be an admission of either misquoting Kerchhoff's law or a correction to show the converted values used in the equations and there results, which is not showing in the paper.

Thus one or the other must be corrected as one must be established as the common denominator in any calculation

the paper is seriously flawed

are you really going to continue distracting from that fact and admission with these semantic arguments

cmon G I thought you wanted to have a meaningful dialog about climate change

simply skipping from one lost cause to another only shows the readers an inability to to engage in a meaningful dialog

ps
Oreske's reaction to this exact same issue should be standing out right about now as a good example of how a valued scientist handles errors in a paper. She immediately printed a retraction and corrected the error whereas FM is apparently not willing to do so

why is that G

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

I find the pleasure of all that consumption and all the so called 'Comfort" not all that comfortable, when it means having to work 40 hours a week most of your life. Having to work 1/3rd of your life, sleep one third and only have less than 1/3rd of your life to yourself, while having debt hanging over you . Not my idea of luxury or comfort. There are not enough consumer toys in the world to compensate me for the giving up of nearly half of my life and freedom. If simple living has let me sleep in as long as I please, since my mid 20's , while listening to the traffic report to see how the lucky consumers are living , an do what I want when I want any time of day, that is my idea of comfort and luxury. Toys are no compensation.

A friend told me that beaches he used to lay on in the Marshall Islands are now under three feet of water.
I can't remember BC tides having ever been so high.

Hi Brent...whilst Boston and Guillermo debate the interpretation of the techical information available, and how it supports or ohterwise the theory of global warming [not really].... I find the cheer leaders on the warming camp much more inteesting to study.

The cheer leaders of the new funded Al Gore warming religion, are first of all very sincere and very fervorous. They are the official self appointed good guys, altruistic and forward thinking who have the good of the world at heart.

Much the same as the Spanish Inquisition who took it upon themselvs to go further than what was required by the pope, defenders of the faith and protecting God himself from witches and assorted sinners, the GW cheer leaders are imposing on others their view of the world. Directly or by elevation, we are constantly bombarded by this nonsense of sustainablity. A concept per se very valid but misused at nauseam.

My 4wd and my boat and my 2, 5 bedroom houses are "unsustainable" because some pseudo hippy prefers to rise chuks and have a strow roof and live off my taxes whilst he protests aginst my unsustainable acitvities and because the politicians use him very effectively to pass legislation that will tax us all. The wierdo in the straw house does not care since he pays no taxes and has found a reason for living. Annoying me.

Yet even if one, for some peculiar quirk of nature or nurture does not matter, choose to believe the fundamentals of GW, the idea of "unsustainable still does not make sense. By definition if something is unsustainable it will collaps by itself sooner or later so offer and demand will take care of anything that is un-sustainable. The current situation is far different. We must give up car, electricity, largess, and go back to retrograde, and mediocre because the "believers" say so. It is the inquisition all over and at world wide scale.
If eventually we all have to go back to caves and eat raw meat, so be it, but I will be the last one in the cave and the first one out as soon as I have figured out how to get another fire going.

Until then, cheer leaders of Global Warming my foot... leave me alone if you enjoy raw meat and wet caves and stop trying to guilt trip whoever does not believe in your particular religion.

[Guillermo]

"....why equation 4 does not add up to Aa=Ed when I plug in the accepted values from Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance and apply them to the equation...."

Have you really done that? Can you show us?

[Guillermo]

Let me refer to Miskolczi's paper http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf following Stockwell.

See Fig. 1 (attached).

We need to get to Aa = Ed to obtain Kirchhoff law in the atmosphere.

In section 4.2 (eqn 21) Miskolczi derives a general solution temperature profiles for both the semi-infinite and semi-transparent case assuming radiative balance in a bounded atmosphere. When the optical path length is infinite eqn 21 reduces to the semi-infinite case.

His eqn 28, Su=OLR/f, derived from eqn 21 for high emissivity and opaque areas is superficially similar to Su=2OLR/3 (eqn 8) derived earlier assuming energy balance and Kirchhoff. But Su=2OLR/3 is an overall energy balance requirement (not IR). In eqn 28 "f" is a function of the optical path length "τ":

f(τ)=2/(1 + τ + exp(-τ))

This function partitions the surface upward radiation into OLR by optical depth. For example, at the top of atmosphere, τ=0 and f(τ)=1. These two are not necessarily equal.

Miskolczi splits up outgoing LW radiation OLR to get an expression for Eu using two processes:

1. Su * f which is the part of surface radiation Su converted from solar SW radiation Fo to OLR
2. Su * Ta which is the transmitted part of the surface radiation

Then:

Su * f = Su * Ta+Eu as (OLR = Su* Ta + Eu)
Eu = Su * f – Su * Ta

Miskolczi argues that the difference above is the contribution to the OLR from energy processes not related to LW absorption, ie. from absorption of SW in the atmosphere F and from convection and other non-radiatiative surface processes K.

Therefore Eu = F + K.

He then substitutes the above into the surface balance equation.

Fo + Ed – F – K – Aa – St = 0
St + Eu + Ed – F – K – Aa – St = 0 (as Fo = St + Eu)
St + F + K + Ed – F – K – Aa – St = 0 (as Eu = F + K)

and obtains Ed = Aa by cancellation.



Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Atmospheric profiles translated into IR spectra

The attached figures are taken from Ferenc Miskolczi, and are examples of typical IR spectra decomposed in the relevant heat fluxes. A very warm climate, and a very cold one. The x-axis is the wavelength expressed as the number of wavelengths per cm, as usual in IR spectroscopy. The list of decomposed heat fluxes is:

SU is the blackbody radiation from the surface upwards. Light blue line. A continuous spectrum because the ground is solid, or liquid sea surface.
ED is the long wave downward radiation from the atmosphere to the ground.
OLR is the sum of the heat fluxes ST and EU into space
ST is the heat flux radiated through the IR window and through other partially transparent parts of the atmosphere, from the ground directly to space
EU is the heat flux from the atmosphere itself into space.

First figure:
Around 650/cm lies the major absorption of CO2. EU is very much hindered there. The back radiation ED, is here large, almost as large as the upwelling radiation SU.
Kiehl-Trenberth is the scheme most used in the standard theory. Such schemes do not compare with measurements, because they are modified to be also 100% correct radiation budgets. Local profiles do not have to be conforming an energy budget, because there is also a large horizontal convective heat transfer. FM does not depart from schemes at all, he uses atmospheric profiles that are measured, and converted on a straightforward method into radiation heat fluxes. We see that the standard K-T scheme has a large deviation from the measured profiles that have a much higher flux in the IR window.


Second figure:
In the second figure we are in Antarctica. There it is 232.2 K of -41.2 °C cold, we see that the sharp molecular line at 650/cm of CO2 in a climate that is cold enough to exclude almost all water vapor, extending even above the continuous spectrum of the snow. We see even the Ozone peak, around 1000/cm, in this dry climate.
In both graphs we see the profiles where they are derived from. CO2 is not indicated because the concentration is the same everywhere. The adiabat is clearly visible, 110K/15 km=7.3K/km in the first, and 70 K/10 km in the second graph. We see that even in the polar climate, we have less than the dry adiabat.

Reference: Dr. Ir. E. van Andel's analyisis of FM Principle.

[Guillermo]

More: See attached figure.

In this graph we see the heat fluxes upward and downward as a function of height. At 1000 hectopascal we are on the surface. The scheme is a good illustration of the unphysically strong discontinuities assumed at the surface by the standard theories. These are the reason for the apparent large influence of extra greenhouse gases. In Miskolczi's theory there is no such discontinuity. This discontinuity arouses from boundary conditions used in solving the Eddington equation, taken from the conditions in the Sun. There we have no surface, there we have an infinite atmosphere, so the solution takes the form: ORL=2/[1+τA]•SA for the lowest atmospheric layer, and in the standard theory ORL=2/[2+τA]•SU for the liquid or solid surface. In the FM theory SA = SU = SG and is ORL=2/[1+τA+TA]•SU. This the essential difference between the standard theory and that of Miskolczi.


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

And to finalize this assault:

1.- It is clear that present radio sonde and satellite measurements do not support the standard theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. The new theory of Miskolczi, based on those atmospheric profiles under very different circumstances, does support those empirical results. His theory contains no parameters that are “fitted” to historic climate trends and greenhouse gas concentration trends. The only thing that is different, is that other, more experimentally founded, boundary conditions are taken in solving the differential equations describing radiation equilibrium:
i. Infrared Radiation equilibrium between surface and atmosphere
ii. Partly infrared transparent atmosphere.
The result indicates that the atmosphere chooses an optical thickness, by water vapor take-up or release, that ensures the maximum Outgoing Long wave Radiation globally for a cloudy atmosphere.

2.- Measurements of the oscillating weather patterns in the tropical Pacific show indeed that the climate controls itself, by changes in the water content of the air, and so by changing cloud cover and cloud height.

3.- Measurements of troposphere heating, predicted by the standard theory as a consequence of the greenhouse gas increase, for period 1979-1999 contradict it by measuring a global cooling instead.


REALITY, tojours REALITY

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

Now that we are done with Glaciergate, let's get back to earth, sea level actually. In a new screw up by the IPCC made public recently. It was found that the IPCC used data that proclaimed 55% of the Netherlands below sea level and used that data to buttress their inundation dogma as it relates to warming. Turns out the data was wrong, go figure. As they often do the IPCC used overlapping data, subterfuge, sloppiness and pure stupidity to come up with the 55% figure. Seems that the reality is that just 20% is under sea level, the same figure for over a generation and no cause for alarm if you understand the poulder system in the Netherlands. Seems that the Dutch Minister for the Environment, Jacqueline Cramer had the temerity to challenge the numbers in the IPCC's AR4. Several members of the Dutch parliament are calling for an investigation into the fabrication of the 55% number. This 55% number is just as bogus as the 97% number Boston keeps throwing out there hoping it will be accepted through osmosis. Just another example of the junk science by the "real scientists" of the AGW Alarmist KoolAid Club.


http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/er...nes-trust-ipcc

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

"....why equation 4 does not add up to Aa=Ed when I plug in the accepted values from Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance and apply them to the equation...."

Have you really done that? Can you show us?

distractions distractions tsk tsk tsk
I would be more than happy to enter into a conversation concerning equation 4 once we are able to come to grips with the misquote of Kerchhoff's law
page 5 paragraph 5

as I said there is little point in meaningful dialog unless we are willing to admit when an error has been discovered

I believe I showed numerous examples where Kerchhoff's law concerning black body models is clearly written in terms of emissivity and is written as a ratio

the values I used in equation 4 are from a previous paper often cited in regards to the values of atmospheric parameters referred to in my last as
Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance and used in a previous post to do exactly what you suggest, show you the figures and that they do not add up

Im sure you just missed it in the rush to move past these sticky points and on to something, you might be able to prove accurate about the paper

obviously you have been putting a lot of time into this and I appreciate your willingness to dive into the issue however it would be important to take one step at a time rather than just skip the issues this paper has for the issues this paper hasn't

if you care to look it will be obvious that Kerchhoff's law concerning black body modeling is written incorrectly with the term emission in place of emissivity

then we can discuss eq 4 not adding up once the numbers from Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance are used.

once we can come to grips with the error on page 5 paragraph 5 then we can move on

I would also remind you that this paper failed to get past numerous review panels before it was finally accepted in a rather obscure journal with what has been described as very limited resources to apply to the review process.

always my best regards
B

[Guillermo]

Scatterbrain Boston: I have been posting precisely about equation 4, as you name it. Don't you realize? Please read carefully my posts and think a little bit before posting. I know it's difficult for you, but try, please. How difficult is to come into a hard brain, my God!

[Guillermo]

Let's relax and laugh a little bit. This is funny



Cheers.

[Boston]

ya I skimmed your many posts for an admission of error on page 5 paragraph 5 of FM's paper but didnt see one
I did note a very lengthy attempt to justify equation 4 without actually plugging any values into it though and saw right through it
nice touch by the way
baffle em with bs seems the order of he day

and I note your still working on not admitting page 5 paragraph 5 is not obviously misquoting Kerchhoff's law

so at the risk of boring our readers Ill repeat for you what has already been determined concerning eq 4 and then imediately move back on subject concerning the misquote of Kerchhoff's law and why its a fundamental error within the FM's paper

by the way Hart 1979 a famous paper with countless citations ( Im still not sure FM's work has even one that is not from himself ) has the IR optical depth at 2.49 and not global average tau that FM is using

basically
there is a reason this paper is being ignored
and why it was rejected so many times
and why it was handed to panel after panel rather than suffer the potential embarrassment of a standing defense

repeating from post #4476

Miskolczi's equation (4) is:

AA = SU A = SU(1-TA) = ED

where

AA = Amount of flux Absorbed by the Atmosphere
SU = Upward blackbody longwave flux = sigma Ts^4
A = “flux absorptance”
TA = atmospheric flux transmittance
ED = longwave flux downward

These are simple identity definitions. I do wonder why Miskolczi used the upward blackbody longwave for the amount emitted by the ground when he should have used the upward graybody longwave — he’s allegedly doing a gray model, after all. Apparently he forgot the emissivity term, which is about 0.95 for longwave for the Earth. One more hint that he doesn’t really understand the distinction between emission and emissivity.

Note that he seems to be saying the downward flux from the atmosphere (ED) must be the same as the total amount of longwave absorbed by the atmosphere (AA).

The total inputs to Miskolczi’s atmosphere are AA, K, P and F, which respectively stand for the longwave input from the ground, the nonradiative input (latent and sensible heat) from the ground, the geothermal input from the ground, and the solar input. P is negligible and I don’t know why he even puts it in here unless he’s just trying to be complete. He’s saying, therefore, if you stay with conservation of energy, that

AA + K + F = EU + ED

Now, from Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance, the values of AA, K, and F would be about 350, 102, and 67 watts per square meter, respectively, for a total of 519 watts per square meter. EU and ED would be 195 and 324, total 519, so the equation balances.

But for Miskolczi’s equation (4) to be true, since AA = ED, we have

K + F = EU

That is, the sum of the nonradiative fluxes and the absorbed sunlight should equal the atmospheric longwave emitted upward. For K&T97, we have 102 + 67 = 195, or 169 = 195, which is an equation that will get you a big red X from the teacher.

There is no reason K + F should equal EU, therefore Miskolczi’s equation (4) is wrong.

it seems reasonable if you want to discuss equation 4 to maybe mention equation 4 in your posts and to actually plug in the accepted values
that way you can see clearly it does not compute

I wrote this finding to FM just about 24 hrs ago but have yet to hear back from him.

once we can come to grips with these two errors there is another rather glaring error we can discuss if you like or maybe we can at that point just admit that the paper has errors and that five years on its still being ignored for these reasons and likely others we have yet to touch on

cheers
B

[Boston]

G its ok to admit there is an error in this paper

1. Miskolczi claims "According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts..." [Miskolczi 2007 page 5 paragraph 5].


In fact, Kirchhoff's Law states that for a body in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at a given wavelength.

Miskolczi confuses emission with emissivity.

The two having very large numerical differences
This can lead to large numerical errors, since emissivity is of course constrained to the range 0 - 1 by definition, but emission can have any nonnegative value, and is typically in the hundreds of watts per square meter for low levels of atmosphere.

no one is going to jump up an down and gloat like a five year old like what happened to me over in the DDWFTTW page when I learned a few things the hard way
happens to everyone and its just the adult thing to do to admit error
basically if your not challenging your understanding of things your probably not learning much
error is an integral part of the learning process
not something to be feared

FM misquoted Kerchhoff's law plain and simple

[Guillermo]

Boston:

Do you think that if Miskolczi has commited an obvious “error de fondo” (how can I say this in english?) somebody in the scientific camp would have popped inmediately up falsifying his work? But NOBODY has. Why?

I don't think Miskcolczi confounds emissivity and emission at all. To keep on repeating that and enter a bizantinic discussion about it is futile and malicious, in my opinion.

Kirchoff Law: “At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity a body (or surface) equals its absorpsivity” But, what are the meanings of “emissivity” and “absorptivity” in this case?

FM states (page 5 paragraph 5) :
"According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts, therefore, the thermal energy of either system can not be changed."

This is an extension of Kirchhoff law which doesn’t falsify results. The IR emitted down by the atmosphere equals the IR absorbed and Kirchoff law is obtained from radiative balance and energy balance at the surface. This is what is important.

Finally,
About the Eu = F + K thing, let's re-read again one of my previous posts which you seem to have missed:

"Eu = Su * f – Su * Ta
Miskolczi argues that the difference above is the contribution to the OLR from energy processes not related to LW absorption, ie. from absorption of SW in the atmosphere F and from convection and other non-radiatiative surface processes K. Therefore Eu = F + K."

Of course you and your AGW bunch have also missed the small detail that K&T97 scheme has not negligible errors in the amount of W/m2 for St, because they are modified to be 100% correct radiation budgets. Just an approximate scheme, not the word of God (Post 4493).

If you want to learn more about Miskolczi’s work you may read this: http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/do...d=introduction

And about FM application of Kirschhoff Law, this:
http://landshape.org/enm/kirchhoff-l...kolczi-part-3/


Cheers.