David Appell says:
Sorry, but this is some really fabulous nonsense. Your numbers don’t even make sense: you interchange units of energy and electric charge, and write things like 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s which makes no sense unit-wise. And then for some unknown reason you take, I guess, the radius/mass ratio for the proton and apply it to the Earth???
[Snip]
[Reply] Take a look at Mathis’ papers on the coulomb charge and it’s equivalence to the Bohr radius, and the supporting papers he links there, and feel free to come back and tell us what you think is wrong with them. He has generated a huge corpus of work, a lot of which does seem to hang together. I recommend you don’t rush to judgement.
[Reply] Take a look at Mathis’ papers on the coulomb charge and it’s equivalence to the Bohr radius, and the supporting papers he links there, and feel free to come back and tell us what you think is wrong with them. He has generated a huge corpus of work, a lot of which does seem to hang together. I recommend you don’t rush to judgement.
==============
luckily some one with intelligence:
dp says: March 27, 2012 at 6:11 am
This is all so stupid. A plucked gem:
“This also proves that the Earth must be radiating rather than trapping energy.”
What – it can’t do both?
Someone asked me a few days ago if Roger’s blog was becoming a dumping ground for crank science. I didn’t have an answer but I hope not.
Keep it real, Roger.
==============
jjthom says:Your comment is awaiting moderation. dp says: March 27, 2012 at 6:11 am
This is all so stupid. A plucked gem:
“This also proves that the Earth must be radiating rather than trapping energy.”
What – it can’t do both?
Someone asked me a few days ago if Roger’s blog was becoming a dumping ground for crank science. I didn’t have an answer but I hope not.
Keep it real, Roger.
==============
Stephen Wilde says: March 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Because PV = nRT works.
=====
this is really PV=kT since n and R do not change
But then sin P does not change either (the mass of gas is constant although the volume varies so the pressure is constant
so you really have
V=kT
strange!
A question when atmospheric pressure increases is it always hotter?
[Reply] The N&Z theory is dealing with planetary scale quantities on a big time scale, not individual weather sub-systems within a short time frame. Anyway, no-one gets to post on my site with two identities so ‘jjthom’ and ‘thefordprefect’ (and any other sockpuppet) are now banned.
=========
And of course there was the Joel Shore thread where he was only allowed to post via Tallbloke:
tallbloke says:
More from Joel:
Anything as possible says:
“If nothing else, Nikolov & Zeller have ...
============
Well it seems that a load of sef congratulatory comments are being posted at TallBlokes blog.
I simple though I coud perhaps post some different views But this is not the case. Some never make it outside moderation and now I've hit a new form of censorship - a requirement to post in an irrelevant thread!
"[Reply] Read what I wrote! Repost this one on Stephen’s thread. Thanks"
Brilliant!
I repost with the request to repost intact. This was to ensure others did not think it irrelevant. TB edits this out - very clever!
These people then have the temerity to claim RealClimate are evil for vetting their bloggers!!!!
thefordprefect says:
“The discrete set of vibration frequencies of a molecule is called its spectrum; this is both a la Kirchhoff’s Law its absorption spectrum and its emissions spectrum. If the impinging radiation had to have exactly the wavelength of the discrete spectral lines there would not be much interaction between the radiation an the molecules.
The spectrum is modified by the motion of the molecules. The Doppler effect is the modification of the perceived frequency of radiation due to the motion of the molecule. If the molecule is traveling in opposite direction from the incoming radiation the perceived frequency of the radiation is greater. Thus if radiation were slightly lower frequency than a vibration frequency of a molecule the Doppler effect could bring about a coincidence with the vibration frequency of the molecule. If a molecule were traveling in the same direction as incoming radiation the Doppler effect lowers its perceived frequency and thus could result in the absorption of radiation of a slightly higher frequency.
In effect the lines of the absorption spectrum are broadened by the Doppler effect. They are also broadened by collision frequency within a gas.”
http://www.applet-magic.com/absorptionspectra.htm
The atmospere on Venus is 70 times earth What is the absorption spectra of H2O (@100ppm) and CO2, and H2SO4 etc.
http://www.sat.ltu.se/members/mendrok/publications/sagawa09_pressure_jqsrt.pdf
[Reply] TFP: Have you mistaken this venue for the spectrum line knitters circle? Spectra certainly need broadening, along with perspectives
thefordprefect says:
N2 O2 do not radiate, They can transfer energy to molecules that can radiate GHGs
During the day near the equator the actual radiation hitting the ground from the sun is of the order of 1000w/m^2
You suggest that this + gravity heats the atmosphere and gives you your solar/gravity/atmospherical temperature
Southern Great Plains:
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 300+w/m^2 during the day (note that the peak TSI is filtered from these measurements (The AERI-ER measures downward infrared
radiance from 3.3 to 25 um (400 to 3000 cm- 1) with a spectral resolution of 0.482 cm ^-1)
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 200+w/m^2 during the night
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf
In the arctic
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 140w/m^2 during the night and day
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf
You say you have allowed for the day time 1000W (and distributed it round the globe) to produce your theory – but what about the nighght time 200W/m^2 (this is constant and does not need distributing. The level falls to 140w/m^2 above the arctic circle but it is still there day and night.
This is a large error if indeed it is missed. If you do not believe in GHE where does this night time radiation come from?
My previous post pointed out a couple (out of many) research papers that suggest at 70 atmospheres the spectral line broadening of GHG absorbtion and re-radiation would be great. Couple this with temperature (motion) induced doppler broadening the trace gas h2o in venusian atmosphere, the CO2, The H2SO4, the SO2 must have a phenomenal effect on the rate that energy can leave the venusian atmosphere
===============
davidmhoffer says: February 11, 2012 at 4:50 am
thefordprefect;
Please explain where this night time IR is coming from if not from a GHG.>>>
It does come from a GHG. So what?
There are a variety of mechanisms that move energy about the planet. GHG’s are amongst them. Yes, you can measure given IR and conclude that it was emitted by GHG’s. The question is not if the IR was emitted by GHG’s. The question is, if the GHG’s were not present, what would be different?
============
Surely this is obvious - the 200W/m^2 would be missing. This is a continuous radiation 24hrs/day. This is comind DOWN at night. It has nothing to do with solar radiation at night. This is 200W more than would be there without the GHG. This is 200W more than N&Z have accounted for. So how can their calculations be valid?
It should be noted that GHGs do not suck energy from the earth BUT if the earth emits it, then a GHG could intercept and re-radiate it. This is what is happening
=============
davidmhoffer says
The answer is that unless the absence of the GHG’s changes the amount of energy absorbed in the first place, then the amount of energy emitted doesn’t change either. That being the case, T doesn’t change. What changes is where and how the energy escapes to space. If there is less IR emitted from GHG’s, then to establish equilibrium, there most be more emitted by something else. Its like one of those long balloon the clowns use to make animal shapes with. Squeeze it in the middle, the ends get longer. Squeeze is at one end, the other end gets longer. Squeeze it ANYWHERE and the air just moves to someplace else in the balloon. But the amount of air in the balloon stays exactly the same.
============
2 main things radiate to space from the earth. The ground, and GHGs (ignoring the inconsequential O2 N2 etc)Take away GHGs and the ground radiates directly to space. Add GHGs and the ground's radiation gets absorbed and re-radiated in all directions - almost 50% to earth. You have admitted that this is true "It does come from a GHG. So what?"
The ground without GHGs receives radiation from the sun (about 1kW/m^2) add GHGs and and another 200W/m^2 comes to the ground. The 1kW does not care that additional energy is hitting the ground nor does it care what the ground temperature is so solar energy hitting the ground remains at 1kW. The agreed 200W GHG radiation similarly does not care about the 1kW or the temperature of the ground so it adds to the total - the ground receives 1.2kW i.e. 20% more than N&Z account for.
in fact it is more than this because the GHG addition is 200W for 24hrs
================
---------------------------
Stephen Wilde says: February 11, 2012 at 4:52 am
“If you do not believe in GHE where does this night time radiation come from?”
Warm water, warm ground, warm water vapour, warm Oxygen and Nitrogen conducting to and from the ground and to each other. And yes a miniscule fraction from non condensing GHGs (which are also emitting energy straight out to space faster than could be achieved by other mechanisms).
Conduction, convection, evaporation and lateral winds around the world.
Open your eyes and your mind.
Get used to it. N & Z and many others are right. Perfect mathematical precision will follow in due course assuming they aren’t already there.
=======
warm water/ground emit IR upwards
O2 N2 have insignificant radiative properties
The instruments in the referenced documents measured LWIR RADIATION coming downwards Their measured output contains no directly conducted / convected energy
A simplistic view:
No GHGs no 200W coming down
No GHGs no 200W going up from GHGs
Some of this 400watts is coming from the ground some from hot air conducting to GHGs
If it were not for GHGs then the grounds portion of 400W would go directly to space. But add GHGs and only 200W goes directly to space.
The non-ghg atmosphere would loose some heat to the cooling ground via conduction but little via radiation.
//////////////////////////////////////////
thefordprefect says:
from thefordprefect says: February 11, 2012 at 1:29 am
[co-mod: Sure it is there. Now show the data for DOWNWARD pointing devices. Hint, nightside temperature inversions are normal including over the sea. I think you will find this is atmospheric coupling which is cooling when conduction and scour are failing. Is it forward or reverse at night? There is much more.
--Tim]
==============================
I have shown many times the upward/downward spectrums but from TOA and ground:
What is missing in the TOA is present in the ground in excess:
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/powerpoint/ch6_GP.ppt
The ground emissions do not change other than with temperature. so if 25C ground emits at 400 watts with GHGs present then a 25C ground will emit 400Watts with no GHGs in the atmosphere.
The difference is that an atmosphere with GHGs radiates 200W/m^2 downwards
In my books 400 W out + 200 watts in leaves 200 watts out. i.e. 200W less than without GHGs
===============================
tim
it forward or reverse at night?
===========
Are you suggesting they are measuring negative energy?
They measure LWIR which is coming in line of sight only they do not measure the ground emissions
////////////////////////////////////////
tallbloke says:
Back near the start of this thread I commented that I decided to ‘let the politics, the science and the bitchin’ mix up together rather than separating them (which would have been a moderation headache anyway). On the whole this has turned out well, with scientific discussion predominating, and most political comment has been kept general and non-personal.
....
All I ask is that that discussion is courteous, measured and considerate of the wider community.
=====================
noting the above will this every come out of moderation!!!?
thefordprefect says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ned Nikolov says: February 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Perhaps you could address my problem (which keeps getting unposted!)
Some measured evidence:
Southern Great Plains:
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 300+w/m^2 during the day (note that the peak frequency TSI is filtered from these measurements (The AERI-ER measures downward infrared
radiance from 3.3 to 25 um (400 to 3000 cm- 1) with a spectral resolution of 0.482 cm ^-1)
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 200+w/m^2 during the night
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf
In the arctic
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 140w/m^2 during the night and day
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf
The ground without GHGs receives radiation from the sun (about 1kW/m^2) add GHGs and and another 200W/m^2 comes to the ground. The 1kW does not care that additional energy is hitting the ground nor does it care what the ground temperature is so solar energy hitting the ground remains at 1kW. The agreed 200W GHG radiation similarly does not care about the 1kW or the temperature of the ground so it adds to the total – the ground receives 1.2kW i.e. 20% more than N&Z account for.
in fact it is more than this because the GHG addition is 200W for 24hrs unlike the 1kW solar
Thanks.
[Reply] Sorry TFP but it’s off topic. N&Z have demonstrated that albedo is a function of TOA TSI and pressure. So it matters not what the LWIR down flux is. Please discuss N&Z’s theory, not your LWIR beancounting, which fails to state that the net flux is up not down anyway.
thefordprefect says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
[Reply] Sorry TFP but it’s off topic. N&Z have demonstrated that albedo is a function of TOA TSI and pressure. So it matters not what the LWIR down flux is. Please discuss N&Z’s theory, not your LWIR beancounting, which fails to state that the net flux is up not down anyway.
===========
WHAT!!!!!
I thought this was a SCIENTIFIC discussion and you prevent N&Z from seeing my post
It may be garbage but should it not be left up to them to tell me why?
How many other peoples posts are hitting your biased deletions? You have the temerity to call out Real Climate
Wow Just Wow!
[Reply] You started this comment by quoting a timestamp of a comment by Ned Nikolov. I looked at the comment, and yours does not address a single thing he said in his. Moreover, your comment asks for help with your ‘problem’ but you don’t say what your ‘problem’ is. Your figures are meaningless becuase they don’t include the upward LWIR flux. It’s LWIR knitting circle gibberish. Feel free to take it elsewhere, because I’m not publishing it on this thread, when I’ve already posted the same from you on Stephen’s, where it has now been answered by MKelly.
I am preparing an answer on the NZ theory, especially on the subject of rotation of an airless planet. There they made some elementary mistakes. They modeled a nonrotating case and claimed rotation made no difference and called the remark of A.Smith(2008) a fallacy but I found with ease that Smith was right. The basic findings are at almost(!) zero rotation Tm=0,5Te
ReplyDeleteand at infinite rotation Tm=Te, the temperatures are converging(A.Smith 2008).
When I used the NZ methodology I found Tm>Te which is not possible so I knew somewhere there is a mistake and I traced an elementary one.
For a nonratotating case the solar flux(1362) and the deepspace flux(0) are added and divided by 2. The rotation case the fluxes are added only because this is a single process.
I want to post the entire report on WUWT and Tallbloke but until now no answer.
NZ also seem to have ignored back radiation, there are a couple of documents I found that show these measurements. It seems that the downward LWIR does not change much between day and night. This needs to be averaged round the globe but is certainly not simply spreading only the daytime IR as nz do.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf
From the first document is this measurement made over a few days:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9s3NXvQOhqo/TxMcOkS_Y9I/AAAAAAAAAOQ/5uDyaSI0_Ek/s1600/lw+downward+ir.jpg
The radiation on occasion is the same day and night!