New Theory of the Greenhouse Effect
Posted by Paul, March 8th, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
NASA linked Ferenc Miskolczi is a Hungarian atmospheric physicist who has published a new derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect which suggests “runaway warming” is impossible. According to Miskolczi, NASA refused to publish the results so he resigned in protest.
Fellow Hungarian scientist Miklós Zágoni was a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol until he read Miskolczi’s theory. Now he is climate alarmist turned climate realist.
The 40-page paper is entitled: ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres’
The Abstract reads:
In this work the theoretical relationship between the clear-sky outgoing infrared radiation and the surface upward radiative flux is explored by using a realistic finite semi-transparent atmospheric model. We show that the fundamental relationship between the optical depth and source function contains real boundary condition parameters. We also show that the radiative equilibrium is controlled by a special atmospheric transfer function and requires the continuity of the temperature at the ground surface. The long standing misinterpretation of the classic semi-infinite Eddington solution has been resolved. Compared to the semi-infinite model the finite semi-transparent model predicts much smaller ground surface temperature and a larger surface air temperature. The new equation proves that the classic solution significantly overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth perturbations. In Earth-type atmospheres sustained planetary greenhouse effect with a stable ground surface temperature can only exist at a particular planetary average flux optical depth of 1.841 . Simulation results show that the Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect with a global average optical depth kept close to this critical value. The broadband radiative transfer in the clear Martian atmosphere follows different principle resulting in different analytical relationships among the fluxes. Applying the virial theorem to the radiative balance equation we present a coherent picture of the planetary greenhouse effect.
Key-words: greenhouse effect, radiative equilibrium.
A very easy explanation is that NASA had technical issues with the paper and he simply spat the dummy. You’ve heard one side and you really don’t know what went on. A CSIRO Chief once reminded me that one publishes at the discretion of the organisation as a privilege not a right. This may irk some of strong independent minds.
In any case on Beer Lambert – is not the more relevant model the Schwarzchild equation?
ender:As I said if I am wrong then you should be able to show how much energy is absorbed at different wavelengths with Beer Lambert.
you can all you need is the the molar absorptivity for each wavelength for 15 micron it’s 20.2 m^2/mol for 4.2 micron (the other absoprtion wavelength for Co2) it’s 29.9, so have fun with it.
Gavin I’lee get back to you for now I have to go to work.
Jan, I can’t answer your questions. I never pretended this was my theory so I am wondering why you are demanding that I address your personal doubts. You are quite capable of researching this yourself. Quite clearly there a lot of scientists who have published material on the “runaway greenhouse” on Venus (there are hundreds of papers), perhaps you should find out why. If you don’t believe it, well who cares? Doesn’t make the science less credible. This seems to be more of an assault on my personal abilities than on whether the science is credible. I never claimed an ability in this. Remember it was the author who claimed to be showing it was impossible for Earth to have a runaway greenhouse – the big question is what is a ‘runaway greenhouse’? I brought up Venus, as it was the only example of a ‘runaway greenhouse’ that I knew of in the literature. The author doesn’t define it anywhere I can find, so the question remains, what did he mean?
So I answered you question, be fair and answer mine.
The author says there will be a 2-3 degree warming due to CO2. You have a chance here to demonstrate your maths skills. How much CO2 will produce a 2-3 degree warming?
Great explanation for believing the author! Good to see your sceptical skills are well-honed. Personally I have no opinion about it, and it’s largely irrelevant as his stuff got published. I certainly can’t fault the author, but it doesn’t actually seem to make any difference anyway, as he’s saying 2-3 degrees. That’s enough of a catastrophe for anyone.
Beer-Lambert is one way you can calculate the relevant optical depths in the Swcharzschild equation.
Jan, now I am sad. Now I will never know if the author was right… I need your maths skillz! Please help!
Speaking of crackpots in physics, here is one that AGW science seems to take as a given.
Evaporative heaters.
I’m sure this water vapor greenhouse multiplier would make for a lucrative home heating product, if it made any sense at all.
Evaporative heaters?
No idea what you are on about James. Downunder we have evaporative coolers and reverse cycle A/C also cooling towers in industry
Here’s what I am on about. Water vapor as positive feedback.
Since when?
It’s a cold March night here. So I’ll just slip on my evaporative heater and that should keep me nice and toasty.
Right?
Yes but the optical path length calculations are different and because of forward flowing radiation and backward flowing radiation the directionality must be taken into account. Schwarzchild’s equation, (no “s”) is the basis for computations of the transfer of infrared radiation
Jan, where’s my maths? Still waiting! Oh, maybe you’re actually working it out… Alright I’ll assume you are. Now I am getting excited!
James, using an ‘evaporative heater’ would work if the water feeding it was warm. But then you’d probably make you home mouldy and get Legionaires (sp?) Disease.
James: Evaporative coolers are an ass in terms of humidity. Making mist in the lounge room is hardly worth the “drop” in room temperature.
Re cold your cold March; cheap heat requires good insulation. Ever camped out in the frost? A pound of down is nice. If you can’t stand the outdoors find an apartment on the ground floor otherwise burrow down with the light of a candle.
Mr T I can’t answer your questions.
That about says it all.
What a waste of bandwidth
You can stop being fatuous now you can also stop making claims you can’t support.
where’s my maths?
Is anyone else having difficulty posting?
You couldn’t comprehend the comparatively simple Beer-Lambert calculations so please don’t waste my time.
Gavin: Did I have a problem with his use of virial theorm? That depends on our assumptions in thinking through simplicity. Some of it’s fudge including ideal gasses
Take a look at an early comment (mine) re his use of virial theorem here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=161&p=2939#p2939
Absolutely Gavin. I agree 100% that evaporative heaters are an ass. Likewise Hansen’s claims of tipping points due to water vapor.
It just doesn’t work that way.
Don’t you feel better now?
I mean whew (wiping my less worried brow).
Doom’s day averted yet again.
Gavin: I have wondered again today while reading up if it’s not more about spitting the dummy than science.
Here I am wondering the same about Christopher Columbus and his plans to sail out into the Atlantic against the advice of his Kings experts.
Gavin: I have wondered again today while reading up if it’s not more about spitting the dummy than science.
Do you think the same about Christopher Columbus and his plans to sail out into the Atlantic against the advice of his Kings experts?
You are right of course and so were the Portuguese King’s experts, and Columbus sailed of the edge of the world and America was never discovered.
Posting here remains a problem.
Jan: The whole front end of that paper seemed a bit too neat but given my three years of physics ended with large holes in short and medium term memories I need to avoid anything beyond a simple visual analysis. Besides; transferring all those functions into visual constructs and back again won’t save us from living with the realities of new events in space and time.
I can vaguely recall a comms lab prac week that started with students tracking the odd charged particle in a vacuum. We built a cloud chamber, amplifier and so on to prove a handful of laws. I have to say that years later after using much of the electro mag spectrum from DC to light our daily routines are more about plumbing than math. With background noise and scattered beams it all becomes case after a case of suck it and see.
A good tech negotiates the boundaries between theorists and practitioners.
James: Thinking about vapours and energy, two high energy devices that have intrigued me over the years, the “Hilsch Tube” and the “Steam Jet” see steam jet engineering etc. Playing with the big ones keeps you feet on the ground. Many www references.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=257
http://www.vacuum-guide.com/vacuum_pump/vacuum_ejector/vacuum_ejector_asia.htm
Local interest may include “flash cooling” designs for refrigeration.
Jan, you are precious!
Here were the questions you asked: “can you tell me exactly what the historical CO2 content is for Venus’ atmosphere? If you have this information what proxies were used and how were they calibrated?”
No one can answer those questions. No can show EXACTLY anything. I showed you a number of papers about the runaway greenhouse on Venus, dating from 1969 to 2007. It’s ludicrous to suggest my claims were unsupported. However the best part comes next” You couldn’t comprehend the comparatively simple Beer-Lambert calculations so please don’t waste my time.” SO SORRY for wasting your precious time… Did I make you answer me? Poor Jan.
Ok serious now.
You still avoid commenting on the results of this paper. The author suggests 2-3 degrees, I see this as essentially no different to the other AGW theories. Interestingly enough you claimed that CO2 couldn’t absorb much more IR. That there would be no more warming (I think you also implied it help to cool the atmosphere through convection). Now this is actually contradicting what the author claims. How do you reconcile that? Is the author wrong? Did the author not understand the Beer-Lambert equations? Seems you may be guilty of making a claim you can’t support.
As to the maths, I didn’t really need to see the workings, just the concentration of CO2 where total absorption happens (or even when 2-3 degrees happens).
Mr T,
No one can answer those questions.
Precisely but they are the questions that need to be answered before you or anyone can make a claim that the temperatures are due to *runaway* and not simply a steady state consequence of Venus’ proximity to the Sun, and an atmosphere with 90 times the pressure and now water
Unless those papers have the answers to those questions the whole notion of runaway remains unsupported. It’s a myth based on early fairy tales of a warm wet young Venus instead of a hot dried out old …
“just the concentration of CO2 where total absorption happens (or even when 2-3 degrees happens).”
Even this is nonsensical.
Gavin:Besides; transferring all those functions into visual constructs and back again won’t save us from living with the realities of new events in space and time.
No they won’t but the might help us to make better predictions about them and be better prepared. Might also help us to understand and realise when there is or isn’t anything we can do about it to change it.
If you are too lazy to work on it then I have to wonder why you are wasting my time and Jennifer’s bandwidth on it.
Gavin:Besides; transferring all those functions into visual constructs and back again won’t save us from living with the realities of new events in space and time.
No they won’t but the might help us to make better predictions about them and be better prepared. Might also help us to understand and realise when there is or isn’t anything we can do about it to change it.
If you are too lazy to work on it then I have to wonder why you are wasting my time and Jennifer’s bandwidth on it.
Jan you are a phoney.
No, they don’t have to answered. You can work out viable theories without ‘exact’ knowledge.
You keep evading the questions I ask, and pretend that the greenhouse on Venus is based on a fairy tale.
You can’t even say when total absorption happens? You were the one who said it would happen. Why is it nonsense to ask when it happens.
Jan: Since Jen’s bandwidth was a bit restricted (I wonder about that too), my post in reply was late however I did get over to your bit CA and got through all other the responses, Seems I’m not the only one who has doubts about the early assumptions and the mathematical grind following.
Although I’m just raising it now I also felt ripped off with issues swept under the carpet at surface level, sst v st, night n day differences of solid and liquid thermal mass with respect to equilibriums and so on.
What sort of an energy transducer has only one dimension? A d/p cell with one pressure tapping on a steam pipe with the other chamber vented to atmosphere. With a bit off water hammering it becomes a pulse transmitter hey.
In most technical work I got used to having at least two dimensions in planning. With radiation it was three. I never forget the lesson where a supervisor employed our hangar like workshop with its roller door up as a temporary daylight HF transducer / receiver. Weak signals direct from Asia were well scattered by the sun acting on the atmosphere by about 9 o clock. We had an effective black hole at low frequency and the signal came clearly over the earth’s curvature.
So much is skimmed over. There is a note somewhere on the internet about the 40% near IR spectrum that is not yet measured (by NASA?). I still reckon we need people from practical atmospheric science commenting before we hold it up as anything more than a clever bit of math.
In fact Jan could be the only one going along with it at this stage.
Doctor NG over at the sciguy blog blew my doors off over the Venus greenhouse effect the other day. Something about the acid clouds reflecting away over half of the incident solar radiation.
Sounded plausible to me.
I’m willing to concede that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
Mr T,You can work out viable theories without ‘exact’ knowledge.
I’m not talking about inexact knowledge but no knowledge covered up by pure guesswork and vivid imaginations.
Gavin:In fact Jan could be the only one going along with it at this stage.
Not even me what I said over at CA was that I’m not prepared to make judgement about the validity of the use of certain variables at this point in time. I’m sure you are also aware that I’m not fond the assumption that the earth’s surface is a black body. There are other factors I’m not all that happy with either but I’m also not prepared to dismiss it just yet either. I’ll keep working through it, but as you are too lazy (your own admission) to do even that why are you bothering to pass comment at all?
James if you now believe Venus has a runaway greenhouse, instinct tells me to change my position and not believe. Sorry Mr T – on the basis of this overwhelming empirical evidence we have to conclude that Venus does not have a runaway greenhouse effect. James’ opinion is worth at least 10x the views of our physics nurse and so we must concede defeat.
Mr T – “Jan you are a phoney.”
What Mr T you have only just worked this out?
BTW I now remember that the Climate Bunny had a few posts on this and used a Spectral Calculator here:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectralcalc.php
Interestingly enough the description of how they actually calculate the IR response is here:
http://www.gats-inc.com/data_processing.htm
“Level 1-2 Processing
This step uses transmission profiles, different signal profiles from the gas filter channels, and solar source functions from the solar scans to retrieve temperature, pressure, and mixing ratios of HCl, HF, CH4, H2O, O3, NO, NO2, aerosol and temperature versus pressure. The retrieval method incorporates a simple “onion peel” procedure stabilized at the top and bottom of the profile with a scalar optimal estimation formulation [Connor and Rodgers, 1989]. The forward model for the gas filter channels (HF, HCl, CH4, NO) is a rigorous line-by-line code which is necessary for the effective high spectral resolution of these channels. All spectral dependence, including thermal and Doppler shift effects, is explicitly modeled. Along-path mixing ratio gradients are also included in the forward model for the diurnally active gases NO, NO2, and O3.
The radiometer channels are modeled using the emissivity growth and Curtis-Godson approximations using correction tables. These models have been validated against a line-by-line transmission code to better than 99% accuracy, and they are extremely fast, allowing a vector implementation of the optimal estimation equations. Again, full thermal and spectral dependence of the instrument is rigorously modeled, in this case, through a large set of transmission tables.
Most major interfering gases are retrieved as primary gases in other channels. Non retrieved interference is minor (such as N2O in HCl) contributing <1% error. However, interference from the Mount Pinatubo aerosol layer causes a major effect on the radiometer channel retrievals below the top of the aerosol layer. We have devised a correction approach which is based on retrieval using the gas filter channels, coupled with a Mie-scattering model to determine the aerosol extinction at the radiometer channel wavelengths. This approach works very well based on comparison with correlative measurements.”
Perhaps you could give them a call Jan and set them on the correct path as they seem to be doing it all wrong.
Ender:Perhaps you could give them a call Jan and set them on the correct path as they seem to be doing it all wrong.
Perhaps you can show your superior understanding and show where the HITRAN data contradicts what I’ve been saying it’s all basic text book stuff noting really controversial.
For example: [ McIlveen, R., "Fundamentals of Weather and Climate", Chapman & Hall, (1992) ]
“the atmosphere is almost completely opaque in substantial parts of the spectrum… and the atmosphere is really very opaque indeed to the wavelengths strongly absorbed by water vapour and carbon dioxide and that a layer only 30 m deep contains enough carbon dioxide and water vapour to absorb all terrestrial radiation” [apart from that exiting through the 7.5 - 13 micron window]
Let me emphasise
30m deep layer is enough to absorb all terrestrial radiation.
what did I say? 15.5 m for only the 15 micron band then if you the 4.2 micron CO2 band that has an extinction coefficient of 29.9 m^2/mol it’s 22.9 m then if we take water into account I’d say it was right on the mark.
When the extinction coefficient is calculated for a particular line the curve is integrated over the whole line so all broadening effects are taken into account. What do you think a line by line integration does?
Jan, again all you do is deny that evidence exists. Yet quite clearly it does, given that have been over half a dozen missions to Venus, and an orbiter currently mapping it. To say that it is guesswork is silly. None of the data contradicts the Greenhouse hypothesis.
What do you think this means:
“30m deep layer is enough to absorb all terrestrial radiation”
What is your point with this?
Ender, I am a bit slow as Jan has noticed. And I was skeptical that he was a phoney at first (as a good scientist should be). But he has proven it to me. He still won;t back up his earlier declarations nor point out how this authors work contradicts AGW, nor whether his earlier decalrations contradict this author.
again all you do is deny that evidence exists
all you need to do is prove that it does you have already said you can’t so why do you keep on carrying on about it. I’m not about to try to prove a negative.
I have NEVER claimed this authors works contradicts AGW the author did that himself in the conclusion!
“Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming.”
Your are right though I am a phony I thought I had some skill as a teacher since I can’t apparently dumb it down enough you to comprehend it obviously those skills are clearly lacking.
You have been given the answers I really can’t make it any simpler for you if you still can’t understand it it’s not my problem. Gavin has admitted at lest that he is too lazy maybe he’s right maybe it’s really an executive function deficit – who knows?
Hey; what a hothouse! “a layer only 30m deep layer is enough to absorb all terrestrial radiation”. A very shallow layer indeed.
We had a proposal on ABC Quantum yesterday to beam down energy (microwave) from a solar farm in space however that beam was apparently harmless to life.
With my feet firmly on the ground I recalled RF in solids burns (final stage in mobile phones, induction heaters, microwave ovens, bodies warmed by radar etc) and a yarn about a worried family guy who regularly sat on his moderately powerful transceiver to hide it.
Scanning the literature on close exposure to radiation hazards was officially part of my many practical tasks in communications then. Amplification of particular hazards was another line of interest. Don’t stand in front of a dish or grab onto a long wire suspended in the atmosphere on an antenna farm or electrical substation. Signals and static both have a punch.
I note the above self adjusting argument pays scant regard to the cosmic ray theory on the Shaviv thread. We have the capacity to warm up one way or another, which way do we want it?
We had a proposal on ABC Quantum yesterday to beam down energy (microwave) from a solar farm in space however that beam was apparently harmless to life.
Bulk of it won’t get near the surface if 60 Ghz is used it will be perfectly safe.
As for the 30 M that is something that has been known since the 1700s and Beer showed that adding absorber only reduced the distance over which the same amount was absorbed a century later.
“I note the above self adjusting argument pays scant regard to the cosmic ray theory on the Shaviv thread.”
It doesn’t indeed it’s not interested. Just interested what the effect is in allowing for the fact that the atmosphere is bounded by gravity has on energy balance models, cosmic ray theory is just an unnecessary distraction. Louis has already made comment about distractions in posts here that I don’t think I need to amplify.
Jan, you keep waffling and pretending evidence doesn’t exist.
HEAPS of evidence for greenhouse effect on Venus, most notably it’s enormous surface temp and atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2.
“I have NEVER claimed this authors works contradicts AGW the author did that himself in the conclusion!”
Yes, and yet he apparently concludes that the max temp for CO2 is 2-3 degrees. Sounds like AGW to me. How is this any different to AGW? I asked you at what concentration this 2-3 degrees happens, you refused to answer (and have pretended you have answered my questions).
How do you reconcile that your theory (of no more warming and possible cooling from CO2) with the authors theory?
As usual you are happy for ANY theory which apparently discredits AGW to the extent that you will apparently accept contradictory theories (as Gavin just pointed out).
Mr T, “you keep waffling and pretending evidence doesn’t exist.”
All you need to do is present it to prove me wrong you have already admitted you can’t. What more can you say about that has any value at all?
How many times do you need that passage from the conclusion of the paper to be repeated before you stop asking me to explain he does not say in paper. Really I’m wondering what sort of idiot would do that.
“How do you reconcile that your theory (of no more warming and possible cooling from CO2) with the authors theory?”
Given what the author says in the conclusion “the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming.”
“My theory” coincides with his and DOES NOT NEED RECONCILING”
I’m a day off today yet you are making me feel I’m still at work. Do you not understand that there is no and can be no rational answer to such a question.
Jan
I sent you a bunch of links, and thay all showed evidence. You decided (for some reason) that they were arm-waving. That’s your choice, and is fine, but don’t pretend that there is no evidence.
No Jan.
Authors theory:
“the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming.”
And “Dr. Zagoni has used the theory to calculate an upper bound from CO2-based warming in the realm of 2-3C.”
Jan’s theory:
“So even though over the whole column there is no extra energy absorbed due to increased CO2, there is more absorbed lower causing more atmospheric warming over a smaller portion of the atmosphere. Now the warmer air is the more buoyant it is so convection will remove the heat from near the surface just as fast if not faster than with less CO2. ”
Can you see the difference?
Here, let me show you:
Author: “Dr. Zagoni has used the theory to calculate an upper bound from CO2-based warming in the realm of 2-3C.”
Jan: “Now the warmer air is the more buoyant it is so convection will remove the heat from near the surface just as fast if not faster than with less CO2. ”
You seem to be implying that there will be no warming. He implies 2-3 degrees. That is a big difference.
Mr T,I sent you a bunch of links, and thay all showed evidence. You decided (for some reason) that they were arm-waving.
No not arm waving but conjecture I’ve explained why so don’t play dumb about it and say I haven’t. All you need to do is refute the argument if you can understand it that is.
Dr Zagoni is not the author Dr Miskolzci is.
Can YOU see the difference?
Another difference you obviously can’t see is the huge one between the transition from zero GHG (completely transparent atmosphere) to one with some present(semi transparent atmosphere) (some would say it’s infinite) and the transition from some GHG to some more GHG.
I’m now off to Sydney for my little girl’s graduation.
Jan, come off it. You said it “I’ve read up on Venus and all I’ve seen is conjecture we can’t measure the surface fluxes and we don’t know the history there really isn’t a lot we can about it with any degree of certainty.”
That’s your great rebuttal?
What about this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6T-4M04J8S-1&_user=659159&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000035829&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=659159&md5=2cdde01ece79f33341fba9970a51c0ac
I say we end the Venus discussion.
Ohhhhhhhhhh ok, Jan, so if some guy takes his equations and uses them to get 2-3 degrees, he’s wrong? Yes, of course… So Dr Zagoni is wrong, because he did the maths wrong?
Why don’t you do the maths then? Show me what it should be, I asked you, remember?
You implied in your statement (and we spoke about it at length) that there would be increased convection that would stop any further heating. Or do you deny that? Dr Miskolzci theory apparently allows for further heating.
I also asked you at what concentration of CO2 you reached the limit of it’s effectiveness of absorbing IR, you refused that too.
When Jan returns I’d like him to consider some more study on the role of cavities (also resonators, waveguides, rings etc), in space and in our scientific devices.
The first job in all environmental measurement is to recognize all those natural amplifiers. Before we start hunting suspects in foreign lands we need a good feel for these well established pathways.
Collecting appropriate data can be difficult. Naive practitioners won’t feel the gentle pull of the divining rod in any study, neither will they catch a photon with pure stats however here is an empty jar for stage one.
This is practical stuff that should catch something zipping by at ground zero. Blow the math.
http://www.raquo.net/fine-structure/2007/08/your-cloud-chamber.html
I saw the light back in the 1960’s and reckon there is nothing new under the sun. Gotchya!
Stage two? Walking up to the window from the back of your room while chatting on the mobile – fringe area please.
We should find the spot for enhanced handshakes regardless of transducers and frequencies. Using the damn thing in the car could give you a headache and a hot ear.
“Extensive theoretical work, often augmented by computer simulations, has uncovered a wealth of new physical phenomena at the blurry interface between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds (BTW, I leave the scene about here), where classical theory may be chaotic and quantum theory is very complicated”.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_edpik/ps_1.htm
Give me a practical team anytime.
http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/research/MOPL/projects/
Resonating yet?
Questions arise regarding an “inhomogeneous” atmosphere, (IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine, AMS) and boundary values. Tons of undergraduate stuff
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e816m111330501v6/
Partial differential equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_differential_equations
“Partial differential equations are used to model physical phenomena such as heat dissipation, wave propagation, and stress. When the parameters for these events are homogeneous, i.e. the net boundary contribution is zero, and there is no source driving subsequent outcomes, then we use the method of “Separation of Variables” to analytically find solutions. However, in physics, things are not always simple. Inhomogeneous boundaries as well as sources abound in most practical problems. I will demonstrate a technique which utilizes the orthogonal properties of eigen-functions to find analytic solutions to these inhomogeneous PDE’s”
Quote: Major Tony Johnson West Point Mathematics
inhomogeneous PDE’s (clouds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhamel’s_principle
Mr T,What about this paper
Did you even read the abstract? The only surface flux they can measure is around 1 micron that atmosphere is opaque at longer wave lengths and you can’t measure the downward flux from 250 KM above the surface both these fluxes which it can’t measure are necessary for the type of analysis the paper discusses for earth and Mars but does NOT for Venus. Also I have explained why the non existent historical data is needed to show that Venus temperature is due to runaway I’ve made it as simple as I can if it went over your head I can’t help you. So yes let’s drop the Venus discussion.
I have no idea of what Dr Zagoni did or exactly what he is referring to we are not discussing his what is it a remark or a peer reviewed paper?
“You implied” perhaps you think that what I said would stop much further heating was the fact that there is no measurable extra absorption going on due increased CO2. This too went right over your head. When some idiot said that it would keep the heat lower down THEN I mentioned that convection and the slightly higher temperature would be stronger and would remove the heat just as fast possible faster. In any case the virial theorem should still hold – just to bring it back into the context of the paper that we ARE discussing.
Gavin,
I’m not too sure what the point of our last two posts is if you are not just doing a bit of irrelevant chest thumping you could go to CA to discuss chaos theory and quantum chaos theory. There are a couple who have done quite a bit of work in that area and like to be helpful. I did solid state, which tends to be not so chaotic so there isn’t much call for it those guys would be far better to talk to than I would.
Jan you said “We can’t measure surface flux”
This paper says there is a satellite doing just that. Now you change your mind and say it needs to be the downward flux. What I am trying point out to you is that YOU don’t know what other people know.
Look at what you said again:”I’ve read up on Venus and all I’ve seen is conjecture we can’t measure the surface fluxes and we don’t know the history there really isn’t a lot we can about it with any degree of certainty.”
You said we can’t measure surface flux. Well, apparently they can and are with the Venus Express satellite.
You own doubts about theories don’t mean they are wrong.
wrt 2-3 degrees
It’s in the comments, here let me guide you:
“I am the original journalist who interviewed Dr. Miskolczi. To the previous poster, who asked what bounds this new research set on the greenhouse effect, Dr. Zagoni has used the theory to calculate an upper bound from CO2-based warming in the realm of 2-3C.” Posted by: Michael Asher, Daily Tech at March 10, 2008 10:14 PM
Why didn’t you ask what I was talking about earlier?
So what do you mean? How much warming should we expect. If you recall I kept asking you how much heating you expected, and you still refuse to give a clear answer.
Do you expect more heating? If so, how much?
Mr T
“Why didn’t you ask what I was talking about earlier?”
I pointed out the remarks in the conclusion by Dr Mislozci IN THE PAPER WE ARE discussing or supposed to be in response and YOU DID NOT notice that YOU had changed the topic?
Now really.
“We can’t measure surface flux”
“This paper says there is a satellite doing just that.”
Yes and I’ve already pointed out that in the abstract it say for wavelengths around 1 micron it tells us nothing about the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs in its 3 vibrational modes the longest wavelength of that is 4.25 micron. Also incoming surface flux cannot be measured from 250 KM up.
I know you sometimes have difficulty comprehending what I write but I should think that what I said was quite straight forward.
“Do you expect more heating?” Not due to increasing CO2. I think i have made that abundantly clear by now. Like I said you have trouble with comprehension.
What is the upper bound of greenhouse effect on the Earth? You can imagine what will happen if it is as low as 105 Celsius.
We should name it greenatmosphere effect.