|
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey All,
Just a quick note in regards to the recent paper published in Hungry regarding the radiative transfer balance of the Earths Atmospheric gases versus Solar insolation input to the Earth's surface. http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
Granted this study may be dismissed as it could be by a disgruntled individual or that it only was published in a non-globally recognized publication. However, it seems to have some legs, based on my cursory review. This study seems to address some of the concerns I was trying to communicate with cba (Charles) in regards to the radiative models. I also like seeing the indication of the various boundaries that should be associated with ideal gases and the function of density and pressure when we look at the moist adiabatic processes.
For the first time it appears that both a spectral, and time dimension offsets are included in the calculations. Most of the calculations are a bit more complex then the current sets we have seen experimented with here. It would seem that for the first time the application of a higher definition of the various climate warming processes are being addressed. It remains to be seen whether or not a 200 year old basis for heat flow dynamics in a gaseous environment will need modification.
Dave Cooke |
|
| |
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | ldavidcooke - 10/3/2008 04:57 Hey All, Just a quick note in regards to the recent paper published in Hungry regarding the radiative transfer balance of the Earths Atmospheric gases versus Solar insolation input to the Earth's surface. http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf Granted this study may be dismissed as it could be by a disgruntled individual or that it only was published in a non-globally recognized publication. However, it seems to have some legs, based on my cursory review. This study seems to address some of the concerns I was trying to communicate with cba (Charles ) in regards to the radiative models. I also like seeing the indication of the various boundaries that should be associated with ideal gases and the function of density and pressure when we look at the moist adiabatic processes. For the first time it appears that both a spectral, and time dimension offsets are included in the calculations. Most of the calculations are a bit more complex then the current sets we have seen experimented with here. It would seem that for the first time the application of a higher definition of the various climate warming processes are being addressed. It remains to be seen whether or not a 200 year old basis for heat flow dynamics in a gaseous environment will need modification. Dave Cooke Dave, I know I'm not exactly Albert Einstein when it come to physics but, otoh, I think I do have at least a modest graps of the principles. If (and it's a bloomin' great if) this chap has made a new discovery (and he's trying to talk to normal people rather than his cohorts), he needs to write it down in way normal human beings, or even fairly well educated human beings can understand. I think what he's written is either wrong or gobbledgook - maybe both. Otoh, I find what he writes so inpenetrable I not even sure I'm right about that! I do think there is something else that does become clearer. It's perhaps a new physical 'law' which goes something like this: 'The more complex a paper posted on the internet is, especially one which claims it overturns a accepted tested scientific understanding, then the less likely it is right'.
|
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey All;
Just as a heads up, I took a little closer review of the study. The main point I walk away with is, though there may be adiabatic flux the effect is local or regional as any increase of water vapor in one zone should demonstrate a decrease in water vapor in another zone. This actually begins to describe why we are observing the increase in drought coupled with an increase in flooding in isolated spots. This effect goes a long way to resolving the apparent "Irising" effect that has been predicted by others.
Secondarily, we have the issue of LTE according to the study as we see a imbalance locally or regionally the global exchange should be balanced for a constant input and blackbody radiative surface (if you accept that the internal temperature radiating from the earth is functionally zero). In truth the earths black body does have a significant temperature above zero without the solar input. Hence, I believe this analysis starts to lose validity at this point. When we go further into the paper we begin to see where the author suggests that the shortwave energy conversion appears to be occurring higher in the atmosphere and the earth is a recipient of the converted longwave energy instead. The problem with this assumption is that there is clear evidence of an increase of short wave energy content both in measurement (Empirically; when comparing the photo reactive paper processing of 50 years ago versus 30 years ago.) by instrument and by recent discoveries of a reduction of biologic processes in the top meter of the ocean.
That NOAA has recently released a suggestion that the increase of the Dead Zones in the oceans are more related to surface temperature and the restriction of ocean column nutrients caused by increased surface winds seems appropriate. They are clearly disregarding the additional influence that the high levels of UV can have on the top oceanic layer (@3 meters) biologic processes when the overhead ozone levels change from an average of 320 Dobson Units (DU) to an average of 220 DU. The addition of greater the 1 Watt of UV in the sub- tropic region would be an increase of nearly 1/16th of the original values noted in the early 1970's. This amount could easily be coupled to the increase in surface water temperature and the reduction of biologic processes of the top 3 meters of the oceans.
What confuses me is why this is not broached. It is almost like there is a desire to distance the indicated observations away from the evidence on the concern that this would open the producers and inventors of CFC gases to torts. Given that the effect is valid I could see where this is a good possibility; however, the global political body bought into the use of CFCs and in essence the introduction of CFCs has actually preserved more lives then the small 0.6 Deg. C temperature increase could ever cause.
If the natural systems are beginning to rebalance and the Stratospheric Ozone is beginning to return to former levels then it may be possible that the threat of GW should begin to dissipate. It may require some Terrestrial-Engineering to re-establish the former biologic processes faster; however, I do not know that the temporary deviation cannot be remedied naturally as well.
Apparently, I have deviated from my original intent enough for one day. Enjoy the rest of the day and have a pint while mulling over your thoughts. I would be interested in seeing them....
Cheers!
Dave |
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey Peter,
I am afraid in this case you may be correct. However, in one section it does go a long way to help in my understanding of why a local or regional process may be significant in relation to barometric or adiabatic zones and yet the global balance may not be affected. No one has clearly demonstrated why that would be the case in the face of GW before, from what I have read.
I still would like to see where the NOAA news release bases the surface temperatures on increased LW rather then increased SW input to the oceans top layer. I suspect they have measured the change in the nutrient values, however, it is almost as though they have gone brain dead in examining the data. It makes more sense to me, that if you were to over turn anaerobic processed waters with higher zonal winds, there should be a reduction in nutrients; however there should also be an increase signature in sulfites which coincides with the observations made two years ago. There studies have suggested that increases in sulfite containing gases emitted over the dead zones seem to be increasing the amount of cloud formations in these regions. This would appear to be nature at work again, trying to shield itself from the UV energy and increased surface temperatures/salinity balances. If I did not know better I would suspect Gia has it all worked out and if we could just reduce our impact a bit she could get on with doing what she has done well for the past 2 billion years...
Dave |
|
| |
|
| Hi,
Been busy lately and hadn't had any time to look at much.
I just downloaded the 40 page tome of Miskolczi and read (skimmed) about 20 pages.
I saw a couple of things I didn't like - such as photon pressure being included in the atmospheric pressure and that sounds like something that should be irrelevent for earth's atmosphere - more for a stellar interior.
The guy is slinging stuff around left and right to the point where one would (at least I would) probably have to work through every last little portion (equation and assumption) just to verify it - not just peruse it over a few minutes.
Evidently, the guy is a pro., working in that sort of area who quit over a dispute associated with the paper- hence the strange location for its publication.
There are problems with the basic stuff being done in climate with the radiative transfer - either assuming totally opaque or transparent - neither is true. They use the eddington approximation plane wavefront approach which isn't quite right for a big ball either. And, I've suspected there is a good solution that can be worked out for our circumstances. Although Miskolczi goes about it differently than I had assumed would be the way and comes up with some results I would not expect, it's possible he might have done quite a credible job - as far as I can tell so far. Note that in this area, I am technically an amateur and still a bit of a neophyte.
Some suggestions have been made of Miskolczi on the web that he might have concocted this as a going away 'present' by a disgruntled employee. If so, he has created something that will likely stand up against anything but a total disection or duplication of the derivation. It's definitely not the work of some goofball who started stringing together text from a hundred different technical references. Apparently, he is also a mathematician - something I'm biased against in the realm of physics as IMHO, there are too many mathematicians doing physics and too many mathematicians with degrees in physics - as opposed to physicists using mathematics as an important tool in the toolbox. Note that there are actually some mathematicians who are indeed physicists. the biggest difference being that physics is physics and math is the tool used to describe nature, not a constraint upon nature to follow mathematics - hence a huge difference.
All in all, it might show something quite interesting and new. It also could suffer from the mathematician syndrome or perhaps could turn out to be a disgruntled employee creating a mess. Other than possibly being correct, my suspicion is more towards a possibility of error - either an erroneous assumption or error or mistake somewhere. Right now, it would take me quite a number of hours more than I can allocate to go through his derivation to find fault or verify his result - and won't have probably until perhaps July. Otherwise, I am not taking bets one way or the other as to the validity of his work. I think I may have seen a few problems but not enough to affect the outcome.
As a final aside, it's also possible that the results may be overstated and that the differences between his and the original eddington based approach may actually be rather marginal. Like I mentioned above, I've only read through about the first half.
|
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey Charles,
You seem to share my original opinion. When I started down the road of trying to understand the basis of the source of the LW increase it appeared that hypothesis started to breakdown. Granted I was not able to chase down the definitive calculations; however, for me the logical construction progress started to breakdown. By the time I reached the end discussion I have a strong impression that there is a serious deviation between the original basis and the final product. It was kind of like between 1 to 11, 12, 13 everything appeared to be building towards a supportable new direction; however, somewhere between 16 and 19, it is like a different writer got involved and the line of though changed to Q, R, S.... It was as though it was an attempt to continue to prove the hypothesis, however, there seemed to be a disconnection between the conclusion and the basis it was supposed to be built on.
I would have to go back and review where the paper specifically broke down again to try to provide specifics as it has been a while since I have read the material; however, I think I will wait until you have the time to go further. Again, I am no expert nor a mathematician nor am I strong in my understanding of physics; however, the logical progression sensitivity I have does not necessarily require a lot of education. Look forward to your review in the future.
Cheers!
Dave
|
|
| |
Is it possible, we have had it wrong?
