Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: The Coming Ice Age?

  1. #1 The Coming Ice Age? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Hi, This is my first post, and it will be a dozy. I have been looking at the Kimoto equation for surface temperature flux which has been a bit of a buzz in the blogosphere. It is a very elegant equation, that unfortunately requires coefficients for each flux and the coefficients are function of each other. Fairly complicated relationship, though I think I have the equilibrium value of the emissivity coefficient for the radiative flux and the basic form of the function of e, the coefficient of emissivity with respect to conduction and latent heat flux. I was wondering if there are any of you that might wish to look at my crude methods and possibly like an interesting though extremely controversial project for your spare time.

    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: A call for Mathematicians - The Greenhouse Effect, not so Simplified

    That is the link to the basics which is difficult to follow, but provides consistent results indicating that they are probably very close to correct. There are a few newer posts that clear things up somewhat, and a few posts on the blog related to the physical processes that lead to the counter intuitive conclusions.

    dallas


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    My initial reactions to your post are:
    1. The ice age is coming - in at least 50,000 years time, so why worry?
    2. The hydrogen reference suggests you have an agenda that is not purely climate science.
    3. The greenhouse effect is only simple in newspaper reports - most of us here know it is complicated.

    There seems to be good reason for extreme skepticism about anything that follows. Can you provide a precis of the subject matter, so that we can decide if clicking your link is something we might want to do?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    My initial reactions to your post are:
    1. The ice age is coming - in at least 50,000 years time, so why worry?
    2. The hydrogen reference suggests you have an agenda that is not purely climate science.
    3. The greenhouse effect is only simple in newspaper reports - most of us here know it is complicated.

    There seems to be good reason for extreme skepticism about anything that follows. Can you provide a precis of the subject matter, so that we can decide if clicking your link is something we might want to do?

    I don't know. If I had a translation of Arrhenius' second paper on climate sensitivity, probably. The results I get are very close to his second estimates, very close to angstroms' calculation of downwelling radiation and in good agreement with the Poisson equation for potential temperature. It could of course all be coincidental, but I did not start out to verify any of the three. I just noticed a discrepancy in the Kiehl and Trenberth energy balance which my results may prove that K&T have a sign error in their calculations. Not hard to due by the way as I found out. So there appears to be something work looking at, in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    To get you a better idea of the situation, dF/dT=4F/T is a linear approximation of the S-B relationship simplified assuming emissivity is approximately 1, a good approximation in many applications. Kimoto use this simplification to develop an equation for the surface heat fluxes, Fs, Fl and Fr, s=sensible, l=latent and r is radiative. All three heat fluxes share a common source, surface temperature, but different relationships with the mixed gas atmosphere. Due to their relationships, each flux needs an effective emissivity coefficient. a, b, and e respectively. The form of the heat flux equation at the surface is,

    dT/dF=4(aFs + bEl + eFr)/T only only the nets of aFs, bFl and eFr are known and e can be approximate as the average surface emissivity of the Earth's surface * average effective emissivity of the atmosphere, e~0.825 @ 288K, with aFs=24, bFl=78 and eFr=~80 Wm-2. Using these values, a pulse input in the form of e=0 to e=0.825, allows me to approximate the maximum downwelling longwave radiative with the temperature of surface held constant at 288K. yielding DWLR(max)=-271Wm-2. Using that value, an impulse response of the surface temperature can be calculated. Since we know the approximate steady state of the system at 288K, both T(max) surface and F(max) DWLR decay proportionally to equilibrium. That gives me a value of DWLR ~220Wm-2. Considerably different than the K&T value of 324Wm-2. Now things start to get interesting.

    Care consider the problem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i've taken the liberty of moving this thread to "Environmental Issues" - within the confines of this forum that's where climate-related threads are placed, not earth sciences
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    There is some value in doing simple flux models to understand climate--but severe limitations as well.

    I looked over the link you provided and it didn't seem connected to your thread title at all. The ice ages have to do with feedbacks between the geographic distribution of insolation from astronomical forcing and resultant feedbacks to change the cryosphere and albedo of the planet. No 1-D model is going to get you anywhere to simulating this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    What is the Trenberth error that you are claiming to correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    What is the Trenberth error that you are claiming to correct?
    If you resolve his values for net outgoing longwave radiation absorbed, you will find he has 26 for his old balance and about 18 for his new balance versus 51 in the NASA energy balance. While that is a small error, in determining down welling longwave, the error is magnified by a factor of 4. His value of DWLR is 324 and should be ~224. I.E. his missing heat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There is some value in doing simple flux models to understand climate--but severe limitations as well.

    I looked over the link you provided and it didn't seem connected to your thread title at all. The ice ages have to do with feedbacks between the geographic distribution of insolation from astronomical forcing and resultant feedbacks to change the cryosphere and albedo of the planet. No 1-D model is going to get you anywhere to simulating this.
    The post I linked is to be part of a series of posts on the coming ice age? Sorry for the confusion. I am afraid though, that I can be a scatter brain working on something this complicated. If I were a theoretical physicist, not a amateur, I would need several grad students to tidy up after me.

    As you know, the Milankovich theory agrees well, but has issues with the amount of solar radiation change versus albedo. It only needs a small push though to work perfectly. This may be the push, dunno, but it looks like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Theoretical Physics application of modified Kimoto equation for mixed heat fluxes 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    To give you a better idea of the situation, dF/dT=4F/T is a linear approximation of the S-B relationship simplified assuming emissivity is approximately 1, a good approximation in many applications. Kimoto use this simplification to develop an equation for the surface heat fluxes, Fs, Fl and Fr, s=sensible, l=latent and r is radiative. All three heat fluxes share a common source, surface temperature, but different relationships with the mixed gas atmosphere. Due to their relationships, each flux needs an effective emissivity coefficient. a, b, and e respectively. The form of the heat flux equation at the surface is,

    dT/dF=4(aFs + bEl + eFr)/T only only the nets of aFs, bFl and eFr are known and e can be approximate as the average surface emissivity of the Earth's surface * average effective emissivity of the atmosphere, e~0.825 @ 288K, with aFs=24, bFl=78 and eFr=~80 Wm-2. Using these values, a pulse input in the form of e=0 to e=0.825, allows me to approximate the maximum downwelling longwave radiative with the temperature of surface held constant at 288K. yielding DWLR(max)=-271Wm-2. Using that value, an impulse response of the surface temperature can be calculated. Since we know the approximate steady state of the system at 288K, both T(max) surface and F(max) DWLR decay proportionally to equilibrium. That gives me a value of DWLR ~220Wm-2. Considerably different than the K&T value of 324Wm-2. Now things start to get interesting.

    With the inclusion of the coefficients, the equation appears to be quite powerful. I have not resolved the full form of the coefficients. e=0.825 appears to be accurate for T=288 and counter-intuitively, an increase in CO2 causes e to approach 1 due to its relationship with the conductive flux. Added CO2 and CH4 increases conductivity.

    This was moved to natural sciences previously, but it appears to be more relevant to physics, especially theoretical physics. It is an interesting problem for the open minded.




    http://www.thescienceforum.com/envir...g-ice-age.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    If you want a serious response you'll have to much better define what you are looking at. Units for example. Define not just a few terms but all of them. There are other differences in the NASA and other budget figures which you should account for before making an broad claims.

    I don't see where you get your 4x down welling long wave radiation either. There are several ways to look at the same problem so relatively minor differences between NASA and other agencies should be of no surprise.
    --
    I hope this isn't just some attempt to discredit Trenberth and try to discredit the IPCC's work by association. There's a hundred examples of this on the web--many of them trying to dazzle the ignorant by bull shit than engage in science. The fact you cite Moolton who as best I can tell has never done any atmospheric science makes it look that way. We'll carry on for just a bit more just for fun to see how serious you are before this gets rerouted for 3rd to the "adventures in pseudoscience," sub forum.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    "If you want a serious response you'll have to much better define what you are looking at. Units for example. Define not just a few terms but all of them. There are other differences in the NASA and other budget figures which you should account for before making an broad claims."

    The biggest question is how to properly determine the coefficients a and b. a appears to be close to unity and linear. b is the real bear, it appears to be nonlinear complex a but linear with e. it is an interesting situation.

    dF/dT=4F/T is a derivative of the stefan-boltzman equation which is fairly common. The expanded version for three heat fluxes is a new concept which appears to be right, only the value of the coefficients are not easily defined.

    As far as Trenberth, I am ambivalent. The apparent K&T error though is limiting the number of open minds that would like to investigate the equation.

    The Moved this to the Physics forum as it is more of a theoretical physics issue than just a natural science issue, though it is a pretty big deal in the natural sciences.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post286808
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    define your terms.

    What is dF? What are the units?
    What is dT? What are the Units?
    What is the S-B Relationship?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    define your terms.

    What is dF? What are the units?
    What is dT? What are the Units?
    What is the S-B Relationship?
    dF is a change in heat flux, conductive, latent and radiant. In Wm-2, dT is in K dF/dT is the derivative of sigma(T)^4, sigma =5.67e-8

    I need to look up the proper derivative but sigma is small leaving sigma t^3 ~1, So far it seems to be a valid approximation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Since we know the approximate steady state of the system at 288K, both T(max) surface and F(max) DWLR decay proportionally to equilibrium. That gives me a value of DWLR ~220Wm-2.
    How the heck are you getting that. Your first paragraph says nothing about IR or DWLR.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Since we know the approximate steady state of the system at 288K, both T(max) surface and F(max) DWLR decay proportionally to equilibrium. That gives me a value of DWLR ~220Wm-2.
    How the heck are you getting that. Your first paragraph says nothing about IR or DWLR.
    I am going to have make a drawing to illustrate the problem, it is evidently much more of a challenge communicating the solution than arriving at the solution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    This is extremely complex to explain, but so simple once understood. Please follow the link for a little better explanation,

    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: A call for Mathematicians - The Greenhouse Effect, not so Simplified
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Where are you getting this: "dF/dT=4F/T is a linear approximation of the S-B relationship simplified assuming emissivity is approximately 1"?

    Stefan Boltzmann gives F = sigma.E.T^4 so the first derivative is 4sigma.E.T^3. It is not linear. If you take further derivatives (I don't know why you would) the leading constant changes.

    But if we accept your version, you then lump convective and latent components into the same equation as if they respond to temperature in the same way as radiation does, which they do not, and changing the coefficients isn't going to make the equation right. So it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm missing the point. If so please show me where I'm getting it wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Since some people don't understand the starting point of the problem, Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: The Beginning of Proving Trenberth is Wrong, the Easiest Way to Prove I am Right

    This is the basic lead in. I have nothing personal against Trenberth, is error is just the easiest way to prove my theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I tend to agree. There are lots of ways to linearize exponential equations (e.g. Euler, Monte Carlo etc) especially used in numerical models and engineering. Dallas I suggest you show us your method approximates the slope say between surface LW IR emissions and what it was during the ice age. (I think you'll surprise yourself).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The still appears to be the same thread, with a different title that was already moved twice by the moderators. Nor does it have much to do with theoretical physics.

    Moving and merging wih the other one.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    there are so many variable in this...but the butterfly effect is good argument ...it may be possible to equate to a mathematical model...however there are unknown variables i suggest....it is a very complex and dynamic system
    Last edited by brane wave; October 8th, 2011 at 03:35 PM. Reason: p.s.definately not theoretical physics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    Where are you getting this: "dF/dT=4F/T is a linear approximation of the S-B relationship simplified assuming emissivity is approximately 1"?

    Stefan Boltzmann gives F = sigma.E.T^4 so the first derivative is 4sigma.E.T^3. It is not linear. If you take further derivatives (I don't know why you would) the leading constant changes.

    But if we accept your version, you then lump convective and latent components into the same equation as if they respond to temperature in the same way as radiation does, which they do not, and changing the coefficients isn't going to make the equation right. So it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm missing the point. If so please show me where I'm getting it wrong.
    That derivation is pretty simple, I re-derived the equation with basic algebra. It is basically S-B a*b*(T)^4/T, were a and be are the normal constants. Just with mixed fluxes the constants have to be variables based on each other in parallel flow. It works out to bsicically ohm's law for the atmosphere. The ramifications are a touch larger than that, just a touch.

    In this versions I have added my own derivation. The real meat is at the bottom of the post. Perhaps just look at what it does, then I can explain it differently based on your reactions to that. It is pretty trick!

    http://www.blogger.com/publish-confi...ptEnabled=true
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    F=a*b*(T)^4, Where a, is assumed to be a constant of emissivity and b =5.67*e-08.
    OK, that is Stefan Boltzmann

    Solving that formula for a one degree change from a temperature of 250K yields, a*567e-8*(251)^4/250 -a*5.67e-8*(T)^4 = a*0.2573
    Why do you have 250 in the denominator of the first term? You are also missing the decimal. In any case I don't get your result.

    I get:
    F251 = a*225.05
    F250 = a*221.48
    F251-F250 = 3.565a

    Since the value a, varies, we can include in its value the remainder .0073 to simplify the solution to the change in flux from 250K to 251K is equal to alpha*0.25 or alpha/4, so if flux increases by 4 temperature increase by 1, dF/dT=alpha*4*F/T, alpha is the coefficient of heat flow through a medium, similar to impedance in an electrical circuit.
    Alpha is not the coefficient of heat flow. Alpha is the emissivity which applies to radiative heat transfer but not to conduction or convection. Alpha is used in Europe as the symbol for heat transfer coefficient, but in the context of the S-B equation is is just the emissivity which is an entirely different thing. For one thing emissivity is dimensionless while heat transfer coefficient has units of W.m-2.K-1. In US terminology the heat transfer coefficient is usually called h or U, not alpha.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    Where are you getting this: "dF/dT=4F/T is a linear approximation of the S-B relationship simplified assuming emissivity is approximately 1"?<br>

    Vaughan Pratt is a math guy that showed me that, Unfortunately, I could find notes, so I did my own version the old school way.

    <br>
    Stefan Boltzmann gives F = sigma.E.T^4 so the first derivative is 4sigma.E.T^3. It is not linear. If you take further derivatives (I don't know why you would) the leading constant changes.<br>

    While it is not linear, the e I am using is a variable. I don't have latex or know how to use it, but it would be a pretty tricky PDQ, by selecting 250K to 251K as dT and calculating F@250 to F@251, I get dF/dT for 1K=0.2578, so for 4F t~1, The .0078 I include the variable e, so e may look simple, but it is complex.
    <br>
    But if we accept your version, you then lump convective and latent components into the same equation as if they respond to temperature in the same way as radiation does, which they do not, and changing the coefficients isn't going to make the equation right. So it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm missing the point. If so please show me where I'm getting it wrong.
    <br>

    Yep missing the point. a and b are also pdqs, but for one moment in time I can work with them. After finding the relationship, I know the form of the variables a,c and e.

    <br>That derivation is pretty simple,&nbsp; I re-derived the equation with basic algebra.&nbsp; It is basically S-B a*b*(T)^4/T, were a and be are the normal constants.&nbsp; Just with mixed fluxes the constants have to be variables based on each other in parallel flow.&nbsp; It works out to bsicically ohm's law for the atmosphere.&nbsp; The ramifications are a touch larger than that, just a touch.<br><br>In this versions I have added my own derivation.&nbsp; The real meat is at the bottom of the post.&nbsp; Perhaps just look at what it does, then I can explain it differently based on your reactions to that.&nbsp; It is pretty trick!<br><br>http://www.blogger.com/publish-confirmation.g?blogID=9221105930310950943&amp;post ID=6544330746188905117&amp;timestamp=1318108658629 &amp;javascriptEnabled=true<br>

    Actually, alpha was a constant 0.926, which I turn into a variable, to allow its use in mixed flux application. There is a touch more in the equation than meets the eye. It is an elegant approach to a complex problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I tend to agree. There are lots of ways to linearize exponential equations (e.g. Euler, Monte Carlo etc) especially used in numerical models and engineering. Dallas I suggest you show us your method approximates the slope say between surface LW IR emissions and what it was during the ice age. (I think you'll surprise yourself).
    I did surprise myself, the variable coefficient for Fc increases with added CO2, Not much, but since heat flow from water to air is ~1000 times greater than air to water, it don't take much
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I meant show us a comparison between your linearizion of emissivity(E) and Temperature(T) and the actual S-B equation over the range of T from ice age to now. Until you establish that the slope is similar we're all going to doubt your first equation.

    The Fc change is negligible compared to your linearized emission formula--so small you can safely ignore it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Got a pencil?

    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: Visualization

    My computer says it is on sabbatical. This is a pencil and paper problem. Once you can visualize the shape of the curves, we can draw the individual curves.

    Oh, Fc negligible? The ocean air coefficients of heat transfer have approximately a 1000/1 factor water to air, If Co2 improves conductivity, a 0.001 increase in conductivity is wicked, glacially wicked. That's the hardest partial differential equation to resolve, e is a cake walk. Let's get on the same page visually, then progress.
    Last edited by captdallas; October 9th, 2011 at 12:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Oh, Fc negligible? The ocean air coefficients of heat transfer have approximately a 1000/1 factor water to air, If Co2 improves conductivity, a 0.001 increase in conductivity is wicked, glacially wicked. That's the hardest partial differential equation to resolve, e is a cake walk. Let's get on the same page visually, then progress.
    i didn't say Fc, I said change in Fc due to change in CO2. It's too small a component of air and close enough to N2 in heat capacity to have any significant effect.

    Your biggest problem before we can progress any further is showing how your linearized S-B equation is anywhere close to the actual S-B equation within the range of normal atmospheric temperatures.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Actually, resolving the linearity of the coefficient of e is the reason I am here. The solution for e, in eFr, is the reason I am here. T for the linearized S-B was select as 250K-251K, TOA and the initial value of e=0.825 matches surface at 288K, the calibration for the equation. The goal is to determine an approximation of the change in e=0.825 to e=0.61 TOA, relative to dP/dT, Pressure and temperature. With the Poisson relationship, I have good agreement to -27C @ 600mb, but I need someone interested that may like to curve fit, so I can determine the form of the variable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You continue to dodge the issue. What's the slope comparison of emissivity to temperature between the two equations. (Even a broken clock is right twice a day.) And then do the comparison at a different temperature say 10 or 15 degrees K away representing say the ice age surface temperature compared to present conditions.

    The blog you link to doesn't convince us, nor the fragmented comments here which went off into another, and much less important subject.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 9th, 2011 at 02:27 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Sorry I am nt trying to dodge, I noticed part of my previous response was cut out when I used the quote trying to insert replies, the typo on the estimation using 251K / 250K with S-B.

    Comparing the dF/dT, with S-B slope 0.01, with approximation,slope 0.07, which is the rounding error I was aware of. Why do you have something different? My spread sheet does get flaky at times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    My spread sheet does get flaky at times.
    A lot different. Actual dF/dT at 288 K is 5.42W*m^-2 /K

    Your flux equation on your blog is a mess. The unit's aren't specified and the ones that are confusing or wrong. For example you show T = 390W/m^2, instead of it being K, and dont' bother to show the units for the rest.

    ==

    I'm putting this in pseudo science for now due to post quality, but don't let that discourage you. If you fix things up, show your units and come up with the linear approximations and limitations for the S-B equations it can be moved back.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    My spread sheet does get flaky at times.
    A lot different. Actual dF/dT at 288 K is 5.42W*m^-2 /K

    Your flux equation on your blog is a mess. The unit's aren't specified and the ones that are confusing or wrong. For example you show T = 390W/m^2, instead of it being K, and dont' bother to show the units for the rest.

    ==

    I'm putting this in pseudo science for now due to post quality, but don't let that discourage you. If you fix things up, show your units and come up with the linear approximations and limitations for the S-B equations it can be moved back.
    Of course it is, and calculated with the Full S-b, it is slightly higher. The slope from 240W-m-2 to 390Wm-2 using the full equation versus the simplified differs by approximately 0.001. See the message in your inbox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Lynx-Fox noticed that my units are a mess, true, I am not very tidy. F is alway in Wm-2, T is in K, Except when used in Poisson, where it would be C or the change in K. e and the other coefficients are unit-less, they are the variables to be resolved. The approximate values are valid for only one moment in time with T=288K and F=390 at the surface.

    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: Explaining why Einstien, Angstrom, Plank, Stefan-Boltzman, Poisson and Arrhenus were Right and Trenberth is Wrong is a Lot Harder Than it Should be.

    This link has the basic discussion, which could be moved here to simplify discussion. This is relativistic physics and a touch difficult to follow without use the frame of reference at the surface. It is interesting for those so inclined. I unfortunately, do not have the communication skills required. If you assume that the basic form of the equation is correct, we are to solve for the form of the coefficients.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Using the full S-B the "Effective emissivity" Would have units J/K With the derivative the K cancel, I will have to determine the correct units. I am doing that once I have a better estimate of e. It is related to dark energy, how? not sure yet. It may be just Joules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Since this is pseudoscience, let's look at from a pseudoscientific perspective.

    The calculation of the "greenhouse" assumes that with no radiative effect, the Earth would be at 225K and energy in = energy out would be 240Wm-2=240Wm-2

    This balance would be at the top of what ever atmospheric height there existed. If the earth had no atmosphere and the same conditions existed, the the 255K and 240Wm-2would exist at the surface. Since the Earth still has gases, gravity and heat, Conductive energy flux would exist. To balance the force of gravity, the conductive flux would expand the gases, resulting in a dry adiabatic lapse rate = 1C, 100 + meters approximately. Since water does exist on the infant Earth, latent heat would be transferred from the surface to the top of the infant tropopause. This combined effect would decrease the impact of conductive flux by reducing surface temperature, resulting in a dry adiabatic lapse rate of 1C per 100 meters or a tropopause altitude of 3800 meters. That is the initial condition of infant Earth at 255K and 240Wm-2, top of the tropopause. The addition of the radiative impact of greenhouse gases raises the tropopause altitude with the inclusion of the moist adiabatic lapse rate. This increases the surface temperature from, temperature initial, to 288K a total of 33c from the infant tropopause apparent temperature. If Temperature initial (Ti) is 255K at the top of the tropopause, what is the surface Ti and what is the change in the tropopause Ti cause by the radiative effect of gases?
    Last edited by captdallas; October 11th, 2011 at 08:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    Since this is pseudoscience, let's look at from a pseudoscientific perspective.

    The calculation of the "greenhouse" assumes that with no radiative effect, the Earth would be at 225K and energy in = energy out would be 240Wm-2=240Wm-2
    You're almost 95 Watts/m^2 too high. Typo, equation error, or something else?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    Since this is pseudoscience, let's look at from a pseudoscientific perspective.

    The calculation of the "greenhouse" assumes that with no radiative effect, the Earth would be at 225K and energy in = energy out would be 240Wm-2=240Wm-2
    You're almost 95 Watts/m^2 too high. Typo, equation error, or something else?

    Exactly!!! That is what is assumed by the climate scientists! They are 95Wm-2 High. If you assume zero albedo at start with 343 W/m-2 as initial values you can also get the correct answer. Their answer appears to be wrong, but this has led to an odd difference in the value of emissivity, which appears to be related to time, light and the creation of dark matter. That is why I have not yet determined how to define the units.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    If the Earth had no albedo and a constant diurnal average incoming 340Wm-2 solar input, its temperature would be approximately equal to the 278.3K degrees, using the S-B equation assuming it is a perfect black body.

    Adding a no GHG atmosphere with a combined surface and and atmospheric albedo of .30, 30% of the incoming solar, 102Wm-2 would be reflected to space with no impact of the effective temperature of the surface. 238Wm-2 would be absorbed by the surface an transmitted to space unaffected by the atmosphere. This is an unrealistic assumption. Conductive and latent heat would still transfer heat through the atmosphere before being radiated to space at the top of the atmosphere. There is no perfect means of transferring energy without a loss to entropy.

    The surface temperature would be warmer and the energy converted in transfer through the atmosphere creates potential energy by expanding the atmosphere against gravity.

    Latent energy is transferred at a higher efficiency than conductive energy. Latent energy efficiency is related to the pressure decrease with altitude created by the conductive flux efficiency in transferring energy through the mixed gas atmosphere, the dry adiabatic lapse rate. The combined effect is that the surface of the Earth is warmer than the 254.5 degrees indicated by the S-B temperature at 238Wm-2 and less than the 278.3 degrees indicated by the S-B temperature at 340Wm-2 assuming perfect block body at both conditions.

    While greenhouse gases amplify, the radiative impacts on the atmosphere, the atmosphere still has an emissivity that changes with the density and optical properties of the molecules in the atmosphere. Emissivity in the atmosphere, decreases as pressure decreases. In space, emissivity has its minimum value where opacity is also at its minimum, space is a very clear optical window, but not perfectly clear. Dark energy in space would not be easily visible, due to the combination of very low emissivity and relative high opacity at it point source.

    All the heat fluxes have efficiencies based on dG/dD, dT/dP and dD/dP, where G is gravity, T is temperature in K, D is density and P is pressure in millibar.

    Using the Kimoto simplification, dF/dT approximately equal to 4(aFc+bFl+cFr)/T,

    Where F is flux in Wm-2, a is a function of dG/dD, b is a function of dT/dP and c is a function of e*dD/dP, where e is a combination of the true emissivity of the surface of the Earth and the initial value of the emissivity of the atmosphere at the surface of the Earth in an upward direction.

    Solving for the initial values variables a, b, and c, at surface temperature T=288K, standard average air pressure and gravity, a=0.33, b=1.09 and c=0.825. Where c=e*some unitless function. We should be to determine a reasonable solution for all three Earth conditions in three dimensional space. If all three agree, then time is not a part of the solution. If they do not agree, a fourth dimensional solution would be warranted.

    This is where I am at currently. Since I don't latex very well, it is the best description I can give online at the moment.

    Dallas
    Last edited by captdallas; October 12th, 2011 at 07:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    Since this is pseudoscience, let's look at from a pseudoscientific perspective.

    The calculation of the "greenhouse" assumes that with no radiative effect, the Earth would be at 225K and energy in = energy out would be 240Wm-2=240Wm-2
    You're almost 95 Watts/m^2 too high. Typo, equation error, or something else?

    Exactly!!! That is what is assumed by the climate scientists! They are 95Wm-2 High. If you assume zero albedo at start with 343 W/m-2 as initial values you can also get the correct answer. Their answer appears to be wrong, but this has led to an odd difference in the value of emissivity, which appears to be related to time, light and the creation of dark matter. That is why I have not yet determined how to define the units.
    Argg.

    You are making no sense.
    Black body emissivity is well known and expressed by the S-B equation. Which gives at 225K, gives a total of 145.329 W/m2

    If you're getting the much higher number from your linearized equation than it needs a lot of work or better limitations (I suggest within very narrow temperature bands like 5K)
    If you want to quickly check some numbers build a spreadsheet or you can go here. Spectral Calculator - atmospheric gas spectra, infrared molecular absorption spectrum

    --
    If you're struggling to figure out the basics of how black body radiation works than I dare say you're years from understanding the theoretical basis for dark matter. I'm not going to help in that regards because personally I find it mind numbingly boring as well as a waste of time to discuss with someone who doesn't have command of physics concepts from a century ago.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    True, For the Earth and atmosphere as it now exists Surface 390Wm-2 @ 288K TOA 238Wm-2 @ 254.5K Near the tropopause 225K @ 145.329 Wm-2 That decrease in temperature and the flux
    associated with that temperature is in effect the Atmospheric Effect. If you view the change in temperature with the change in altitude, that is in effect the
    change in net flux in the atmosphere For a no atmosphere Earth with albedo = to zero, Ein = Eout, 340Wm-2 indicates a
    temperature of 278.3 K. Earth however does have a wealth of nitrogen and oxygen, while they have minimal
    significantly intense spectral lines in the SW and LW spectrum, they do have a coefficient
    of heat conduction. With a no greenhouse gas atmosphere, the 278.3K warms the gases
    near the surface, causing those gases to expand against gravity. The energy required
    to expand those gases would be the no GHG atmospheric effect. Which would create a low, but
    existing tropopause.

    The combination of surface and atmospheric albedos would supposedly create a planet with 240Wm-2 in
    and 240Wm-2 out, the basic model of the no greenhouse gases Earth to calculate the magnitude to the
    Greenhouse effect. For the top of the tropopause, that would be a valid model. However, since the
    Earth would have a conductive induced tropopause with latent heat transferred from the surface to the
    top of the tropopause, the surface temperature would not be 255K @ 240Wm-2, that is the conditions at
    the tropopause, or TOA for a no GHG Earth.

    With cloud albedo estimated at 10% and surface albedo at 20%, 90% of the incoming solar 340Wm-2
    would be felt at the would penetrate the cloud cover, 306Wm-2 and 80%, .8 times 306Wm-2 would be
    absorbed by the surface. 306Wm-2 * 0.8 = 244.5 Wm-2 which corresponds with at surface temperature
    of 256.25K. Small but not insignificant difference from 254.5, as it would be, 1.75/33 = 5.3% of
    the warming. If, cloud albedo is 15%, which I believe quite reasonable, then 15% reflected by clouds would be
    340Wm-2 * .85 = 289Wm-2 at the surface of which 85% would be absorb with a surface albedo of 15%
    giving 245.65 Absorbed at the surface which would have an equivalent temperature of 256.5K.
    Small but still not insignificant relative to 254.5K. The location of the albedo factors matter,
    as it is 6% of the total calculate warming. What my use of the equation is doing is showing an 8% over estimation of warming due to the variably
    of the assumption of initial albedo. Which, BTW, happens to be approximately the margin climate
    models are currently over estimating current warming. I would like to fine tune the equation to see what assumption of initial albedo would be correct.
    If the equation is correct, there are indications of interesting feedback relationships, which are
    currently being published by NASA. Pubs.GISS: Lacis et al. 2010: Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>: Principal control knob governing Earth's temperature The data I have glean from the use of the equation so far indicates tropopause and lower stratosphere
    ice particle feedback from deep convection that has been here to date underestimated. Dr. Susan Solomon,
    has a relatively new paper where the impact of stratospheric water vapor was recently discovered has a
    cooling effect. I believe that using the spectrum of ice, instead of water vapor would fine tune
    that estimate as it only takes a few molecules of water vapor joined together, to radiate in the ice spectrum.
    Again and small but not insignificant impact. If you now consider that a 5% error in temperature results in a 20% error in flux value, you will see why I am a little interested in this pseudoscience.



    It may be nothing of course, however, the results are interesting thus far.



    Thanks for your patience Lynx-Fox
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Okay,

    I have been trying to get a better idea of what the units for the coefficients should be, Since it is a change in the rate of flux, J/(sec)^2. transmittance and opacity are generally uniless values, their change should be roughly a second order effect, still working on that.
    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: What is The 4C Thermal Boundary?

    This is where I am on the major flux change boundaries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    LynX-Fox WRT Arrg. The change in the light flux rate with absorption/emission is what I am looking at. Its impact appears to be under-estimated. The spectral absorption decreases upward in the atmosphere and increases downward with decrease/ increased density. For example, Nitrogen in a CO2 laser enhances power because the exitation of CO2 closely matches the vibrationfrequency of N2. More perfect matching, more perfect enhancement. Since the typical radiant impact of N2 at atmospheric pressure is 4 orders of magnitude less, it is assumed negliable. As far as spectral radiant energy transfer that appears true, but as far as conductive flux enhancement, not so true. There is an interesting inter-relationship between conductive and radiant flux in the equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I'm just trying to get you to demonstrate you have a rudimentary understanding of radiation flux, or help you understand it, and you keep dragging other stuff in.

    I can't help you.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Perhaps my understanding is inadequate. The radiative flux of a black body is calculable by the Stefan-Boltzman equation F=0.926 (5.67e-8)T^4. Flux units are in Wm-2, T in K, and sigma (5.67e-8) Jsec-1K-4, sigma*T^4 yields J/sec which equivalent to W/m-2. 0.926 is the Wein approximation of E, emissivity of a black body, which is generally a unitless value dependent on the wavelength of the spectra.

    Another approximation is the Rayleigh-Jeans Law, where the thermal irradiance of a black body B(lamba)K=2cKT/lamba^4, c=speed of light, and lamba is the wavelength. In terms of frequency, Bv(T)=2v^2KT/c^2, v=frequency. The 2 terms are not equal but, Bd(lamba)=Bdv. The Rayleigh-Jeans approximation is only applicable to long wave lengths, such as radiate emissions from earths surface.

    Earth, is not a black body, it is considered a gray body. By Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, the emissisivity of a surface (body) is equal to it absortivity in equilibrium. Gases, while they can be considered bodies, are generally not in equilibrium. Their effective equilibrium would best be described as a probability cloud. Radiant absorptive gases at higher densities typically cannot emit at typical vibrational wave lentghs due to the higher probability of collision de-excitation. The wavelength and associated frequency of radiant energy released by collisional de-excitation can cover the entire emission spectrum of the radiant absorptive gas molecule(s) or the spectrum of the de-excitation molecule. There's a bunch of stuff going on in other words.

    The Effective emissivity, that I am trying to determine, would be proportional to the probabilities of the random radiant and collisional interaction of the gases molecules in a mixed gas environment.

    The Kimoto equation, which is a linear approximation of S-B, would require coefficients that consider the probabilties densities of the radiant interact5ion of mixed gases at varying densities in both outgoing and incoming directions. They appear to be considerable different "Effective" emissivities.

    While the Kimoto equation is an approximation, Kirchoff's law is not totally applicable, the Rayleigh-Jeans is an approximation, Wein distribution is an approximimation, current entensive study of the Earth's atmosphere has provide more data than has ever been available for reducing the uncertainty of all these approximations.

    I am sticking with a unitless value for the "effective" emissivity, until I better determine what its units may be, c, is in meters/sec, so I am inclined to be of the mind, meters/sec/sec, a changing rate of acceleration of photons in a mixed gas environment. this may be an apparent change (probability distribution) or a relativistic change, but it appears it may be approximately determined given the modified Kimoto equation and the extensive data available. Then it could be a rabbit hole.

    I have probably made a typo or two, bad keyboard, slow connection, but that is the basic jist of my mis-understanding of radiant heat transfer in a mixed gas environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Rats!! They Beat Me to it! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    It’s all relative: superluminal neutrino discovery explained | Watts Up With That?


    This is what I discovered clues to in the coming ice age thread. Again, I am a day late and a dollar short. I could have been somebody!

    Now think about the dark matter again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    It’s all relative: superluminal neutrino discovery explained | Watts Up With That?


    This is what I discovered clues to in the coming ice age thread. Again, I am a day late and a dollar short. I could have been somebody!

    Now think about the dark matter again.
    What the hell does this have to do with ice ages? For all intents and purposes neutrinos are not relevant, since they don't intereact with matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Global warming, coming ice age, or neither?
    By WVBIG in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 8th, 2009, 08:03 PM
  2. Where are all the money coming from?
    By newnothing in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 13th, 2009, 10:57 AM
  3. The Coming Revolution
    By Holmes in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 1st, 2008, 11:54 AM
  4. Coming out of the quantum theory dark age
    By davidsf in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 31st, 2008, 07:56 PM
  5. Coming 4-dimensional & gravitational attractions.
    By That Rascal Puff in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 14th, 2006, 09:21 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •