While I am fine tuning my spread sheet to better estimate the values of the coefficients, I have been getting correspondence from someone trying to help me disprove myself. In case you want to join the fray, here is my latest response;
True, For the Earth and atmosphere as it now exists
Surface 390Wm2 @ 288K TOA 238Wm2 @ 254.5K
Near the tropopause 225K @ 145.329 Wm2 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, 340Wm2 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 240Wm2 in
and 240Wm2 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 254.5K @ 238Wm2, 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 340Wm2
would be felt at the would penetrate the cloud cover, 306Wm2 and 80%, .8 times 306Wm2 would be
absorbed by the surface. 306Wm2 * 0.8 = 244.5 Wm2 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
340Wm2 * .85 = 289Wm2 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. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
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 a 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 LynxFox
Yes, there is not a lot off between estimates, but when evaluating a 1% change a 5% potential error is significant.
Efficient alternate energy portable fuels are required to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen holds the most promise in that reguard. Exploring the paths open for meeting the goal of energy independence is the object of this blog. Hopefully you will find it interesting and informative.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive

▼
2011
(190)

▼
October
(46)
 Simple Versus Too Simple
 New Blog For Easier Navigation
 Carbon Dioxide A Not so Well Mixed Gas
 Another Shot at Explaining the Atmospheric Effect
 Phonon Versus Photon Research List
 The Relativity Series Begins Under Cosmic Puzzles
 Atmospheric Phonons  RHC and the Greenhouse Effec...
 What the Heck is Effective Emissivity?
 SciFi and the Tropopause Heat Sink
 Could Atmospheric Conductivity Help Regulate Antar...
 The Relative Motion of Low Energy Photons in a Mi...
 What is a Pyrometer Measuring When You Aim it at t...
 I am Still Getting Flack over the Value of Down We...
 What is The 4C Thermal Boundary?
 The Mysterious Case of the Missing Heat
 Orphan Photons? Are They Dark Energy?
 A Little Help Please. Global Average Surface Pres...
 Determing How Wrong I May Be
 Relativistic Conduction of Heat
 What is the Gain of the CO2 Control Knob?
 Science as a Contact Sport
 A Point I Missed Explaining Very Well The Tropopa...
 Why The Estimates were Off and Why I am Moving On....
 Using the Greenhouse Effect Triangles
 Dark Energy and our Not Accelerating Expanding Uni...
 Explaining why Einstien, Angstrom, Plank, StefanB...
 Now, to Truly Prove I am a Whack Job
 IPCC Down Welling Radiation Violates the Law!
 Visualization
 Just For Fun
 How Ohms Law Relates to Atmospheric Physics
 While Energy is Fungible, the Work is Not
 Poisson! Poisson!
 Chaos Mathematical Description of the Earth System...
 Comparison of NASA and K&T
 Crackpot?
 Snake Oil Salesman or Simple Logic?
 A call for Mathematicians  The Greenhouse Effect,...
 A better Cartoon?
 Trenberth, Monckton and Lucia  Are They missing t...
 Back to Baking Bacon Bread
 Supplimental Issues for What's not Good
 So What's not to Like?
 Physical Principals for the Cartoon Sensitivity Ca...
 That Damn Cartoon and the Third Viscount of Puzzle...
 It is Just a Cartoon!

▼
October
(46)
No comments:
Post a Comment