If I were a scientist, I would think Trenberth would have to prove he was right. Must b e that new science. The formula conserves energy and explains the work done by the energy. Does Trenberth? The formula agrees with classic physics, does Trenberth?
What is missing?
Relativistic Heat Conduction is just as valid as the theory of global warming. The theory of relativity is just a valid as the Theory of Global Warming. Why assume the Theory of global warming is MORE valid?
That equation is not mine. Only the value of the variables in on moment of time are mine. So why not prove my values are wrong? Try it.
BTW, the abledo assumed to determine the initial value of the no GHG Earth includes cloud albedo. So the 242 would be at the top of the atmosphere, not the surface. Think about it.
http://ourhydrogeneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/10/nowtotrulyproveiamwhackjob.html
Since this appears to be more complicated than I thought, http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/25027comingiceage.html#post287200
So we will see if it is relativistic physic or pseudo science, which is what relativity was at first considered.
Update: From some scatter comments. "I could be wrong." Well know doubt about that! Where is the question. The approximations for temperature and flux can be +/ 5%, the dF/dT could be further off, I check at 250K and it is off by 3%, but pretty linear. Those don't appear to be enough for 100Wm2.
"Units for emissivity?" For "Effective" emissivity, it is unitless. It is a ratio to adjust for the surface and atmosphere. With an average surface emissivity of ~0.965 and atmosphere of 0.85 it could be between 0.825 the "benchmark" or as high as 0.88, from what I see. The benchmark uses the estimated climate sensitivity 3.3 Wm2/K dividing by the 4Wm2 = 3.3/4 or 0.825. It is a unitless ratio. We have conductive flux becoming retained heat as it transitions to radiant, convective flux moving contained heat from the surface then becoming retained heat as it transitions to radiant, and radiative flux cooling or heating dependent on the value of the effective emissivity. From 0.825 to approximately 0.71, it increases the heat retained, from ~0.71 to 0.61 it produces cooling. All three fluxes are interrelated. Only at the surface, for one system state, are the numbers assigned to each valid, or at least appear to be valid. The solution only describes that one state, small changes should be valid to approximate the next state. Without knowing the shape of the curves for the conductivity, connectivity and Effective emissivity, I don't what they units they should have.
The rough shape of the combined variables should be like the temperature profile of the atmosphere. Initially warming, decreasing to cooling near the tropopause, then warming in the stratosphere.
"Why triangles for the up welling and down welling?" Simplicity. In three dimensions it would be a solid Bucky ball inside a hollow Bucky ball inside a larger hollow Bucky ball. So the triangles are similar to Buckymids, pyramid like shapes.
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.
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