Monday, October 10, 2011

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

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.

Since this appears to be more complicated than I thought,

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 100Wm-2.

"Units for emissivity?" For "Effective" emissivity, it is unit-less. 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 Wm-2/K dividing by the 4Wm-2 = 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.

No comments:

Blog Archive