I have revised this to make the situation clearer, Back To Baking Bacon Bread, which was pretty tasty. I will leave the rest below because there are some ideas I may want to revisit.
The issue of what is the more appropriate initial value should be used for assumed linear extrapolation of surface temperature needs to be clarified.
From my perspective the greenhouse ratio would be 33K/(288255)K. This produces a value of one equivalent with the initial value of the greenhouse or atmospheric effect. Optionally, 33K/(28833) or 33/255 is proposed. This implies and initial ratio of 0.129 and changes to that ratio may provide a better approximation.
Comparing the two, a ten percent change in temperature would be 36.3/(288255) or 10% increase. In the other case,36.3/255=0.142, then 0.142/0.129=10%, my method just reduces a step.
The question can this be used for determining a climate sensitivity to the change in CO2, it could not be. It would be an estimate for the change in climate due to a sensitivity of forcing at the surface only. In the atmosphere, the procedure would be used as a change in sensitivity for the atmosphere only.
A second question would be when using the ratio for combined fluxes if the ratio should include adjustments for the nonlinear relationships. For a small change the linear assumption should be fine, but at what point would the approximation produce significant error?
By assigning temperatures to the flux change in Era based on SB, a 10% change in Era would result in 10.6% change in temperature. So there is error due to nonlinearity, whether that error is acceptable for the situation would depend on the purpose of the estimation. Huh?
Update: Possibly, that error may be due to issues on the K&T cartoon other than the 235 at the TOA. 24+78+40+26=168 Where on average that should equal 390, the flux of a black body at 288K, at the surface.
I will get back to this, but it looks like K&T double dipped. The way I have drawn in the NASA budget should be closer to reality. The proportional method I was using may allow me to tweak it, though I still have some issues with dF/dT=4F/T at the surface. We will see.
Just a Note: The NASA cartoon is a little better because it shows radiant heat rising into the atmosphere, then splitting into absorbed and directly radiated to space. Water in the atmosphere is responsible for some percentage of the radiation in the direct window. So we have three basic heat fluxes with different rates of flow varying with conditions. The total flux from the surface will be approximately 390Wm2, the minimum average downwelling will be 155Wm2 and the maximum should be a percentage of the flux interacting with the atmosphere decreasing toward 155Wm2.
The wind is blowing, so while I wait before going fishing, the little greenhouse effect thing on the left of the drawing is and initial estimate. The 216 and 72 radiative fluxes just happen to equal 288, not a mistake, just chance. That does change our initial heat fluxes to Er=288, El=79 and Et=24. Now a 3.7W/m^2 increase in Er gives us (288+3.7)/(390+3.7)=0.7409 from an initial 288/390 = 0.7385. A decrease equals (2883.7)/(3903.7)=0.736. The difference of the two from initial is the approximate ratio of the change in forcing which is both for flux and temperature as they happen to be equal. For radiative change, dF/dT=4F/T, is a good approximation. That does not necessarily hold for the latent, sensible or noninteractive radiative fluxes at the surface, but should be in the ballpark for such a small change. For an increase, 0.74090.7385=0.0024..., time 288 yields 0.707 For a decrease, 0.7360.7385=0.0025 times 288 yields 0.7214. Using dT(T)=dF/4F, I believe that results in a Planck parameter of approximately 0.18 :)
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.
Monday, October 3, 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