Our Energy Future: Hydrogen

Did the EPA Give us Coal for Christmas?

2012-01-09T05:42:00.000-08:00

Just before Christmas of the past year, the EPA announced with a certain amount of political pomp and circumstance, that the new Mercury and Air Toxin Standards MATS for fossil fuel users. The standard is based on the top 12 percent of coal power plants which will put about 10 percent of older coal plants out of business and require the remaining plants to retrofit to meet the standard or switch to another fuel likely natural gas. 25megaWatts is the minimum size plant that the standards apply. A possibly unintended consequence, it that the standards may very well have an equal or strong impact on cleaning up the renewable energy sector, biomass in particular.

Coal got its toxins from the biomass that became coal of millions of years. Depending on the growing conditions, renewable biomass can contain a significant, at least with respect to MATS, amount of toxins. The range of Mercury content varies and I have not seen a complete study of biomass Mercury content, but 0.026 micrograms per gram, the average for dried peach leaves, is a fair estimate for biomass grown in the marsh or swampy location typical of timber products. Timber products tend to promote swampy conditions, which is an important factor in maintaining water shed efficiency.

Of course, the Mercury content in coal is not listed in micrograms per gram, that would be too simple, coal is listed in grams per ton, short ton in the United States. There are 907184.7 grams per short ton and average quality coal contains about 0.1 grams per short ton. That converts to 0.11 micrograms of Mercury to gram of coal versus 0.026 for dried peach leaves. So the Mercury in peach leaves is much less than the Mercury is coal right?

Well, so is the energy content. Coal has 28 Mj/kg while peach leaves, which I would estimate to be about the same as switch grass or wood products, has about 5Mj/kg wet. It takes energy to dry stuff and if you use enough you can convert that switch grass or wood to charcoal or biopellets for a wood stove. If you adjust the Mercury content of the peach leaves to allow for the energy difference, Peaches leaves would produce 0.146 micrograms of Mercury per equivalent coal gram of energy. That by the way does not include the differing amount of energy required to dry to biomass for use as a fuel.

This would tend to reinforce my suggestion of Coal/Biomass co-generation as a responsible use of existing resources and the reduction of the massive mountains of waste buried all across our great nation.

I am sure though, that there must be a warm and fuzzy reason to regulate this crazy idea into oblivion.

Optimism for Christmas - A grand Gift

2011-12-25T04:53:00.000-08:00

Most of the energy issues that face our world are repairable in proper steps. All it takes is optimism and intelligence. I have been worried for some time because the pessimists have been in charge.

There is a fine line between optimism and pessimism, which is called realism. Nothing good results from too much of any of them, even realism. Even a realist needs a little craziness from time to time.

Municipal scale cooperative utilities are my crazy vision of the future. Combining power generation, waste disposal, water treatment and production in efficient co-generation to get the maximum benefit for the community for the buck.

No more NIMBY mentality. Deal with your own shit on your own turf. The technology is available now to start on that path. There are lots of great ideas that have waited for their time. Which ones will win depends on the needs and desires of the community.

So I will be digging through some of the better ones I have and add a few of my own not that it looks like the rough patch is getting shorter.

Happy Holidays and a prosperous future.

What Just Happened? Is Hydrogen Back in the Picture?

2011-12-24T04:06:00.000-08:00

The EPA made a politically timed announcement that the Maximum Achievable Clean Technology (MACT) is now in force in the the United States. Under the guise of getting Mercury pollution from nasty coal fired power plants finally under control, the MACT will have impact on about 10 percent of the older coal power plants with 12 percent of the currently operating power plants already meeting the MACT tighter standards. While the Greens strut around proclaiming victory over nasty coal, the MACT seems to endorse clean coal technology, or cleaner coal technology if you prefer.

As usual, the industries that will bear the brunt of the regulation will not be the target mentioned in the media hype. Forestry and pulp products, smaller scale industrial power generation and institutional (university and military) power and thermal plants will have to get out of the power business.

Pulp mills have worked hard the past 20 years to bring emissions under control to meet the demands of encroaching residential property owners that build homes near pulp plants. Hey, the land was cheap for a reason guys.

It is all good, other than the suburban sprawl started the ball rolling. Cleaner emissions generally mean more efficient energy use.

Integrated Gasification combined cycle power generation, the cleaner coal technology, meets the EPA regulations which opens the door to a variety of mixed fuel and synergistic industrial applications. Only problem is, will the small guys feel the boot of big government and be driven out of the picture?

I haven't posted on this blog in quite some time because nothing has happened. MACT may be a big something. With some reasonable assurance that the rules are not going to change for the 50 years or so required to invest in new coal and unconventional fuel technology, the EPA may have unleashed the innovative potential of American entrepreneurs. The tide may have turned!

Simple Versus Too Simple

2011-10-24T05:05:00.000-07:00

Making the complex simple to understand is the goal of science, any discipline really. That goal often requires compromises where one portion of the overall concept is attempted to be explained by analogy to a commonly understood concept.

Physics uses many basic analogies, Carnot Engines, Equilibrium and adiabatic processes, as foundations even though none may ever exist. They are convenient models of perfection for comparison.
In atmospheric physics, the dry adiabatic lapse rate, where temperature changes with pressure with no gain or loss to the system, is an example of an equilibrium state with prefect energy transfer, a Carnot engine. Perfection does not exist in nature, it can only be approached.

The dry adiabatic lapse rate in Earth’s atmosphere is the combination of the surface temperature, the composition of the gases in the atmosphere, the molecular weight of the gases, the thermal properties of the gases, the gravitational constant and radiant energy interaction with the changing density and composition of gases compressed by gravity. A rather complicated process we on the surface take for granted.

If you are in favor of electrical analogies, the adiabatic lapse rate is an inductive load with a steady state current. Small changes in current are dampen by properties of the inductor and rapid change produces huge changes in the potential energy or electromotive force realized across the inductive load.

The electromotive force is provided not by a single source, but several, a conductive battery, a latent battery, a gravitational battery and a radiant battery are the more significant power sources.

The radiant battery is both solar and black body, with cells poorly designed for the task, but adequate in steady sate conditions. In steady state, the potential can be determined at different points in the atmospheric circuitry and the total accurately calculated from one connection to the next. i.e. if we know the voltage and current into a black box and the current and voltage out of that black box, we can determine to a point what circuitry is in the box. With more than one condition, we can better describe the inner circuitry.

The currents are in parallel from the electromotive sources at the surface, Fc, Fl, Fr, and F?, for conductive, latent, radiant and the question mark is ever present uncertainty. Each of the batteries providing these currents or fluxes, have cells, Fra, Frb, Frc …Frn, for example. The subscript letters can be individual wavelengths, associated energies, or combinations of wavelengths and energies that impact portions of the atmosphere.

This is the simplicity of the Kimoto equation, dF/dT=4(aFc+bFl+cFr+…F?)/T, which is derived from Stefan’s equation, Fi/Fo=alpha(Ti)^4/alpha(To)^4, or the change in energy flux of a body is proportional to the change in temperature of the body at initial temperature T. All the coefficients, a,b,..n, represent changes to the flux through the atmospheric inductor or impedance.

Proper use of this simple equation requires, proper consideration of the flux values and ever present uncertainty.

New Blog For Easier Navigation

2011-10-23T16:55:00.000-07:00

This has been my trash blog for a long time. Random thoughts on random subjects. For the Climate Change crowd, I have started a new blog to try and better organize things. You need to have a common starting point to see how a complex set of feedbacks and natural responses combine into a very interesting balance.

The New Blog, CaptDallas' Redneck Theoretical Physics Forum. There is quite a bit of pun intended in the title and the attitude. The curious may find it interesting.

For the insomniacs in the crowd, The Energy Budget of the Polar Atmosphere in MERRA is a nice light read. There are pretty significant descrepancies that more than cover the conductive issue I am trying to quantify. The devil is in the details, but adapting the equation should shed some light on the issue. Poor satellite coverage is not helping at all. There is a significant lead in surface change over down welling change though that is interesting.

Carbon Dioxide- A Not so Well Mixed Gas

2011-10-22T09:54:00.000-07:00

In an atmosphere without significant water, carbon dioxide would be a very well mixed gas. Earth’s atmosphere has water in all phases and at different concentrations. This greatly complicates solutions for the changes in relative conductive and radiant properties of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide rains out in areas with high humidity and precipitation. The rate of diffusion varies with temperature and pressure from well mixed gas ratio to regions where CO2 is depleted via rain out. Using global averages provides good results, but for regional evaluation, the changes and rates of change in CO2 must be considered.

The Antarctic with its low precipitation rate and very cold climate offers a baseline for CO2 change in the overall atmosphere. It is in the Antarctic where the impact of CO2 on conductive flux is most evident and the impact on radiant flux more over estimated. The blend of underestimated conductive change and over-estimated radiant change are uniquely Antarctic.

While theories are plentiful, the reality is hard to determine. Sublimation cannot be completely ruled out on a microscopic scale, due to conditions available between the Antarctic Tropopause and the surface temperatures and pressures.

The exact psychometric relationships will require a great deal of further study. However, as tropospheric temperatures can approach -95C and the temperature and pressures of the Antarctic can be less than -60C at 1020mb, microscopic sublimation is possible provided a deposition substrate of a few atoms can be found. Microscopic carbonic snow, an interesting theory for idle moments.

Carbon dioxide concentration lags between Antarctic and Mona Loa would be much more easily analyzed.'

With a reliable estimate of the changes in carbon dioxide change, the Poisson Equation can be adjusted to the specified thermal properties of the atmosphere regionally, adding greatly to the utility of the Kimoto equation.

Another Shot at Explaining the Atmospheric Effect

2011-10-20T21:31:00.001-07:00

I found a dedication quote in response to this question:
Dallas: "Do you actually believe that down welling long wave radiation is nearly twice solar?

"Yes, I do, because that’s what the measurements show and that’s what’s required to close the energy balance. See SURFRAD data, for example ( http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/surfrad/aod/aodpick.html )."

That's what's required? A perfect display of biased perception. The reason I am stating what should be obvious to inquisitive minds.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere both warms and cools. This is nothing new. The fear has been it will warm more than cool. At times it will. The relationship is complex.

While I would prefer to move on to other interests, I am asked why and how I may know this. The truth is the Kimoto equation is a very valuable tool for quickly testing relationships between radiant, conductive and latent thermal fluxes in the atmosphere. Simply, it works. How well, I am still working on that.

With the equation dF/dT=4(0.33Fc+1.09Fl+0.825Fr)/T, where Fc is the conductive, Fl is the latent and Fr is the radiant thermal fluxes from the surface at 288K, it is easy to use the standard values available from NASA to do “what ifs” to your heart’s content. That and a basic understanding of thermodynamics, is all it takes to see what is happening.

The basic thermodynamics should be obvious. If surface warming is due to Fr being restricted, the other two fluxes will increase as temperature increases. Water vapor increase is well known, but the increase in conduction seems to have been over looked. It will increase. That is a cooling effect.

Perhaps, the confusion is in the values, 0.33, 1.09 and 0.825? These are the values determined from the steady state condition of the Earth at 288K and 390Wm-2 associated with the 288K by the relationship of a black body’s radiant energy via Stefan’s Law. If the steady state values, 24Wm-2 for conductive, 79Wm-2 Latent and 390-24-79=287 radiant are equal to 0.33Fc, 1.09Fl and 0.825Fr are correct, be my guest and check my work, then you can determine roughly what and how much each value will change. It is easier to see if you consider what would change.

Fr, is the total of all surface radiation after allowing for conductive and latent cooling. Fr, includes both the energy absorbed by the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and the energy eventually lost directly to space through the atmospheric window, and the matching up welling energy for the down welling atmospheric effect, or greenhouse effect. The radiant energy absorbed by the atmosphere is approximately 80 Wm-2 that can be determined by looking at the NASA Earth Energy Budget drawing where they have clearly shown how incoming solar energy is matched by outgoing combined conductive, latent and radiant flux. The remainder, 287-80=207 is the approximate greenhouse effect. Depending on which source drawing you use, NASA or the Keihl & Trenberth drawings, the 207 varies to approximately 220 Wm-2. Small change, but the values are approximate.

The coefficients are "Effective” values in that they, effect the atmospheric absorption. The 207 to 220 is a balancing force that would vary only if the effects of the three thermal fluxes increase the surface temperature. Then the 207-220 would increase to balance the atmospheric effect.

If you look at the top of the atmosphere, you will see that the solar absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds plus the solar absorbed by the surface is roughly 240Wm-2, The total absorbed by the atmosphere OLR from the surface and incoming solar equals roughly 240Wm-2 and the total leaving from the atmosphere is equal to roughly 240Wm-2. That is the energy balance. The 207 to 220 is the value of the greenhouse effect and is internal to the system.

This value is different from the classic top of the atmosphere value of 390-240=160Wm-2 sometimes noted as 155Wm-2 depending on the initial values used. That flux value corresponds to the 33C warmer the Earth is considered to be because of the combined atmospheric effects, conductive, latent and radiant energy transferred to the atmosphere from the surface to become the potential energy holding the atmospheric gases above the surface in opposition to the gravity attempting to pull them back to the surface. It is higher because the efficiency of the work done and the opacity of the atmosphere varies with pressure.

Everything balances, which is the desired result if you are attempting an Energy Balance of the Earth. The surface, the atmosphere, the top of the atmosphere and the potential energy of the atmosphere, the atmospheric effect, all of these are considered with these values. There are of course small differences due to rounding and uncertainty, but everything is in reasonable balance.

If there is more warming of the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is getting warmer, the coefficients of surface fluxes, Fc, Fl and Fr increase. That would add to the potential energy of the atmosphere and have to be balanced by an increase of the 207-220 Wm-2.

The hard part for some to grasp, is that increased atmospheric absorption reduces the potential energy difference between the surface to the atmosphere, reducing heat transfer to the atmosphere, with some exceptions, causing interesting feedbacks. These are the rather complex feedbacks to the warming surface. Clouds both absorb more from the surface and reflect more solar from above. CO2 above the clouds retain more heat which warms the cloud tops first, which tends to increase convection at the upper troposphere. More CO2 improves the conductivity which allows more efficient heat transfer from the surface to the lower troposphere. The impacts of these feedbacks vary from region to region.

The tropics are virtually saturated for all three heat fluxes. More radiant warming above the clouds increases convection which increases latent cooling, winds increase and precipitation tends to cool the surface, offsetting warming. The southern pole is temperature limited due to angle of inclination, increased conduction balances increased radiant forcing resulting in little surface temperature change. It is in the Northern polar and subtropical region where radiant forcing impacts the surface temperature the most.

Since increased CO2, impacts a relatively small portion of the radiant spectrum at the surface, the radiant energy flux in the atmospheric window to space increases, which does increase surface warming somewhat, but is limited by near saturation of the CO2 portion of the surface radiant window. Higher in the troposphere, the atmospheric window helps cool the cloud tops warmed by CO2 forcing.

It is a complex system with many more feedbacks than commonly discussed in the literature. The conductive impact and the downward opacity to increased infrared forcing are virtually ignored and crucial for understanding the atmospheric effects. Minimum Local Emissivity Variations are just being evaluated to improve the accuracy of satellite telemetry and surface down welling radiation monitoring plagued with inaccuracy.

Sometimes simple equations are much more valuable for analyzing a complex problem than millions of hours of computer modeling.

Now, try the equation and look out the window.

What? Need more information?

Then let us start at the beginning.

The Earth’s Virgin atmosphere.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, if it were just floating in space minding its own business, the surface temperature would be about 278 degrees K or about five degrees above zero on average. That is because the sun warms the Earth half the time with 340 Wm-2 of energy. If the Earth had snow on the surface that reflected a portion of this energy it would be colder as less solar energy would be absorbed.

So if 30% of the sunlight were reflected, the average temperature would be about 255K which is 18 degrees C below zero. The Earth though has an abundance of nitrogen and oxygen, gases that have a small but significant thermal coefficient 0f 0.025W/m-2.K at 20 degrees C and about 0.024W/m-2.K at -18 degrees C. So even at the colder temperature, the virgin Earth would have surface heat transferred to the atmosphere by conduction. We would have an atmosphere, even without greenhouse gases. Those interested may wish to read up on the ideal gas laws and visit the Engineering Toolbox dot com.

This poses a bit of a challenge for what the virgin albedo of the Earth would be, would the energy be reflected from the surface, the atmosphere or both? Both, is the obvious answer. Why, because nitrogen and oxygen scatter some electromagnetic radiation, absorb some and certain wavelengths cause chemical changes, like O2, oxygen, being split by ultraviolet light and recombining as O3, ozone. This is a little more complicated, but the Engineering Tool box has the information, which should be common knowledge for scientists involved in atmospheric physics.

In addition, the Earth has plenty of water which at the equator would not only be liquid, but evaporate, adding water vapor to the atmosphere. Even if the water vapor had no interaction with outgoing longwave radiation from the surface, it would still interact with incoming solar. The virgin Earth would have a Tropopause, or an inversion if atmospheric temperature cooled from below by the release of radiant energy from the water vapor and conductive energies dissipating to space and warmed from above by solar interaction with oxygen and ozone.

With part of the albedo or reflection of solar energy being in the virgin atmosphere, the surface temperature would be approximately 2 degrees C different, depending on the ratio of surface to atmospheric absorption. This is what a no greenhouse gas Earth atmosphere would be, not a rock in space with no atmosphere at all, a planet with a simple atmosphere that obeys the principals of physics.

The Surface-Atmosphere Solar Absorption Ratio

Without getting into too much detail, the ratio of the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere versus the surface defines the atmospheric effect. This balance or ratio varies to control the surface temperature. Change the radiant energy forcing, throws that balance off requiring the Earth and Atmosphere to seek a new equilibrium state. This is “Enhanced” Greenhouse Effect aka Global Warming, aka Climate Change aka Climate disruption. Understanding starts with the natural ratio and how it will be changed.

Readers with some experience in thermodynamics will have noted that the description of the Virgin Atmosphere provides three main frames of reference, the surface, the Tropopause and the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA). Properly balanced from one frame of reference, all frames of reference can be described. That is a simple check to verify the accuracy of your solution, Thermo 101 stuff.

The Solar Ratio and Impact of Conductive Heat Transfer

The basic model of the Virgin Earth Atmosphere is very educational. Conductive heat transfer is responsible for most of the atmospheric effect, latent cooling balances the conductive heat transfer and generates indirectly the clouds that maintain the solar absorption ratio. A beautifully simple and elegant relationship. The Radiant component of heat transfer enhances the conductive/latent relationship, it does not dominate the relationship.

Of the 240Wm-2 of solar absorbed by the Earth system, approximately 175Wm-2 is absorbed by the surface and 65 Wm-2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is an important ratio, 0.37 approximately. If you are curious, you would notice that the ratio of conductive to latent surface flux is 24/79 or approximately 0.30. If you are rally curious you would investigate the sensible portion of latent cooling, combine that with the conductive flux which is a sensible heat transfer, and find that( 24+5)/74 = 0.39. The surface response attempts to balance the solar impact. How these two ratios vary with respect to each other would determine if the surface is warming or cooling, GHGs enhances this relationship. The values used are approximations, but accurately calculated, the relationship would hold true.

So how does CO2 enhance the atmospheric effect?

At the surface, CO2 is a more efficient conductor of thermal energy both as a radiant absorber and as a conductive gas. Co2 readily absorbs surface thermal energy and transfers that energy to the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. It is the inefficient heat transfer of nitrogen and oxygen that causes the atmospheric effect. Thermo 101 again, if nitrogen and oxygen were perfect conductors of thermal energy there would be no energy transferred to the atmosphere. CO2 improves the conductivity, but does not make it perfect. Also, CO2 has a non-linear thermal conductivity, at 20C it is 0.09, nearly four times as conductive as N2 and O2 and at -20C it is 0.12, that is nearly a full order of magnitude greater than N2 and O2. Not an insignificant difference even at trace gas quantities. While this conductive impact is often assumed to be negligible, the Antarctic temperature response appears to believe otherwise.

Why is this the right way?

Starting at on a solid thermodynamic base allows for double checking all values. Then differences, even subtle differences can have meaning. Something missed, something new or some silly mistake that is confusing the issue. The conductive portion of the atmospheric effect is fairly constant with temperature with a stable humidity. Conductive flux is directly related to surface pressure, a solid base value that would be simple to determine globally. The latent energy is more variable, but extensively monitored by satellite and surface stations. With solid data for conductive and latent, radiant flux can be accurately calculated, far more accurately that direct measurement by satellite and ground stations. This provides a method to check methods, which is very important in a dynamic system.

So why are the satellites and surface stations measuring radiant down welling flux so far off?

Because temperature is related to radiant flux and neither are stable in the atmosphere, they are dynamic. Changes in humidity, and conductive efficiency impact already limited accuracy of direct measurement of thermal flux. The infrared pyrometers are designed to read temperatures by the approximation of the black body temperature of the object being tested. Atmospheric gases change temperature, density, composition continuously with the weather, why would their radiant energy flux be easy to measure? It is much easier to measure the average temperature of a layer of the atmosphere than it is to measure its energy flux emitted in all directions.

Where the satellites and ground stations are inaccurate is more informative than where they are accurate. Anomalies are the teachers.

Why am I so excited by the Flux measurement anomalies?

The anomalies appear to be indications of relativistic effects in the atmosphere! That is exciting if true. Effects typically only measurable under strict laboratory conditions may be apparent in the petaWatt per sec surface and atmosphere energy exchanges involving peta^n collisions and absorptions of photons as they travel from the surface to space. Something lost so far to science because of a silly erroneous assumption that data must fit preconceived notions. An interesting possibility.

Applications?

The most obvious is that the potential temperature of air at 600mb is a good indicator of changes in radiant forcing versus atmospheric response, aka feedbacks. With 600mb as a base value, the potential temperatures at varying altitudes would be a simple metric for modeling changes in thermal flux interaction at various atmospheric layers. Simple, IF, the base pressure has a physical relationship to Down Welling Long Wave Radiation.

Since the ratio of surface to atmospheric absorption of incoming solar irradiance is an indication of the atmospheric effect, comparisons of solar reconstructions with surface temperature reconstructions can be more informative. Now that it is known that the spectral bands of solar irradiance change more at ends of the spectrum than uniformly across the spectrum, the impact of the individual spectral changes on the atmosphere and surface, (read Oceans) can better explain the solar to temperature relationship.

Conductivity changes, though small, can be better studied to evaluate the Antarctic versus Arctic discrepancy, which is a valuable clue, not an instrumentation anomaly.

In short, the correct frame of reference can make a huge difference in understanding a complex system.

Phonon Versus Photon Research List

2011-10-19T22:18:00.000-07:00

Since computers tend to crash, especially in humid enviroments like the Florida Keys, I am building a research list for the Phonon versus photon thing to keep online. Most of what I am looking for is Minimum Local Emissivity Variance.

"In summary, the approximate 1 RU bias between the AERI and the LBLRTM in clear sky conditions is probably not due to calibration errors in the instrument, but is most likely atmospheric absorption that is not accounted for in the calculation."
, David Taylor, University of Milwalkee, Madison.

1 RU is approximately 20K BTW. Maybe something maybe not. The paper is a doctorial thesis which are often very readable and informative. Interesting list of references, Curry, Lindzen.

One interesting thing is the Phonon is a not necessarily a particle, but an enchange of energy via vibrational excitation. In the atmosphere density, connective tissue so to speak of the gas molecules, would be collision or compression, collisional transfer probably, but the micro-shock waves of sound is a possibility. Pretty far fetched, but interesting.

The Powerpoint presentation by Superluminal Quantum is cool. Still in the massless mode where my potential model would have the smallest possible mass as quanta. They are closer to correct I supposed, but I like mass, even if is on the order 10^42/10^35 per quantum. Of course, my mass would only exist if the photon collapsed or if the photon splintered where the fragments could not maintain angular momentum. It would still travel like a woofleball, jitter and may have a maximum local velocity c*2^.5, don't know yet.

The Relativity Series Begins Under Cosmic Puzzles

2011-10-19T08:09:00.000-07:00

Relativity Simplified?

The past masters of Classical Physics determined that there was some barrier that had to be considered for explanations of our universe to be accurate. Some little something that only was significant a certain times, velocities, densities, temperatures etc. Everything in physics made sense, but only to certain points, then descriptions tended to fall apart. Something was missing.

Einstein determined that the ultimate barrier was the speed of light, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity, mass for example, approaches infinity as its velocity approaches the speed of light. The theory had to be separated into special relativity, for atomic particles and general relativity for most applications of sufficient mass. A photon traveling at the speed of light obviously does not have infinite mass, as is true for electrons and all the subatomic particles. There must be a difference.

The CERN particle accelerator experiments attempted to more accurately measure the speed of subatomic particles, neutrinos, and unexpectedly, found that their particle was moving faster than the speed of light. Actually, it only appeared to be moving faster than light. The timing of the release and capture of the neutrino was measured via GPS satellites orbiting the Earth. These satellites are moving the escape velocity of Earth’s gravity and due to chance, one of the satellites was moving toward the release point from the capture point at an angle sufficient to cause a Doppler shift in the measurement. That is yet another proof of the theory of Relativity, but which one, Special or General? Perhaps both?
Unlike the astrophysical proof of relativity, the CERN results are much closer to home. Right in our backyard, we can test the theory of relativity any time we wish.

This may be ho hum news for many, but it is pretty exciting if you happen to dabble in theoretical physics. Why? Because relativity is the sum of all barriers, light speed is just the biggest.

The speed of sound is a common barrier. Not just the first speed of sound, but the second speed of sound and probably the third ad infinium to the light speed barrier. That would mean that the theories of General and Special relativity may be combined into the Law of Relativity. That would be an enormous simplification of general physics, ground breaking!

So my excitement over the CERN discovery may be a touch more than the average Joe Six Pack’s excitement. The first point is that this discovery partially validates this simple relationship, dF/dT=4alphaF/T, where F is energy flux, T is temperature in K, and alpha if the relative coefficient of flux in a media. The little d’s being the change of F with respect to the change of T.

By expansion, dF/dT=4(aF+bF+cF-…..+nF)/T, the summation of energy flux allowing for relativistic considerations divided by the initial temperature is equal to the change in F with respect to the change in T, simplification of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that applies to all energy flux not just electromagnetic energy. That is amazing if physics is one of your hobbies. It could redefine how we understand the big universe and the small universes of atoms. Exciting stuff!

Since this is all new, I will be starting a new series of posts on what is a fascinating subject to me. I started a new lable, Cosmic Puzzles, a while ago and this series of posts will be under that lable.

Atmospheric Phonons - RHC and the Greenhouse Effect

2011-10-19T05:52:00.000-07:00

Modeling heat flux exchange between atmospheric boundary layers

The interaction of conductive, convective and radiant heat flux change with density in the atmosphere. That complicates making a simple model that best illustrates the heat exchange between layers. Ideally, the basic model could be used for as many layers as possible so that the changes in the impact of one flux relative to the others would be most apparent.

Using the surface and Tropopause as an example, Flat plates for the surface opposed by a flat plate Tropopause would be a simple illustration for radiant flux, opposing triangles with a broad base at the surface decreasing to a point below the tropopause opposed by a potential energy triangle with the broad base at the potential temperature of the conductive energy transferred to the atmosphere, and the convective with latent would be a column with its width equal to the energy transferred from the surface to the point of condensation which then tapers to a point where water vapor is negligible.

For a RHC model, the three flux models would be combined into what appears to be a cone opposed by a cone, more accurately, a Bucky-mid opposed by a Bucky-mid. A Bucky-mid being a cone with its base shaped like a segment of a Bucky ball. Two dimensionally, a triangle would have to do.

Because of the interaction, the flat plates would not be very descriptive. The three dimensional model would be a Bucky ball core centered in a Bucky ball sphere. The surface base for each flux would be the same, but the area of the Tropopause Bucky segment would vary for each flux.

The drawing attempts to show in two dimensions, how the sum of the three energy fluxes shift from mixed flux to nearly pure radiant flux. The area of each flux showing the amount of work performed to create the potential energy of the atmosphere, the atmospheric effect.

Deftly erasing the individual flux representations  The opposing triangles represent the surface net flux which is opposed by the atmospheric effect.

Energy is converted from kinetic to potential with the typical loss of efficiency expected when work is performed, Thermo 101.

Visualizing the net effect with efficiency loss is easy. Understanding why radiant energy flux has to obey the basic laws of thermodynamics appears to not be so easy for many of my readers. This explanation starts with, “Nearly perfect does not equal perfection.”

The inverse square law of wave propagation is alive and well in physics. The concave shape of the atmosphere relative the convex shape of the surface does not indicate that infrared radiant heat flux can be focused. Visualizing the radiant energy of the atmosphere as a point source of energy at the average altitude of its origin is a more representative expression of how its impact on the surface decreases with distance from the source of the energy and the target or sink for that energy. If we could focus infrared radiation, our energy worries would be over. That difference between short wave and long wave electromagnetic radiation should be a clue to some misinterpreting the atmospheric effect.

This partially illustrates why the assumption of perfect energy transfer from the upper troposphere to the surface is incorrect. Unfortunately, that is a common assumption in the Greenhouse Effect Theory.

The much more interesting part is the interaction of the three flux members. At the surface, opacity is very high, there is little if any direct radiant transfer from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. GHG molecules can absorb surface energy, but the timing for pure emission is much too long, so collisional transfer dominates the cooling of the GHG molecules.

This is well known, what appears to be new, is that this transfer also involves work with enough loss of efficiency to not be negligible. Simple stated, that Kirchoff’s law needs a little tweaking in a gray body application. i.e. energy in to a layer is equal to the energy out ~~minus~~ plus entropy, since work is performed at less than 100% efficiency.

Very simple concept, there is no free lunch in energy transfer. The fun part is figuring out the entropy for radiant heat transfer in a mixed gas environment with changing density and composition of the gases.

In modern physics, quantum mechanics would be used to describe the probability density of the photons by their relative motions and energies. a touch complex, but doable. I classic physics, relativity would be used to simplify the complexities addressed by quantum physics. That is where the Relativistic Heat Conduction comes into the picture.
From Wikipedia, since that is one of the few sources I have at my disposal,

. The main features of RHC are:

1. It admits a finite speed of heat propagation, and allows for relativistic effects when heat flux transients approach that speed.
2. It removes the possibility of paradoxical situations that may violate the second law of thermodynamics.
3. It, implicitly, admits the wave–particle duality of the heat-carrying “phonon”.

The phonon distinction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon is interesting. While it applies to solids and some liquids, the results of the Kimoto equation suggest that it may also apply to gases. I find that interesting. One of the criticisms of RHC is that, “4.The equivalence of relativity and the second law is shocking, because it implies that one of them can be a derivative of the other.” Imagine that?

Note: What I thought was a simple explaination is turning into a book. There has been a great deal of research done on RHC and I am sure I am wasting time describing what has been much more effectively communicated by others. I am a little curious how well my simple observations jive with current research that I do not have access to at the moment.

What the Heck is Effective Emissivity?

2011-10-18T11:46:00.000-07:00

I am still working on the details, but it is the restriction to light flow through a medium and it is starting to look like any medium. Very interesting.

While this is still theoretical, it appears that the vacuum of space is not resistance free to at least low energy photons. Not much, but a little, which is enough to figure out what it is approximately.

Since even photons have mass, it is not unrealistic to believe that the mass of a photon may increase as its energy decreases. If that is the case, then the radiant part of the Relativistic Heat Conduction (RHC)equation is much easier to determine. That is a very cool thing!

The mass though doesn't have to be determined directly. The frequency and wavelength of photons are subject to change when there is interaction with mass. Short wave absorbed becomes long wave radiated. Long wave at one wavelength can become long wave at another wave length.

For CO2, the absorption and emission at 14.7 microns is the big picture, but conductive interaction can change the picture to the smaller side spectra. The mass encountered can add its on spectra to the picture.
We end up with a picture out of focus in mixed gas environments which is probably all environments to a degree.

Space is nearly perfect for radiant enery transport with the exception of the inverse square law, the cone of energy expands with the square of its distance from the source to the sink. Nearly perfect is far from true perfection. While it would be hard to measure, especially if you were not looking for it, interaction with dust and possibly even other low energy photons could create an Effective resistance to flow, "Effective" emissivity.

In the Kimoto equation I have used the terms conductivity, convectivity and emissivity as the related impedances to conductive, convective and radiant heat flows. Latent heat is lumped in with convective, as it should be, but there is a sensible component to latent heat which should not be ignored in convective calculations.

With a well described initial condition, conductivity, convectivity and emissivity, in the sense of effective emissivity, which varies with density, can be approximated. Small state changes allow the approximations to be extended, allowing a more detailed description of the change in each value with density, temperature and changes in gas composition. Pretty difficult to solve from the basics, but not that difficult to estimate.

At the surface, my first estimate of emissivity was 0.850. Which should have been close. But the best estimate is 0.825, why?

Possibly that is the effective emissivity of space to low energy photons. Most measurements of energy of stars, etc. have small notches where the measured spectrum deviates from the classical calculations. Rayleigh-Jeans equations work well for low energy but suffer from the Ultraviolet catastrophy. Stefan-Boltzmann works well for higher temperature objects, but just doesn't cut it for lower temperature objects. The Planck equation falls in between. Things change with energy and mass. Pretty simple concept.

Does that change mean that the RHC equation is doable? Not really, but it appears to have at least one NEW niche, low energy photons in a mixed gase environment. From that start, who know what can follow?

I added the bold new above because it was one of the more important things missing. RHC has applications, mainly in plasmas. That would make most think that it would not apply to the low temperatures and energies of the atmosphere. The only reason it seems to apply to the atmopshere is the magnitude of the total energy transfered and the large number of thermal gradients. That's my theory and I am sticking to it :)

I would not have noticed a relationship looking at any parts of the data, but as a whole, it is noticable and then as major segments of the atmopshere, northern extent, southern extent and tropics it is also noticable, once you are sensitive to what you are looking for themodynacially.

The differences in the northern and southern responses are most obvious and appear to be explained by the emissive and conductive relationship. The tropopause regulation potential most noticable in the tropics and near tropics and appear to be explainable with the conductive/latent to radiative transistions.

Explaining the tropopause regulation may be nearly impossible. The analogy to a radio antennea ground plane is pretty good. Using a ball over sphere model showing the inverse square propogation of the upper point source or ball on a much large spherical surface is helpful as well, but neither really come close to a proper visual aide. It seems that many may picture a lower point source with a concave outer sphere focusing the back radiation, which is opposite the actual effect. I am not possitive why it is so difficult to explain with simple geometry why down welling longwave has to obey the inverse square relationship. Some think I am a lunatic just for believing that energy transfer cannot be 100% efficient. That is truly odd!

I would prefer being called a lunatic for more sophisticated reasons, like believing conductive heat flux never should have been considered negliable. I mean, that did surprise me. Had it not at least offered some explanation for the Antarctic's refusal to warm as predicted I would not have pursued this theory.

My limited acceptance of the absolute value of the S-B or Rayleigh-Janes or Kirschoff's is a reasonable grounds for calling me a lunatic. Still we are only looking at a possible 1% change in radiative forcing which is easily offset by the tails in nearly any spectrum of any element in the atmosphere. What appears to be the case in the atmosphere is only fraction of a percent uncertainty in the classical equations for what is admittedly a special case. I really don't see the issue there, especially with the relativistic motion of the photons with changing density.

Perhaps I am just a lunatic for thinking what is accepted, but obviously not working, should be questioned. That's no fun. If it is wrong and getting worse, it should be questioned.

Anyway, the poor drawing seems to be a pretty good representation of what is happening in the tropopause. Those interested can check the temperature profiles of the tropopause in the lattitude 20 to 40 ranges to see temperature can decrease by nearly 50C in short time periods. That is a much more rapid response time than the stratospheric temperature change. It is all in the rates of the rate of change.

What appears to be happening is much more interesting than what was predicted to happen. Man can alter climate, only not as was once thought.

Sci-Fi and the Tropopause Heat Sink

2011-10-18T04:21:00.000-07:00

I have been goofing around attempting to write a Science Fiction novel for a year or so. In my society of the future, the denizens would have to have dealt with today's issues to progress to what my vision of the future would be. I was never satisfied with how the Global Warming thing worked out. So I had to work on a Coming Ice Age Scenario or some wonderful technological magic. Fantastical technology is a bit over done in sci-fi, so I was thinking, a combination of nature and technology stumbling to a compromise.

That's what started me reading up on the Global Warming stuff. You need a few inept scientific characters for a humorous aside in a good novel, where better to look?

The Tropopause heat sink was something that looked totally plausable. The Trop does neat stuff. All the drawings in the encyclopedias have these neat and tidy lines showing a flat temperature profile. That's kinda weird, so I needed a little imagination to figure out how weird to make it.

How's this;

Okay, it's a low budget Sci-fi visual..

The flat sides where there is no change in temperature in the Tropopause represent a region of constant net energy flux. When there is a change in up welling flux, the temperature decreases to allow more tropopause relief (the light blue triangles). When the flux decreases the length of the constant flux lengthens to oppose the reduction. An energy flux variable venturi. That sounds pretty Sci-Fi-ish.

What happens is that the little e below the venturi remains pretty constant. Conductive and latent flux increases which tends to increase the little e on top of the venturi. Excess energy is forced out the side spectral windows of the venturi, relieving energy and decreasing the temperature, which narrows the width of the venturi.

Then I was going to explain how the increased percentage of conductive flux below the tropopause tended to smir the radiant spectra because of the relative motion of the photons banging around more than normal. You've got to have some reference to relativity, special or otherwise, in a good sci-fi novel even though no one really understands that stuff. The poor scientist that discovered the relationship had to prove how valuable Antarctica was to the climate environment, to save Earth. Nasty corporation types where planning on developing the vast southern continent. Corporate types make great villains.

Of course, this same relativity thing was how I was going to get the space ship's pulse fusion drive to near light so it could, dark matter lens, to over the apparent speed of light, without the occupants turning into gravity induced spagetti. I thought that may be cooler than the wormhole thing.

Oh, how did future Earth dewelers survive the Coming Ice Age? That was pretty easy.

Could Atmospheric Conductivity Help Regulate Antarctic Temperature?

2011-10-17T13:33:00.000-07:00

The “Effective” emissivity of the atmosphere does not have to be large to be significant. The relationship to what is a small value of the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere is what is important. Note: In the table below borrowed from Thermal conductivity of CO2, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_1000.html that the thermal conductivity of CO2 increases to its maximum near -20 C then decreases. Odd that? Now where in the world would that matter?
While I am sure that the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere is a constant topic of conversation among climate scientists, I have never heard it mentioned except when I asked about its impact.

So when I get around to it, I will attempt to fine tune the Kimoto equation, for now, I am comfortable with my preliminary results.
Temperature
- T -
(oC) Density
- ρ -
(kg/m3) Specific Heat Capacity
- cp -
(103 J/kg K) Thermal Conductivity
- k -
(W/m K) Kinematic Viscosity
- ν -
(10-6 m2/s) Prandtl Number
- Pr -
-50 1156 1.84 0.086 0.119 2.96
-40 1118 1.88 0.101 0.118 2.46
-30 1077 1.97 0.112 0.117 2.22
-20 1032 2.05 0.115 0.115 2.12
-10 983 2.18 0.110 0.113 2.20
0 927 2.47 0.105 0.108 2.38
10 860 3.14 0.097 0.101 2.80
20 773 5.0 0.087 0.091 4.10
30 598 36.4 0.070 0.080 28.7

The Relative Motion of Low Energy Photons in a Mixed Gas Environment

2011-10-16T06:17:00.000-07:00

The rate of radiant heat flux in the changing density of the atmosphere changes proportionally with probability distribution of random motion of the photons. Simple and obvious.

This explains why radiant flux in a down ward direction experiences a change in its impedance to flow relative to in an upward direction. Also at higher density, the horizontal motions tend to cancel. At lower density, the horizontal motion is not negliable with respect to the greater impedance down versus the lesser impedance up. The tropospere can behave as an antenna ground plane to radiant energy originating near the top of the troposphere.

This is nothing Earth shattering, but the impact does not appear to be negliable.

The magnitude of this error seems to explain the differences in the Global Climate Models Estimates and the simple calculations from the Kimoto equation.

Now the relationship between mid-tropospheric temperature and stratospheric temperate rates of change provide a better estimate of the value of the effective emissivity at the top of the troposphere, explaining the shift circa 1994 in the relationship.

The mid-troposphere/stratosphere temperature relationship should make a good Watt-meter.

Now all I have to do is prove that, not relativity, for the Kimoto equation's use to be accepted.

Note: I am working on other things, so this is just another note for me.

While N2 and O2 have little absorptivity on the IR spectrum, all it takes is a little to be an impedance to radiant flux attempting to travel at the speed of light. That impedance would change with density which in turn changes with pressure. The sum of the impedance imposed by the individual gases and consentrations would the Effective impedance. The difference in the outbound and inbound effective emissivities would be proportional to the change in density, and inversely related.

This tends to imply that simplifying the variables to temperature, potential temperature and pressure/density should result in an accurate estimate of the change in Effective emissivity. No need to complicate the equation with the Rayleigh-Jeans equations.

What is a Pyrometer Measuring When You Aim it at the Sky?

2011-10-16T03:26:00.000-07:00

Temperature based on the infrared spectrum of the device. It i not directly measuring DWLR due to the "Greenhouse" effect, it is measuring temperature which is energy.

Why would it measure about 320Wm-2 or 275K which is 1 degree C? Because there is potential energy in the atmosphere. The weight of the atmophere that is held up against the force of gravity by out going energy, mainly conductive flux assisted by radiant flux leaving the surface to space that is creating the potential energy.

At night does the tropopause fall hundreds of meters? No, it slowly sinks, so slowly there is little change in altitude. The energy flow through the atmosphere changes by nearly two hundred Wm-2 between day and night, more from season to season. Why doesn't the altitude of the tropopause constantly move up and down with the change? Because the tropopause regulates the flow of energy by changing temperature. The Tropopause can change by more than 30C faster than its altitude can change. This is because conductive flux from the surface maintains the lapse rate along with radiant energy interacting with water vapor.

In the day, solar enrgy is absorbed both at the surface and in the atmosphere. The average ratio is 70 atmosphere/170 surface. This average ratio, 0.41 times the surface flux is 160Wm-2. Which happens to be approximately atmospheric effect at the top of the troposphere. That is why the atmopheric effect is roughly in equilibrium. Clouds, Greenhouse gases, dust can change that equilibrium ratio. Latent flux change attempts to balance changes in that equilibrium.

The change in solar cycles change the ratio. High energy short wave, UV changes more than low energy near infrared. It is a push versus pull effect on the lapse rate. The surface convection pushing, the upper troposphere convection pulling. That amplifies the solar change slightly.

The Pyrometer or infrared thermometer is measuring the net down welling energy of all this dynamic energy transfer. A large portion of which is the response to the conductive flux, the potential energy of the atmophere. You could measure at the surface and subtract the temperature at the end of the lapse rate. Why bother? You have the temperature at the surface and the temperature at the top end of the lapse rate, calculate the DWLR. It is about 288-(-28C)or 288K-246K = 42K on average.

The Earth's atmosphere is in a remarkable balance of competing energy flux effects. It is easy to think you are measuring one, when you are in fact measuring several.

What is the significance of the 42K? It would be the approximate change in surface temperature due to the "Greenhouse" gas portion of the atmospheric effect. Remember, latent flux cools the surface.

If that is the case? 216/42=5.16 Wm-2/K is the climate sensitivity at the top of the tropopause and 216/33=6.54Wm-2/K the sensitivity at the surface. There is an inverse relationship between energy at the surface and energy at the top of the tropopause. A doubling of CO2, if it equals 3.7Wm-2 of forcing, would produce 3.7/6.54=0.8 degrees at the surface. At the top of the troposphere, 5.16/3.7=1.4 degrees at the top of the troposphere. Where the change in forcing is felt is very important to know. If you consider the conductive and latent flux response, the ratio changes slightly.

I am Still Getting Flack over the Value of Down Welling Radiation!

2011-10-15T11:38:00.000-07:00

It seems that some people believe that there is no Down Welling Longwave Radiation (DWLR)or it is twice what it should be.

Here's the pooh. Yes, there is DWLR. Always has been. Always will be, if we have an atmosphere.

In the drawing by Kiehl and Trenberth, both the total flux for a black body at 288K and its calculate energy flux 390Wm-2, and the conductive plus latent heat fluxes are shown. Everything appears to balance. There is a difference between the radiant energy from the surface, absorbed by the atmosphere when compared to the NASA drawing. Approximately 24Wm-2 is the difference.

This is or at least should be common knowledge. My question was why?

If you turn off the sun, the conductive and latent fluxes do not stop as if by magic. The total outgoing energy will be equal to conductive (thermals in K&T's case) plus convective (latent in this case with a sensible component) and radiant. The total of all there will be 390Wm-2 initially.

390-24(conductive)-79 (convective)= radiant from the surface or 287 radiant. Got that?

Only the 287 is subject to the "Greenhouse" effect at the surface. The "greenhouse" effect cannot be greater than the energy effected. Yes, the total can be derived from the full 390 from the surface. 390 surface minus 240 top of the atmosphere is 160 Wm-2. The common value of the "greenhouse" effect is 155Wm-2, so it is a little different because the drawings are not exact in every way.

The 155Wm-2 is at the top of the atmosphere. 287-155=132 is the value at the surface. Notice the difference? Those two numbers give the ratio 155/132=1.17, 1.17*155=182. So the simplest estimate of what energy flux would produce 155Wm-2 at the TOA is 182Wm-2. No energy flow gets a free ride, the is always an energy loss in transmission. We live on a sphere and there is entropy.

The tropopause is a neat part of the atmosphere where the temperature is colder than any other place on or above the surface of Earth other than space. This is where the latent heat flux releases its heat eventually. That is up to 79 Wm-2 released directly to the tropopause. The absolute maximum energy of the "Greenhouse" effect could be 182+79=261Wm-2. But we know energy must be conserved, it would never be perfectly transfered to the tropopause. What may it be then? 240Wm-2, the "greenhouse" effect cannot manufacture energy, only retain energy, and that at a loss, entropy remember?

The "Greenhouse" effect due to a surface temperature averaging 288K cannot be greater than 240Wm-2 for our planet. If you add, 170Wm-2 solar absorbed by the surface to 390Wm-2 to 560Wm-2. Why would I use 560Wm-2 to determine the "greenhouse" effect of a planet at 288K emitting 390Wm-2 on average? I would not.

The "Greenhouse" effect is the radiative portion of the atmospheric effect, which just happens to be ~220Wm-2 measured at the surface, 155-160Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere and 132-155 measured at the tropopause. Sorry life on Earth is not linear. The 321Wm-2 are the combination of conductive and radiant energy. With no "Greenhouse effect there would still be conduction. That's just the way it is.

So how much conduction? How much latent? How much non Greenhouse gas radiant? That's what I am working on, not some vision of perpetual motion caused by a silly cartoon with an incorrect number.

It appears that the models that generated that incorrect number are also generating an incorrect value of the "Greenhouse" effect. How much? About 10% +/- 8% more. That is all. A meager 10% that may mean a lot in the overall scheme of things.

Update: So why not use the 390 and 24? Or 390 and 79? Short answer, that's not the atmospheric effect. Look at it this way, 390W,-2 at the surface and 240Wm-2 at the TOA, is the atmopsheric effect. That's the TOA not the troposphere. That number asumes that the no GHG Earth was 255K or 33C cooler than now. That is assuming a lot. What would it be? By my calculations, 390-216=174Wm-2 or 235C at the surface and 255K at the TOA. The Earth would be 20 cooler because of latent cooling if there were no radiant flux interaction with the atmophere at all. But the actual temperature was 255K at the surface +/- 3 degrees, the possible error assuming 30% albedo which includes clouds and white ice. Would a frozen Earth with no atmosphere have clouds and snow? I don't think so. Latent energy cools the surface and warms the troposphere, conductive energy warms the surface and the atmosphere, radiant heat both cools the surface, warms the lower atmosphere and cools the upper troposphere. The net effect at the surface is more than 155Wm-2, but it is not 321Wm-2. Any value of change in flux that gives you the exact 33C includes all heat flux not just radiant absorption. You have to assume that conduction and latent heats do not exist to get than answer. Do they?

The fun part for me is that the silly Kimoto equation that I used, just to see if it may be valid, seems to be. If it is, it indicates some neat stuff. That the Earth environmental data collected for the global warming issue, may be accurate enough to provide some insight into relativistic Heat flow. One of accidental things that happens we you spend billions on research, you learn something new, something unexpected. Could it all be a bunch of crap? You betcha! But so far it just keeps showing promise. Fun stuff!

What is The 4C Thermal Boundary?

2011-10-14T03:27:00.000-07:00

Update: The http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/ Cern study in Switzerland, realizes that the speed of light is a real barrier. That's a good thing. That would mean that the preception of the speed of photons in a media changes, the relative speed is what is important not the actually speed. That makes life a lot simpler. That makes the calculation of the variable for randiant flux in a mixed gas environment make sense, without having to redefine solid physics. The change in the rate of change is all that is required, not the change of the speed of light. Kinda blows my dark energy theory back, but improves the probability of the Kimoto equation solution.

Again with the high quality graphics, the Temperatures of Earth, (yes, I know there is a degree or so off here or there.)

Note: This is a work sheet I am leaving public. I know most of this has been done before, I am just using a different frame of reference to attempt to better define the variables.

RHC, Relativistic Heat Conduction, is not required to solve any particular thermodynamic problem, but it does simplify solution of complex problems cover millions of years of heat transfer.

d{dF}t/d{dT)t or the change of the change in flux per the change of change in temperature, both with respect to time. It is like all energy flow wants to accelerate, but may be limited by its media of transport. Light appears to have a mass because it cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light because space is not a perfect media.

Note: Light having a mass is a bone of contention with some. The way I look at it, as the energy of a photon increases, its mass is converted into energy, when the energy decreases, the mass increases as energy is converted to mass. E=MC^2 and all that. So my hypothesis is that a photon is an assembly of sub atomic particles, each with a specific quantum of energy and the equivalent of shells for orbits. The combination of possible orbital occupations would be the quantum energy of the photon. Interaction with electrons in matter produces the Phonon effect. The Phonon is the missing element in the RHC equation for the atmosphere. It really should be simple.

Would this play hell with Coulomb's Law? I don't think so. It would tend to more firmly relate fields. Not a bad thing. It should not be too hard to figure out what the basic quatum is?
http://youtube/tEL3Amxf8eI

So a photon may have 1x10^35 quantum states from relativistic masses of 2.21x10-42kg to 2.21x10-7kg. That's just rough estimate of course. The mass of an electron is 9.10938x10^-31kg. Since the relative mass of a photon is obviously not going to be equal to that of an electron, angular momentum, gravity and charge would have to be allowed for to determine the effective rest mass of the photon, which is likely on the order of 2.21x10^-42kg. The overlap of potential relative masses would indicate possible interaction in a mixed gas environment, but there is work still to be done.

Unfortunately, it appears that the appearent mass of a photon has to approach zero, from its all ready near infintesimally small mass, for this to work. That would mean the speed of light is a relative constant, it would approach an infinity. A little scary when you look at it as a whole, but it makes sense. Whether this totally agrees with the concept of VLS, I don't know yet.

Most understand the simple heat transfer barriers, insulation, gas to liquid contact, optics and radiant energy. RHC just defines all heat transfer in terms of time scales (changes in rates of change may be better). It is a simplification, probably not an ultimate solution, but a step in that direction.

I will be working on this from time to time to define simple RHC boundaries. One of the more interesting is the deep ocean 4C barrier. This is density barrier, above 4C sea water density varies with energy flow. Below the 4C barrier, temperature is relatively constant as heat flow is slow, tens of millinia and mirco Watts per meter squared. The effect is the appearance of near perfect conduction of heat, thermal equilibrium on a much longer time scale, that is a much tigher, denser, probability cloud, i,e, if it is easier to locate a packet of energy, its rate of change is less.

What is The 4C Thermal Boundary?

Selecting a frame of reference is more than just a choice of a point in space, it is a choice of space and time. The 4C boundary in the deep ocean is the point of maximum density of our saline ocean. From this boundary upward is the ocean atmopshere mixing layer. Heat is transfer is much greater speed than below the 4C layer. Below the 4C layer is the ocean crust mixing layer. Its heat transfer time scale is on the order of tens of millinia.

This is analogous to the tropopause, we the rate of heat transfer can be much greater than the rate of transfer of energy from the surface mixing layer to the tropopause.

Most studies of thermodynamic full cover thse issues with coefficients of heat transfer across a thermal barrier. Part of the description of the coefficient of heat transfer is the time restraints, but in normal applications, the time constraints can be simplified. In studying the Earth system, these time constrains are only negligable between one boundary per estimate. The relative impacts of the time constraints between two or more thermal boundariers has to be consider for correct estimates.

4C boundary time constant tens of millinia

upper ocean time constant roughly a millinium

This layer is from the 4C density boundary to the surface. There are several layers in this layer. The 100m layer, defined by shorter short wave radiant energy, green to ultraviolet, and the 10 meter layer defined by the longer short wave energy, yellow moving to near infrared, and the skin layers, millimeters to micro meters.

surface air mixing layer time constant roughly months

This is the most interesting boundary to me. Radiant heat from the surface of the oceans is limited by the coefficient of heat transfer from water to air. Changes in wind change the rate of flow. Changes in density change the flow. Changes in the composition of the gases change the flow. Once radiant energy is transferred, the photons enter a supercharge version of nature's pinball machine from Hell. Greenhouse gases can readily absorb photions but the much higher rate of collisional heat transfer to emission by relaxation is phenominal. Conductive heat transfer is more coherent in the direction of temperature drop while emissions are totally random. The absorption the collision de-excitation can enhance conductivity like crazy. The wavelength of the photon from one form of de-excitation can change in nanoseconds. Each of these relaxations that change wavelength can be less efficient than the last or more efficient than the next. This is thermal chaos! Going from near zero to light speed and back billions of times in fractions of seconds.

This is the main reason for my considering relativistic heat conduction and the possibility of variable light speed. While the speed of light may not vary, it would definitly appear to vary. It is like the doppler effect on steroids. Yeah, I think it is kind of exciting :)

The probability density approach is the only way to come close to solving this layer. Once that is estimated, the probability density changes with density of the media, ratio of the mixed gases and the rate of temperature decrease with density. This is where the Kimoto equation becomes a major tool to simplify the calculations. Using surface temperature, potential temperature and "effective" emissivity, a reasonable approximation may be possible. Approximation though, is all it will ever be. There is no equilibrium, just probability density.

Tropopause time constant roughly microsecs

In the Tropopause, you have up welling infrared with downwelling infrared with incoming solar at wide angles and scattered/reflected solar from below. A lot of different fluxes from all directions. The spectral window is very clear for some wavelengths and opaque for others. This is the one spot in the atmosphere that a sandard radiative model could get totally lost. More ice, water vapor or water would play hell in getting a good number. All it takes is a few molecules combined to change the radiant spectrum of the small amounts of water. Measurement of the changes would be complicated becaue of the available angles of emission and absorption not inline with the instrumentation. Getting it close is quite a feat. This is were RHC can really come in handy. The complicate relationships of heat flux can be simplified to temperature, pressure, potential temperature, which is a function of temperature and pressure, to get an estimate of the "effective" emissivity*. That may sound complicated, but the change in temperature with altitude is a direct indication of the net flux. Change in the rate of change of temperature is an indication of the magnitude and sign of the net flux. So the temperature relationship between the mid-troposphere temperature and the lower stratosphere can give you and indication of the flux relationships in the tropopause.

Now that the weird energy changes and actual change in the speed of light are ruled out, the relative motion of the of the photons is the impedance to radiant flux, which changes with density. Near the tropopause the side windows are more open, which expalins the dramatic changes possible in the tropopause. So it will be much easier to explain why the change in rate of change has such an impact. Resistance to flow through the stratosphere changes slowly with respect to the side windows, allowing radiant flux relief, if you will, for larger changes in flux from the surface.

What does this mean for the mid-tropo/strat Watt-meter? That larger areas of the stratopshere will be needed to get the full signal of the change in flux from the surface.

* At the surface, emissivity of the surface times transmittance of atmosphere times the change in transmittance with respect to density. Roughly at this point in the calculations.

The confusing part is the "Effective" emissivity. In a straight line, electromagnetic radiation would follow all the classic rules. The mixture of wavelengths, energies and angles appears to be simplified as a single "effective" unit, with this special case of RHC. How accurately, I am still working on that. It looks pretty close and would be closer with two accurate estimates at two different denisities. The more points you get right, the more you can get right.

In any case, the change in the rate of change is very important.

TOA time constant with space roughly nano seconds

As at the tropopause, but much simpler. With less banging around, the photons are more coherent. There is still some, "resistance" to flow so there will be a change in the rate of change of interaction entering relatively constant emissivity of space. Space still has a "resistance" so there is still entropy. So there is roughly an order of magnitude change in the rate of collisions between the stratosphere and space.

This is the concept of Relativistic Heat Conduction, as I see it, the change in the rate of change for all forms of energy is related to entropy, so all forms of energy flux share common transmission properties.

The Mysterious Case of the Missing Heat

2011-10-13T05:04:00.000-07:00

In the discussion or diatribe on the Kiehl and Trenberth missing heat it appears a good portion of the heat was found. Not all the heat though, that's bugging me.

Nature is pretty simple in a complex way. Yes, that sounds like a contradiction, but it is our understanding that is insufficient, we over think simple and under think complex.

Which is where I am now. The inverse square law is pretty common in nature. That's why the triangles on the drawing are shaped the way they are, that's why it is a part of so many equations. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is an example of the inverse square law, F=simga(T)^4 is F=simga(T^2)^2 The full derivative of F=simga(T)^4 would be dF/dT= 4*A*sigma(T)^3 + C(T)^2 +CT + D. The full equation for determining Specific Enthalpy is the exact form with different coefficients. They are related or relative in nature. That is Relativistic Heat Conduction, simple, but complex.

In normal day to day calculations, the dominate order of the equation can be used and the remainder assigned a constant and coefficients to adjust the numbers.

In a lot of ways the full equation describes four dimensions, zeroth, 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Nature can throw a curve ball where the second order terms are in sync or 180 out and make the simplified assumption invalid. That appears to be the case with lots of missing things now that we have better ways of measuring our world and our universe. What was once adequate may no longer be. Finding classical solutions and comparing them to observed data is science, not assuming anything is ever 100% correct.

That is where I am. The coefficients I resolved for one condition are not the same in all others. Time to find the second order effects, not throw away the first order results, refine them.

How you look at the problem makes all the difference. Would 2(F/?)^2=(2*(simga)^1/2(T^2))^2, unlikely, but always something that should be kept in mind. Things can be over simplified. For that form to work, F would need a new coefficient.

These are idle ramblings of course, the full equation is the proper place to start.

Orphan Photons? Are They Dark Energy?

2011-10-12T14:50:00.000-07:00

Pondering is much more fun than calculating. The acceleration of our expanding universe is one of those things that only comes around once in a few lifetimes. The perfect thing for a guy with too much time on his hands to ponder.

When a photon with sufficient energy scores a bulls eye on an unsuspecting molecule something happens. In a CO2 laser, energetic photons are bashed into unsuspecting nitrogen molecules to amplify the light. Light amplified through stimulated emission of radiation, LASER. Lasers are cool!

But in the LASER, that energetic photon can find a new ride. Out in space, hitch hikers need a real big thumb. If the energized photon is released by the bulls eye and can't find a dance partner, it may just sulk around a while and just give up. That is until another photon scores a bulls eye on the wall flower decayed photon. Talk about a small chance in hell, but what the hey, the universe has plenty of time.

If the little piece of dark matter keeps getting in the way of those photons, before you know it, it can be somebody. Maybe even an electron, which still a long way from a proton, but getting closer.

Electrons are clingy little rascals. While they may prefer a fat proton for a dance partner, they know the other side of the aisle. Yep, that's right, they are into the dark side.

As electrons, the perverts can get together a lot easier. If they happen to hit just the right mass with just the right dance partner, you could have a hydrogen molecule. If they pass up on becoming a fat broad, they can hit another perfect atomic mass. Seems like every thing in nature is about hitting the lotto, the right number at the right time.

Once you gain so much mass, it is hard getting a date, just ask any fat guy. Then it gets too hard to give up the dark side and back into the light. Big enough groups of fat guys can generate a little gravitational anomaly. Gravitational anomalies are real clingy. If you ain't careful, they can black hole ya! You don't want to get black holed, it ain't pretty.

So since a black hole is supposed to have infinite mass, how can there be more than one black hole? I guess everything is relative, even infinity. Bet that plays hell with a constant straight guy like the speed of light. Kinda makes multi-verse a little more acceptable as a theory.

A Little Help Please. Global Average Surface Pressure Change

2011-10-12T13:31:00.000-07:00

One of the most overlooked variables that relates to climate change is the surface conductivity of the atmosphere. It is over look because for all intents and purposes, it appears to be negligible. I think it probably is, but the equation seems to think other wise.

CO2 and CH4 improves the conductivity of air. Small improvement, but we are only looking at small changes, average air temperature changes conductivity. Average surface pressure changes conductivity. How much combined change is required to be significant?

In a warming world, the increased temperature decreases conductivity increasing warming. The increased warming increases latent convection increasing cooling. A reasonable counter balance of effects that regulate temperature. With CO2 and CH4 improving conductivity, surface warming would be less amplified by increased surface temperature, dampening one part of the temperature regulator. That should lead to a more stable temperature range, however, natural cooling cycles, solar plus the internal natural variability, could tend to increase the rate of cooling as the surface cools. Not a very good change in the feedback controls.

So CO2 could lead to a warmer stable climate or a wicked shift to a much colder climate, possibly a new glacial period. The Glacial period appears unlikely as does the stable climate, that leaves more wicked climate variability.

A reconstruction of the average sea level pressure of the past few decades may provide some insight into the future. I cannot locate such a product on the internet. Anyone know if such a product exists and possibly where?

Determing How Wrong I May Be

2011-10-12T12:38:00.000-07:00

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 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 254.5K @ 238Wm-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. 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 Lynx-Fox

Yes, there is not a lot off between estimates, but when evaluating a 1% change a 5% potential error is significant.

Relativistic Conduction of Heat

2011-10-12T04:40:00.000-07:00

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. 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

ps https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqLGErXDPyPFdEotM0RZd1Qzc2N5allBa2s1cWotcGc&rm=full#gid=0

is a link to Google documents spread sheet. The text is not over laying empty cells, which is a pain. Click of each cell to view comments and formula.

Anyone interested can leave their email and I will include access.

What is the Gain of the CO2 Control Knob?

2011-10-11T14:28:00.000-07:00

When I was playing the the Kimoto equation, the perturbation produced a maximum Greenhouse response of -271 W/m-2 at the surface. When Steven Mosher asked on Dr. Curry's blog about what would be the gain of the CO2 control knob, that got me thinking.

A value that I came up with the approximate Effective emissivity of 0.71 was interesting. I was hoping to get some up/down emissivity data online, but haven't had much luck, so I just quit. The looking down emissivity at the TOA is about 0.61, so I thought of doing some estimating.

0.71*390=276W/m-2 This is a higher value than my estimated atmospheric effect of 220. So that value makes sense, because that would be all radiative at some altitude.

0.61*390=238W/m which should be the forcing at a lower altitude. Don't get crazy, these are just guesstimates for fun.

If, the 276Wm-2 were at the same altitude as with water vapor, the 0.7*276=193, which would indicate warming if the same downward emissivity is assumed.

0.7*238=167 at the surface which would also be some warming as the value at the would be 155Wm-2 in a line drawing, for no temperature change. The difference, 193-167=26 is the for some odd reason the value that Trenberth has for atmospheric absorption of OLR. Which would be reasonable as his OLR from the surface to space is the reason for his miscalculation. The free to space radiation interacts with the atmosphere as shown in the NASA drawings. This is what I consider part of the key issue with the choice of frame of reference. It is easy to miss something swapping your reference around. So if his drawing showed the 321Wm-2 in the tropopause, corrected for the missing ~24Wm-2 his cartoon would have been dead on. 321+24=345Wm-2 tropo Times the 0.71 Emissivity at the tropopause would equal 244 which is close to the maximum value and within the rather large margin of error of my calculations. Or the 321Wm-2 at the tropopause times the Effective emissivity would be 0.71*321=228 which is well within my margin of error.

Since in my opinion, energy must be conserved, the triangles are showing the impact of the down welling opposed by the down welling. He perhaps was inverting the triangles to show 321Wm-2 at the tropopause opposed by 228 at the surface. An alternate description that would be correct, but not illustrative of conservation of energy. In either case, 321 at the surface is incorrect, but there are options with the selection of frame of reference. And trust me, I am looking to find my error, if there is a large one.

Note: While correct, the 216Wm-2 is a number with a value and 321Wm-2 requires manipulation to sense its value. More accurate communication is important for the guys getting paid to do science. I just fish, so who cares?

As I said, don't get crazy, this was just a guesstimate, but I am interested in exactly how he made is small error that gets magnified.

If he would address the issue, it would be interesting. Oh, no water vapor interaction with CO2 would produce more warming in the upper troposphere which would produce more surface warming as the optical window to the surface would be clearer. How much, don't know, but it is the water vapor barrier to down welling long wave that is an important consideration.

Just so people don't have to run around, the initial estimate of GHG forcing, Which is really 155Wm-2, would be felt as ~345Wm-2 at the surface if you assume there was no tropopause. Regardless, of the height of a no GHG tropopause, it would exist, so the initial conditions are assuming a tropopause, if the 30% albedo was included for initial temperature and OLR. The reason my numbers balance better is I adjust for the change the height of the tropopause to maintain a consistent surface frame of reference.

Science as a Contact Sport

2011-10-11T12:14:00.000-07:00

What happened to the good old days of science? Well they are back! Full contact in your face science!

Consensus science is powder puff football. Dumbing down so no scientist is left behind. Real science is Australian rules football! Get your nose bloody, take your licks and try to give back better.

Today's scientist mistake the subtlety of the centuries old confrontations. When Angstrom told Arrhenius he was wrong, "Sorry, old boy. You appear to have miscalculated." In today's terms that is equivalent to, "You twit! What planet are you from! Heh, Auburn grad!"

You think a ponderer of his destiny as a member of the master race would take that lying down? No! If he had got the goods on Angstrom he would have been right dead in is face with, "Perhaps you should review your experiment again." Instead, Arrhenius sulked for a decade before grudgingly conceding, "Yes, warming would not be as much." The media was all over Svante "Arrhenius admits error, but does not provide his results!" It was years later before he cried uncle with, "1.6 (2.3) with water vapor."

That's the problem with these master race wimps. Arrhenius should have grown a pair and lashed back at Knut, "I may be off, but so are you!" A classic scientific feign to restore some honor. Then science would have advanced.

That is how it is supposed to work, in your face science! Like Dessler and Spencer. Get dirty and kick some data!

A Point I Missed Explaining Very Well- The Tropopause

2011-10-11T05:24:00.000-07:00

Assuming that the TOA is at the surface for a no greenhouse Earth is incorrect. Due to the Conductive flux, the tropopause would be located approximately 3800 meters above the surface. Close, but not at the surface. Since the Earth still has water, it still would have latent cooling. This effect transfers heat from the surface to the infant tropopause. That is the initial condition of the atmosphere as calculate assuming a 255K temperature and 240Wm-2 TOA total energy flux.

Adding the radiative effect of greenhouse gases elevates the Tropopause with the inclusion of the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

If your choice of frame of reference is correct it will work in all other frames. Poor choice of frame of reference results in pondering perpetual motion, dark energies, pseudo scientific phenomena, which is entertaining, but not very scientific.

Why The Estimates were Off and Why I am Moving On.

2011-10-11T03:35:00.000-07:00

I know my logic and attempt at math are hard to follow. So I will make a quick explanation why estimates by Trenberth are right but wrong.

The initial estimate for the greenhouse effect includes albedo due to clouds, that defines the frame of reference at the Top of the Atmosphere, but which top?

The tropopause gives one answer, the actual TOA where emissivity is =0.61 another, only the surface is consistent so it has to be used at the frame of reference to determine "Surface" warming, Thermodynamics 101, KISS, FRAME OF REFERENCE, ASSUME.

The "Effective" emissivity is a non-linear function of the atmosphere and the interaction with other flux. Solving for that is fun, explaining the obvious is not.

So I am moving on.

Using the Greenhouse Effect Triangles

2011-10-10T16:24:00.000-07:00

Oops Drawing thanks to NASA web site.

Steven Mosher is a smart guy. He calculates that a doubling of CO2 would equal 1.5 degrees of warming. Most people estimate 1.2 degrees for a doubling. The version of the Kimoto equation estimates 0.8 degrees warming.

Using the triangles, the surface warming estimated by the equation is 0.8 which would cause 1.5 degrees warming at the top of the red triangle. For the 1.2 estimate, it depends where that warming actually takes place. If the 1.2 is warming at the top of the triangle it produces 0.86 warming at the surface. If that 1.2 is warming at the surface, it produces 1.7 degrees warming at the top of the triangle. What happens depends on where it happens.

For simplicity, just use 1.4 and 0.7, the ratio of the flux and the direction of the points. Surface times 1.4 ~ top, top times 0.7 ~ surface. Most of the differences in estimates is the choice of the frame of reference.

Dark Energy and our Not Accelerating Expanding Universe

2011-10-10T11:58:00.000-07:00

Figuring out why is the fun in life. Things should make sense, except for women, of course, but the universe expanding just don't make much sense.

What appears to be happening is the speed of light is decreasing as dark matter in the universe increases. So what does that mean?

In the Stefan-Boltzman equation there are two constants,5.67e-8 and ~0.926, emissivity. But is that emissivity for a black body space or both? I am thinking both. Since the emissivity of water is ~0.995 and the constant in the S-B equation is 0.926, my first guess would be that the emissivity of the most perfect black body that could exist in nature is approximately that of water. That means that the emissivity of space could be 0.069. Why would that not be zero? Dark matter.

Hum? If the emissivity of space is not perfectly zero, what happens to light passing through space? It interacts with space creating dark energy. Every one knows that there are tiny traces of hydrogen floating around in space. When light interacts with hydrogen, maybe one photon in billions and billions impacts the hydrogen molecule perfectly dead center, the photon, which is also has a mass of 1/billions and billions, creates a different form of energy and that transition is subject to entropy. No energy flow ever gets a free ride because of entropy, not even light.

How would increasing dark energy collapsing into dark matter change our perception of light? My guess is that the speed of light would appear to change. Perhaps the speed of light does change. I'll look into that in the future.

But since no energy ever gets a free ride, the equation makes perfectly good sense to me. What is the temperature of space again? Perhaps it may be worthy of a little closer inspection?

Update: One commenter thinks I am whacked. That is true. But if the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, that is kinda thought provoking. Since there a few real constants, why should light be or our perception of light be constant?

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

2011-10-10T07:20:00.000-07:00

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/now-to-truly-prove-i-am-whack-job.html

Since this appears to be more complicated than I thought, http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/25027-coming-ice-age.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 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.

Now, to Truly Prove I am a Whack Job

2011-10-09T05:48:00.000-07:00

Note: I am updating this as questions are answered.

Dark Energy and the Speed of Light

The fact that emissivity, conductivity and convectivity, maybe a new term, all are impedance of thermal flux, the relationship I have been trying to prove, is a unified theory of thermal flux. I am sorry I may have pissed so many people off, but societal drop outs making a merger living as a fishing guide, doesn't get paid much attention in the scientific community. I perturbed the system to estimate DWLR and I perturbed the system to get heard.

No Comments? So some thermal flux are more special than others?
Is there a perfect media for Thermal Flux?
Would OLR not generate waste heat?, Conductive flow does, why not convective and radiant?

Do any of you guys remember a guy named Angstrom? http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/required-reading.html

Would it not just be simplified relativistic heat conduction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_heat_conduction

Explaining this simple solution is the most difficult part of the problem, If energy is conserved the work performed has to be conserved. The opposing pyramids represent the continuous energies, up, combined kinetic is converted to potential as Conductive and latent are converted to radiant. DWLR is radiant waste heat of the contentious battle against gravity.

Think about it, with no GHG The Poisson solution is the Dry adiabatic lapse rate. With water for latent only, the solution is the moist adiabatic lapse rate. With GHG, the solution is the GHG effect. The differences are purely due to the efficiency of energy conversion.

IPCC Down Welling Radiation Violates the Law!

2011-10-09T01:03:00.000-07:00

Update: Explaining why Einstein, Angstrom, Plank, Poisson, Stefan-Boltzman and Arrhenus were right and Trenberth wrong is a lot harder than it should be.

Update: In Thermodynamics 101 you are taught the three real laws of thermo, KISS, FRAME of REFERENCE and ASSUME You need to wrap your minds around the simple stuff before you can understand the, a little more complicated. Why I have to explain the basics of thermodynamics is beyond me.

The Greenhouse triangles show simple how choice of frame of reference results in different temperatures relative to the surface temperature.

Update: The tropopause without the radiative effect of greenhouse gases.

The law of conservation of energy that is :) Down Welling Long Wave Radiation cannot be greater than the combined sources of the radiation. Based on their own estimates, the Earth without Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would emitted only 240 Wm-2 of energy. That value, the initial energy, is the peak sustained value that could be converted into down welling radiation.

Down welling radiation is created by the resistance of heat flux through the atmosphere, i.e. is waste heat, the result of inefficient heat transfer.

Maybe that is a big enough shocker to get people to visualize the problem from the proper frame of reference and then begin to honestly appreciate the most elegant mathematical relationship in nature.

Visualization

2011-10-08T21:33:00.000-07:00

I was going to draw a picture. I don't know how to do that very well on the computer.

So, how about you take a piece of paper out of your printer, rummage through your junk drawer, find a pencil and a ruler.

On the bottom of the paper draw two dots 3.9 inches apart, centered would be nice.

At the top draw two dots 2.4 inches apart, centered if you can.

Near the bottom third of the paper draw two dots about 2.2 inches apart, these should be centered, Then draw lines on the right side to connect the dots. Now the left side to connect the dots.

You have now connected the dots on upwelling flux.

You may begin to understand the equation,... now.

Just For Fun

2011-10-08T17:12:00.000-07:00

I don't like taking life or myself too seriously. Solving that equation was fun, but no one cares. I will let everything sit for a while the do a few rewrites.

I do have a semi final form of the equation,

dF/dT=(1.32*a*Fc+4.39*b*Fl+3.3*c*Fra+1.56*d*Frs)/T where Fc is conductive flux, Fl is latent flux Fra is Radiative flux in the GHG spectrum and Frs is the radiative flux in the window to space. T, is in K and the Fs are in Wm-2.

The variables a through d are undetermined equations for the relationships between fluxes. a for example would be change in conductivity, b the change is convectivity, b change in GHG emissivity and d the change in atmospheric window emissivity. If you divide the R value by 4 you have the initial values of each impedance. i.e. 0.33 is the impedance to Fc, multiplied by 4 = 1.32, which I am calling resistance. I need to double check the Frs and Fra relationships because that may be a little more non-linear, so use with caution. So far it has worked like a dream, but I type like crap and proof worse.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the conductive flux resistance is equal to the potential energy divided by the flux, similar to Ohms law, were V=IR. R,the conductive resistance of the atmosphere is equal to the potential 288-216 divided by thermal current or flux 24, 288-216/24=3. the coefficient for a in aFc =1/R=0.33 and I have not named that value. For bFl, Rl=(288-216)/79=0.91 b=1/Rl=1.097. For the radiative values, Rr=(288-216)/87=1.21 e=1/1.21=0.825. Why did I chose 87 when the NASA drawing shows 79? Because it appears to have a small error. 79 plus the portion of the radiation through the atmospheric window is the correct value, 87-79=8.

If you want to solve for the atmospheric effect,

dF/dT=(1.32*a*Fc+4.39*b*Fl+3.3*c*Fra+1.56*d*Frs)/T - GHE = (1.32*a*Fc+4.39*b*Fl)/To

This is a bit of a shock to some, but you can assume no radiative greenhouse effect, but the Earth still has an atmosphere even without greenhouse gases. If you assume to=255, then you will come close to the classic 155Wm-2 and 33K. without water, you can drop the Fl term. I haven't solve it, but since the atmospheric sensitivity is 2.08 to all forcing and roughly 1.31 at t=288, the no GHG sensitivity is roughly 1.16 at 255K. It would involve a few recursive calculations to hone in the correct temperature.

The 3.3Wm-2/T is very accurate for the change in forcing for the Fra term, A doubling of CO2 will cause about 0.79 K increase in temperature, with some feed back for ~1.2 but completely closing the GHG window only produces, 2.01 degrees of warming. There seems to be a very close limit to saturation.

So anyone wants to play around with what if's have a ball. Remember the R values are variable and I have not determined their equations. Anyway, the equation works like magic, but I need an interpreter to explain why it works.

The R values are for F/T = 390/288 Since they are non-linear to a point, the values are only good for a small range, +/- 50Wm-2 approximately.

The equation indicates the the atmospheric sensitivity, dF/dT, to all forcings is 2.08 and that the maximum sensitivity to CO2 is when 3.3 increases to 4.4, a little tricky since that is what varies, which change Fra.

Well, I will take some time off and try to find some work.

How Ohms Law Relates to Atmospheric Physics

2011-10-08T08:56:00.000-07:00

Ohms Law Applied to the Atmosphere

Update: I changed the title, to be a bit less of a redneck fisherman playing theoretical physicist.

Update 2: For some reason I have had a few comments mentioning that my blog is about Hydrogen. I do despise paying $5 a gallon at the dock, Hydrogen is not political, it is efficient, though a bear to transport, so you need a big honking boat pulling truck to haul the gas. If it matters, I don't think there is a big hydrogen to be in the pocket of :)

The flow of heat is a flux. As heat flows through any media, energy is lost to that media unless the heat coefficient of that media is perfect, or the coefficient of heat flux is equal to one. Heat has three basic methods of flux, conductive, convective (which we will latent) and radiative. Each of these three means of heat flux have varying coefficients related to their media and the temperature difference between the point of origin of the flux and the end point the heat sink. A change in flux relative to temperature takes the form dF/dT, where F is in units of W/m-2 and T is in unit Kelvin. For radiative heat flow, Stefan-Boltzmann has proven the F=a*b*(T)^4, Where a, is assumed to be a constant of emissivity and b =5.67*e-08.

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 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.

For purely radiative flow, alpha is approximately equal to 0.926, with the inclusion of the remainder used to simplify, Alpha = 0.9333 or 0.93, a unit-less value, resulting in units for dF/dT of W/Km-2. alpha is considered the emissivity of the medium of heat flux source. In a medium that interacts with the flux, the term alpha times the emissivity of the media is equal to e, the effective emissivity. For this example, assume this is true, the actual value can be easily estimate using the NASA Energy Budget, below which I have modified to include an estimate greenhouse flux.

Update: This is the revised modification of the NASA Energy Budget Drawing, showing a better visualization of the atmospheric effect. The former did have an error.

For a combined flux flow, The sum of the flows is equal to 4(aFc+bFl+eFr)/T, for conductive, latent(convective) and radiative flux. where the source of the heat fluxes is a common temperature T.

For the coefficient a=alpha*heat flow coefficient of conduction in the media, b=alpha*heat flow coefficient of convection and e=alpha*media emissivity.

So this simple equation describes the combined flow of fluxes in a media with the different effects of the media on the individual flux.

Both aFc and bFl are limited by their media. aFc, decreases with distance as a function of the change in its media known commonly as resistance. aFl decreases with distance as a function of temperature. eFr decreases with distances as a function of the media's emissivity.

At the surface, three equal fluxes will result in warming of the media proportional to flux and heat flow coefficient. If 100Wm-2 of conductive flux leaves the surface it will decrease to zero at an altitude relative to the decrease in pressure with height. The conductive flux from a source with an initial T will decrease to zero at some temperature (T-4aFc/T), i.e., the conductive flux will transition to radiative flux, and be lost to space. As this flux transistions, energy is added to the system, which becomes either latent or radiant heat which in turn transition back to conductive, for conversation of energy, Latent heat absorbed at the surface rises with reduced local pressure, gaining and losing sensible heat and radiant heat until condensation, where that energy, known as the heat of evaporation is lost to the atmosphere as conductive and radiant heat. The latent heat can be regained with vaporization or lose more heat with the freezing known as the heat of fusion. Radiative flux resisted by the emissivity of the increases as the emissivity reduces and the radiant energy release of the conductive and convected increases. The combined fluxes at the surface equals the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere.where the emissivity of space approaches unity. All of these interactions between the energy fluxes warm the atmosphere near the surface and cool it at the top.

Conductive flux warms the surface because of its resistance to flow, convective flux cools the surface by transporting absorbed energy from the surface to an altitude, Radiant flux warms the surface due to the initial high resistance and cools the atmosphere as emissivity decreases with respect to out and increases with respect to in or down. Work is being preformed on the system at varying locations at varying rates. The heat as a result of this warm, generates the atmospheric effect which is a heat source at a distance with a different coefficient of heat flux.

For conductive flux, the resistance to flow increases with altitude until all of the flux has transitioned into radiative flux, this point, which I will call the effective temperature and pressure of conduction, is located fairly low in the atmosphere. Latent heat is absorbed at the surface and transported via convection until the reduction in temperature precipitates all of the moisture. This point I will call, the effective temperature and pressure of convective heat. For radiant heat, the flux uniformly increases to a value equal to the total of all surface fluxes less the energy retained in the atmosphere as latent and sensible heats, potential energies. Once radiant heat reaches its maximum value, i.e. both conductive and convective have transitioned in to radiant flux, i will call this the effective temperature and pressure of radiant flux, approximately located the tropopause. So we have an atmosphere with three effective temperatures, conductive, convective and radiant at three different temperatures and pressures. The pressures correspond to altitudes.

The effective conductive temperature is equal to the dry adiabatic lapse rate and its effective temperature is the potential temperature of air at that altitude.

The effective temperature of latent is equal to the moist adiabatic lapse rate and located above the effective conductive temperature and pressure.

The effective temperature of radiant flux is at an altitude above the latent effective temperature and pressure. All of the three effective temperatures interact as each has a temperature and pressure different than the others. The net impact of the interaction of fluxes at equilibrium is that the total heat zthe atmosphere gained is equal to the potential temperature of conductive effective temperature and pressure, as can be determined by Poisson's equation.

Stage 2 Estimating the greenhouse down welling Flux

The simplest estimate is to determine the atmospheric impact on the individual flux values, by dividing the values by their respective coefficients, Fc=24/0.33=72.7, Fl=79/1.09=72 and the Fr component absorbed by the atmosphere 72-21=51/.825=61.8, the sum, 72.7+72+61.8=206.5. This estimate does not include the radiation absorbed in the atmosphere by the radiant energy through the atmospheric window.

The 21Wm-2 through the atmospheric window, while it does not transfer significant energy to the atmosphere, still experiences scattering and some attenuation due to the atmosphere, The estimated TOA emissivity of the atmosphere is ~0.61, so the surface equivalent source for the 21Wm-2 would be 21/0.61=34.4Wm-2.

When combined, 206.6+34.4=240Wm-2, the value of the radiation at the TOA. The radiative flux through the atmospheric window does not get a completely free pass. Water and ice in the atmosphere interact with portions of this radiation, so the true value of the down welling radiation would be between the 206 and 240 values. The radiation in the atmospheric window does interact with the atmosphere. Since the radiation window down is more opaque than up, only 39% is felt at the surface, 21*.39=8.8, so 206.5+8.8=215 Wm-2 is a more accurate estimate of the atmosphere effect in W/m-2.

If you consider the value provide by K&T, 321Wm-2, if it were applied at the top of the atmosphere, 321*.61 would equal 192.6, had K&T not miscalculated the amount of radiation absorb by the atmosphere, which is 51 per NASA and ~26per K&T, the value would be 192.6+25=217.6Wm-2.

If the logic is followable, one can see that the formula accurately predicts energy interactions in the atmosphere, even with approximated values for a, b and e, based on the NASA flux values. But is there any reason that the 216 range for DWLR should be used instead of 321 per K&T or the 155 common used in literature? Yes, because the atmospheric effect is based on a physical property, the adiabatic lapse rate. The work done by the competing upwelling and down welling fluxes it to maintain the potential energy of the atmosphere, it lapse rate. The conductive heat flux from the surface energizes the molecules in the atmosphere causing then to rise from the surface to a point where the force of gravity stops their accent. If the atmosphere collapsed the heat generate would equal the atmospheric effective temperature.

Ohms Law and Atmospheric Thermal Balance.

As I mentioned in the beginning, the conductive flux resistance is equal to the potential energy divided by the flux, similar to Ohms law, were V=IR. R,the conductive resistance of the atmosphere is equal to the potential 288-216 divided by thermal current or flux 24, 288-216/24=3. the coefficient for a in aFc =1/R=0.33 and I have not named that value. For bFl, Rl=(288-216)/79=0.91 b=1/Rl=1.097. For the radiative values, Rr=(288-216)/87=1.21 e=1/1.21=0.825. Why did I chose 87 when the NASA drawing shows 79? Because it appears to have a small error. 79 plus the portion of the radiation through the atmospheric window is the correct value, 87-79=8. Now of course this is all still numerology, or is it?

Greenhouse Down Welling Radiation and its Relationship to Potential Temperature.

The value of the DWLR is 216, which I can calculate an effective temperature for using the S-B equation of 248 degrees not using the 0.926 indicated in the S-B equation, that is include in the coefficients. If I calculate the potential temperature of this value using the dry adiabatic lapse rate to determine the approximate pressure, 273-248= degrees or -25 degrees at~ 600 mb the answer is 287.2, very close to the surface temperature of 288K Still Numerology?

The values for the coefficients a, b and e are estimated for the NASA drawing using the modified Flux field equation. They are close, but not exact and they are also variable as each is dependent on the others. Hopefully this little exercise shows that there is some value in the equation and that 216 is a very reasonable estimate for DWLR with physical meaning pertinent to understanding out atmosphere.

Update: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_heat_conduction

So why is a simple equation that works not used? I'll never know. Perhaps it is just better science to over complicate things. That's why there are so many engineers that are skeptical.

Please Note that this is consuming too much of my time, donation would be greatly appreciate in the tip jar. An a proof reader to clean up my poor attempt desperately needed.

While Energy is Fungible, the Work is Not

2011-10-08T05:23:00.000-07:00

Something so simple is so hard to explain.

Explaining the Kimoto equation unfortunately requires completely changing the way one looks at the atmospheric effect. In general, outgoing radiation balanced by down welling radiation of equal amounts have no net impact. The atmosphere is different. While the energy fluxes are just flows, they represent energy at a point in space and time. So while a surface flux may be matched, it has more impact at the surface. It creates more collisions in the denser environment. This is an increase in conductivity. So while two flows may pass, they are maintaining conductive conditions. Energy must be conserved, but the location of that energy is important.

In the atmosphere, there are changes in the type of energy flowing. There is latent heat from water warmed a the surface and carried aloft which does not lose its latent energy until it change phase. Conductive energy which is the number of collisions between molecules and radiant every which does not require a collision to release energy.

All three interact in the atmosphere until they revert to radiant energy and escape to space.

Each is better at transferring potential energy of a given type at a give efficiency. How easy it is to transfer heat from one boundary layer to another is extremely important. For example water is very efficient transferring energy via conduction to air that air is transferring energy to water. In an air to water heat exchanger, a conductive metal is used for the water and air boundary. Smooth tubes can be used on the water side without much loss of efficiency. On the air side, undulations are used to cause more turbulence in the air to increase the rate of collisions of the air molecules. On our oceans, heat flow from the surface increases with wave action and wind speed, more molecules contact the water's surface so more heat can be transferred. Water to air transfer of conductive heat is 1000 times more efficient that air to water, because the energy contain in every water molecule is much higher and the contact with other water molecules is much more efficient for transferring energy with in the water.

Air being orders of magnitude lower in density, takes longer to transfer energy between air molecules. Pure gases have different coefficients of heat transfer. Argon and Xenon are noble gases selected for their insulation qualities. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are not because they are better conductors. They are far from idea, but better

For example gases at atmospheric pressure separated by metal have heat transfer coefficients of 5 to 35 W/m^2K under pressure that changes to 100 to 500W/m^2K.

Under normal atmospheric conditions, water vapor and CO2 enhance the heat transfer because they can absorb energy both by conduction and through radiation. Under pressure they can transfer more and at a higher temperature they can transfer more than under lower temperature and pressure. The addition of more carbon dioxide increases the radiate energy absorbed, the number of collisions which increases the rate of conduction and increase the rate of evaporation. If there is a window for radiant heat transfer, some of this energy is transferred further from the water's surface which tends to decrease the rate of heat transfer because radiate heat transfer is not as efficient as conductive.

In the atmosphere, the adaptions of the Kimoto equation tells me, that while energy is fungible, the impact of the flows are very different, 24Wm-2 up of conductive flux is balance by 24Wm-2 down of radiative flux down from one point in the atmosphere, is not the same as 24Wm-2 up 100 meters and matched by a counter flux of 24Wm-2 at the TOA.

Poisson! Poisson!

2011-10-07T11:04:00.000-07:00

The Poisson equation can be simplified to calculate the potential temperature of a parcel of air at an altitude(pressure) and temperature(K) should it drop to the surface of the earth and sea level. Using the neat stuff from the Kimoto equation, modified be me :)

The effective temperature of the atmosphere due to greenhouse and solar absorption is equal to the sum of the total energy absorbed by the atmosphere, 195Wm-2. The surface fluxes, reguire correction for the 0.825 emissivity of the atmosphere, 24+79+51=154, the total combined surface flux absorbed per the NASA data, with 65 solar absorbed, 10 by the clouds at low altitude and 55 absorbed by the upper atmosphere.

For the surface, 154/.825=187Wm-2 plus 10 absorb by clouds plus approximatey 50% of the upper atmosphere absorbtion, 27.5, felt in the lower atmosphere yielding 187+10+27.5=224Wm-2, the equivalent greenhouse effect. The effective temperature of the greenhouse effect is 250.7K at 3800 meters, based on the dry adiabative lapse rate. Per the Poisson ralationship, a parcel of air at 250 and ~600mb(equivalent to 4Km) is equal to 289.3K. Considering the approximation of 4Km instead of 3.8Km, that is pretty close. Kinda neat :)

Chaos Mathematical Description of the Earth System?

2011-10-07T07:56:00.000-07:00

I am really out of my depth with chaos mathematics. My description of the Earth system will suffer because of my lack of familiarity with the proper terminology, so try to bear with me.

As I see it, the Earth climate system has two strange attractors, glacial and interglacial which I have previously discussed in the Coming Ice Age posts. With the potential solution to the Kimoto Equation, my description of the attractors can be made a little clearer.

Of the two, the interglacial attractor is slightly stronger, so the probability cloud is tighter. The glacial attractor is slightly weaker so it has a larger probability cloud. The separation of the two attractors is the question.

The interglacial attractor does not appear to be strong enough to cause stability, but with the addition of CO2, it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

However, the addition CO2 would change the strength of the glacial attractor, which may then be strong enough to create stability. Since CO2 is likely to shift the glacial attractor closer to the interglacial attractor, the period of oscillation between attractors would decrease. So we may have stable glacial, stable interglacial or more rapid change from glacial to interglacial. I would assume the more rapid change.

This is the best description I can give at the moment. If there are any real chaos mathematicians out there, I would appreciate any input.

Thanks

Comparison of NASA and K&T

2011-10-06T18:18:00.000-07:00

This is the NASA energy budget drawing that I consider the benchmark.

This is the K&T old drawing with the net values in red and the corresponding NASA values in blue. The issue is the net 26 into the clouds versus the 51 shown in the NASA drawing. What should be the basis for determining back radiation is lost with that one small mistake. If an effective temperature of the atmosphere is calculated using the sum of the energies absorbed by the atmosphere, the result will be off by a factor ~4.

The wonderful thing about figuring out which energy budget is more correct is that I can focus on how correct. The differences between the two appear insignificant, but the over estimate of DWR, which appears to be due to a small error compounded, has really muddied the waters.

With good confidence in the actual DWR and how is would be measured in the atmosphere, I can make a very simple model.

Update: The equation with the correct energy balance indicates something I had expected. I am satisfied with the solution.

Crackpot?

2011-10-06T07:19:00.000-07:00

I have been scoring high on the crackpot index. Hey, why quit when you are ahead. Right?

In the equation, dF/dT=4(aFc+bFl+eFr)/T there is one thing missing fFf, the feedback function.

Since, a,b and e are coefficients related to their respective flux, f=(a+b+e)*function(a+b+c)/T, All the coefficients are variables so determining f will be tons of fun. However, the linear relationship of the three primary fluxes to temperature simplifies estimation of f. Once the form of f is found for a discrete range, it is simple to iterate a reasonable value for small ranges. Neat huh?

dF/dT=4(aFc+bFl+eFr+fFf)/T

Since I still don't have any mathematicians interested, perhaps I need a few theoretical physicists. The problem is that while the form of the equation is correct, e is a function of atmospheric emissivity which is a function of bFl and Fr is a function of temperature. eFr is a very complex function, that for one moment in time = 83, where T=288 and e=0.825, the form of e approaches 1 and the change in 4F/T approaches 1.21, other than that, the solution is simple :)

In case it is not obvious, fFf can be written as a sum of feedback parameters to include albedo and lapse rate, which are not linear functions of T.

http://ourhydrogeneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/10/snake-oil-salesman-or-simple-logic.html

Snake Oil Salesman or Simple Logic?

2011-10-06T05:42:00.000-07:00

dF/dT=4(aFc+bFl+eFr), F=heat flux, T=Temperature, c=conduction, l=latent, r=radiative and a,b and e are constants of proportionality.

That is one amazingly powerful equation. All three heat fluxes have different properties but adhere to the same laws of physics. So all heat fluxes share the same basic relationship with temperature. Only their rates of flow vary with the method and media of propagation. They share the inverse square law. A general relativity of flux.

The first time I say this formula, which I have since modified with the coefficients, was on the Blackboard blog. It is the result of a paper in an obscure and controversial journal, Energy and Environment

If the journal had not been E&E and the debate on the internet, that formula would greatly simplify solutions to common mixed heat flux problems in the atmosphere.

The debate seems to center around the "implicit" Planck response of the atmosphere, but really should be centered around the coefficients, a, b and especially e, which I will call the Effective emissivity of radiative flux at the surface of the Earth.

That emissivity is generally e={dF/dT}/4 if a one degree change in temperature is due to a 3.3Wm-2 change in flux, the e=3.3/4=0.825 a unit less value, as 3.3 is the actual flow to temperature and 4 is the ideal flow to temperature. Extremely simple coefficient. For conduction, a, would be the ratio of actual flow to ideal flow, b, actual flow to ideal flow. Incredibly simple and elegant mathematics.

The e value is implicit it the climate science literature, it ranges from 0.61 to 1, ideal, with often 0.926, the value estimated by Stefan-Boltzman for a real black body since an ideal black body does not exist.

Update: The value for e is still an issue. Why? I have no clue, it is a benchmark value that can be determined in many ways, if you compare the approximate greenhouse temperature 33 to the approximate greenhouse energy flux 155, 155/33=4.7 Wm-2/K 4/4.7= 0.851 This is the initial value I determined for e which allows for the effective emissivity of the atmosphere. The surface though is still not a true black body, water has a very high emissivity of 0.99, but the average emissivity of all of Earth's surface is 0.967, which multiplied by the 0.851=.825. If anyone has a better estimate let me know.

The elegance can be seen in the Earth's atmosphere. Heat flux at the surface is divided into three forms, each with different characteristics of flow. Radiant heat for the surface does not uniformly interact with the atmosphere, only a portion e, interacts at differing spectral lines and intensities.

So a 100W/m-2 flux upward, with e=0.825 would produce a radiative interaction impact 82.5 W/m-2 in the atmosphere, down welling longwave radiation for some. An effective temperature for many others. This is the Greenhouse Effect, due to radiative flux. Conduction, convection and latent heat fluxes all contribute with differing impact as defined by their coefficients. This is so simple it should not require a proof. It is obvious in our physical world.

Using data from the NASA energy budget drawing, the atmosphere absorbs, 24 conductive, 78 latent and 51 radiative Wm-2 from the surface for a total of 153, the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere also absorbs 68 W/m-2 from the sun, the combined atmospheric effect is 153+68=221. All of these are absorbed values, eFr, not Fr needing adjustment. Since the solar is absorbed at different altitudes, its effect propagates according to the same simple inverse squared relationship. How hard do you really what to make nature?

http://ourhydrogeneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/10/call-for-mathematicians-greenhouse.html

A call for Mathematicians - The Greenhouse Effect, not so Simplified

2011-10-05T20:44:00.000-07:00

This is extremely frustrating. Since there are errors in the math for the K&T drawing, I cannot explain the solution until I solve several other problems. So I am going to have to take much more time than I think is reasonable.

While Energy is Fungible, the Work is Not
Something so simple is so hard to explain.

Explaining the Kimoto equation unfortunately requires completely changing the way one looks at the atmospheric effect. In general, outgoing radiation balanced by down welling radiation of equal amounts have no net impact. The atmosphere is different. While the energy fluxes are just flows, they represent energy at a point in space and time. So while a surface flux may be matched, it has more impact at the surface. It creates more collisions in the denser environment. This is an increase in conductivity. So while two flows may pass, they are maintaining conductive conditions. Energy must be conserved, but the location of that energy is important.

In the atmosphere, there are changes in the type of energy flowing. There is latent heat from water warmed a the surface and carried aloft which does not lose its latent energy until it change phase. Conductive energy which is the number of collisions between molecules and radiant every which does not require a collision to release energy.

All three interact in the atmosphere until they revert to radiant energy and escape to space.

Each is better at transferring potential energy of a given type at a give efficiency. How easy it is to transfer heat from one boundary layer to another is extremely important. For example water is very efficient transferring energy via conduction to air that air is transferring energy to water. In an air to water heat exchanger, a conductive metal is used for the water and air boundary. Smooth tubes can be used on the water side without much loss of efficiency. On the air side, undulations are used to cause more turbulence in the air to increase the rate of collisions of the air molecules. On our oceans, heat flow from the surface increases with wave action and wind speed, more molecules contact the water's surface so more heat can be transferred. Water to air transfer of conductive heat is 1000 times more efficient that air to water, because the energy contain in every water molecule is much higher and the contact with other water molecules is much more efficient for transferring energy with in the water.

Air being orders of magnitude lower in density, takes longer to transfer energy between air molecules. Pure gases have different coefficients of heat transfer. Argon and Xenon are noble gases selected for their insulation qualities. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are not because they are better conductors. They are far from idea, but better

For example gases at atmospheric pressure separated by metal have heat transfer coefficients of 5 to 35 W/m^2K under pressure that changes to 100 to 500W/m^2K.

Under normal atmospheric conditions, water vapor and CO2 enhance the heat transfer because they can absorb energy both by conduction and through radiation. Under pressure they can transfer more and at a higher temperature they can transfer more than under lower temperature and pressure. The addition of more carbon dioxide increases the radiate energy absorbed, the number of collisions which increases the rate of conduction and increase the rate of evaporation. If there is a window for radiant heat transfer, some of this energy is transferred further from the water's surface which tends to decrease the rate of heat transfer because radiate heat transfer is not as efficient as conductive.

In the atmosphere, the adaptions of the Kimoto equation tells me, that while energy is fungible, the impact of the flows are very different, 24Wm-2 up of conductive flux is balance by 24Wm-2 down of radiative flux down from one point in the atmosphere, is not the same as 24Wm-2 up 100 meters and matched by a counter flux of 24Wm-2 at the TOA.

Below I was a brief derivation of the initial greenhouse effect. It is difficult to follow, because the assumptions, while valid are a bit unusual in the computer age. Now it is no longer brief.

For a temperature radiative flux relationship, dF/dT=4F/T This basic equation is part of the problem. while it is perfect for a radiative only solution it gets involve proving it can be used for a mixed heat flux solution. When I set the equation up for the Earth I get.

dF/dT= 4*(aFc + bFl +cFr)/T, a=conductive heat flow coefficient, b=latent heat flow coefficient and c=radiative heat flow coefficient aka emissivity. With the separate coefficients, this is totally valid, however with the proper valid assumptions I can make a and b disappear. And not by magic, by logic.

If dT/dt=0, i.e. it is in equilibrium with space and surface temperature does not change, then

Equilibrium can be assumed for a steady state, equilibrium may never truly exist, it is a numerical concept. It is very important that this equilibrium be understood. I am going to apply a radical impulse.

If the Earth was floating in space all by itself at a temperature of 288K and with no atmosphere, T=390W.m-2, aFc=0, dFl=0 and C=1 Fr=390 Do I have to explain how I got that? I hope not, with no atmosphere there would only be radiant heat loss.

Now you need a little imagination,

If we suddenly add an atmosphere, T=4*(aFc+bFl+0.825Fr), 0.825 is an impulse change in emissivity from 1 to 0.825, and following happens, aFc=24, bFl=76 and cFr=290 as it leaves the surface of the Earth. By selecting the approximate final value, I eliminate the need to solve three simultaneous equations.

Note: This value of 0.825 for the coefficient of Fr was carefully selected based on the current estimate of climate sensitivity. While there are many that may disagree it is valid, it simplifies the solution. If it is wrong, that will be obvious once we get to the final solution. I will try to clean up the methods I used to arrive at that value, but not until this stage has been simplified enough for others to understand.

By selecting the final values of aFc and bFl I am in effect assuming a solution for a and c. This is a little bit of mathematical trickery not common place any more. Since I am assuming that the responses of aFc and bFl are low and slow with respect to eFr, Fc and Fl would stabilize prior to Fr. Since the impulse is applied only to Fr via the change in emissivity and the stable values of Fc and Fl assumed correct, there would be insignificant harmonic interference with Fr's approach to the new equilibrium state. This is a very effective simplification.

Okay, a little more imagination, once the surface and the atmosphere reach a steady state, equilibrium, for the briefest moment in time, we get aFc=24, bFl=76 and c becomes 0.825 which changes cFr to 0.825*290=239.5, so for that moment all hell breaks loose. The Earth would attempt to maintain the 390Wm-2 total flux, it would overshoot, and gradually seek equilibrium. Before it finds equilibrium, the atmospheric resistance to flux with the impulse change in emissivity would over shot a peak value. Knowing the final value at the TOA, 237 and the final temperature and flux at the surface, we can determine the initial green house response by artificial selecting a high but very close to reality, impulse flux from the surface. This must be trickier that I thought because no one understands this trick. Then,

T=4(aFc+bFc+cFr)+4GHe, that should be fairly simple to follow, do I need to expand that? Since I will be solving for the impulse value of GHe, I have to modify the equation. Should not be that hard to follow.

4GHe=T-4(aFc+bFc+cFr)

GHe=(T-4(aFc+bFc+cFr))/4

So the initial Greenhouse effect(GHe) is,

GHe=(288-4*(24+76+239.5)/4 = (288-4*339.5)/4 = -267.5

I selected 239.5 for convenience. I could have picked 400 or infinity, but the closer it is to reality the more information we can obtain.

That is the end of the first moment in time, a sudden impulse to a BB in equilibrium at the average temperature of Earth. Still no sun, that will be at the end.

GHe=-267.5 which has to be matched by Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) in the second moment in time for the surface to regain equilibrium. The assumption of equilibrium at the surface is critical. The approximate equilibrium value at the TOA will be assumed for this stage.

390-267=122.5, the initial surface response to the GHe.

Had I selected a higher value for Fr, both the initial -267.5 and the resulting value 122.5 would have been different, but proportionally different. That is the trick by selecting 239.5 up to 390 I avoid the confusion of the sign change. The sign of GHe is very important, the value after subtracting from 390 not so important because we know that it will return to 390. It is the proportion and sign of GHe that matter. In the next step you can see why I chose a value close to the equilibrium value of Fr.

As the surface of the Earth obtains equilibrium with the atmosphere,

Surface (24+76+239.5+122.5)=462 is the initial peak radiation which will decay as equilibrium is approached. -267.5 is the initial value of the greenhouse effect which will decay as equilibrium is approached. These are impulse conditions. At the TOA, the flux has dropped to near zero and will stabilize to a value of 237Wm-2.

As you can see the peak 462 is a manageable number. It is a totally fictitious number, but it is proportional to the -271 GHe impulse which is also fictitious. As long as they are proportional, greater that the final value and the signs are correct, these values will work. But, since I selected 239.5 for the value, which is steady state, there is some meaning in -271 and 462.

At this point we release Temperature so that it actually change. The surface will reduce its emitted radiation by 462-390=72Wm-2 The radiation at the top of the atmosphere will decay to 239.5Wm-2. This is the start of the third layer solution. By selecting 239.5, I get 462 peak at the surface minus 271 in the atmosphere. 462+(-271)=191 at the TOA. The TOA has to increase to 239.5 and 462 has to decrease to 390. GHe cannot increase if 462 is decreasing and 191 is increasing. So both have to decay, or reduce in magnitude, to a stable value while TOA is increasing. This must be part of my trick that is very hard to f0llow.

At the surface, 462 decreases as 122.5 decays to 72 yielding 50.5, the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. The GHe -267.5 proportionally with the 122.5 decays to -267.5 + 50.5 = -217 The 50.5 is a verification of the method, but not if you were using the Trenberth values. 51 is the determined by NASA, 50.5 tends to confirm their calculations.

This final step may be difficult, but not so bad if you have followed me so far.

There is still no sun in the sky, this is the third moment in the existence of the atmosphere. With no solar input at all, the problem is super simplified. This equilibrium condition would exist on for the briefest period of time.

The TOA value of 237 is assumed to be the momentary equilibrium value. Trenberth added the 72 to 267.5 to get 339 and then decayed that to 321, 339-321=18, the amount he mistakenly has for atmospheric absorption.

In order to solve for the solar input, I have to use the same methods, only the it is not really needed. Since the equilibrium values are very close to the real world values, adding the sun only requires minor accounting to resolve the atmospheric balance. Think of should I let the surface flux decrease to 390 minus any small value, then slowly increase the solar values to maintain the 390. Instead of adding an impulse, the slow matching input maintains the surface balance and the TOA balance, then it is just minor accounting to solve the atmospheric balance. Since the upeard flux does not change, the down welling will not change since it is created by resistance to outgoing flow. The values selected for Fc and Fl are based on the steady state with solar, so only the upper troposphere needs to be tweaked.

Setting up this solution was most of the battle. It took me a while to confirm that 0.825 was a valid estimate, I had to determine a reasonable estimate of the DWR from comparing both K&T drawings to the NASA, I had to basically solve the problem before I could solve the problem. So this is not the best or only way, it is only A way.

Now I have confirmed the Trenberth error several ways, but it is difficult to unseat the champion. Unfortunately, there are probably not many people that can appreciate the simple elegance of this mathematical trickery. Unfortunately, this method will probably not be accepted even though all the assumptions are valid, because they push the limits pretty severely. Until this first step is understood and at least somewhat accepted I cannot advance to calculating climate sensitivity with greater accuracy using the simple formula dF/dT=4F/T with the proper coefficients.

I think I will call this proof by discovery of error. If you look closely at the K&T you should confirm the DWR and atmospheric absorption errors which amplify each other in opposite directions. In the old K&T, 26 was the atmospheric absorption of net OLR and the new it is 18 in the old, both require a little snooping to decipher, but they are there. 51, or 50.5 calculated here, appear to be the appropriate values. The correct DWR value is fairly obvious also in the NASA with a little looking. If that is not enough, Angstrom's turn of the 20th century estimate was closer than the K&T drawing. Check Eli Rabbet's blog.

I would like to thank Fred Moolton for helping me figure out what was so hard to understand.

A better Cartoon?

2011-10-05T12:52:00.000-07:00

Willis Eschenbach is a climate change skeptic with a clue. He has modified the Kiehl and Trenberth cartoon to allow for layers. Imagine that? Since he has done that, I don't have to. I am going to borrow his version, hopefully without being sued, to compare the things that I found out in the Back to Baking Bacon Bread post.

Willis added a tropopause break to separate the troposphere from the upper atmosphere. Excellent move! The values on his drawing are true to the more recent K&T cartoon. In analysis I did I used the older version.

In the post I did before I found that a ratio of temperature change from the atmosphere should equal the ratio of the energy flux change in the atmosphere. The flux at the surface 392Wm-2, is supposed to be the energy radiated by a black body at a temperature of 288K degrees. This flux would assume the application of emissivity of the planet and is based on the average temperature. The calculated temperature at the Top of the Atmosphere is 255K degrees for a radiant flux of 237Wm-2. Note that this value is slightly larger than the 235 on their old cartoon and slight lower than the general estimate of 240Wm-2. The difference between 392 and 237 is 155Wm-2 just as it was in the older cartoon. The actually average surface temperature is fairly accurately estimated at 288K and the flux at the TOA is fairly accurately measurable along with the temperature of 255 degrees K. the largest uncertainty appears to be the actual flux rate at the surface. Measuring that flux rate is extremely complicated and the accuracy of the measuring instruments is roughly 2% of the range. For a pure black body, the uncertainty in the emissivity is very small. For a gray body, the emissivity is a bit more debatable, but generally thought to be fairly accurate. The issue is that 288-255=33 has to have a consistent ratio with range of flux change in the atmosphere. So 33/288-30 = 1 and 155/(392-237) = 1 should have a direct relationship by the equation dF/dT=4F/T or a change in T=4F. The estimated sensitivity of the Earth surface to a doubling of CO2 is related to the change in flux by 3.7 1T=3.7F in a change. 3.7 is close to 4, 3.7/4=0.925, which is the estimated emissivity of the atmosphere. Pretty simple. However, in my previous post, the emissivity of the atmosphere appears to be 0.85 and not 0.925. 0.85/0.925=0.92 or 8% less than estimated. That difference could lead to a +/-8% error where contrasting errors could be 16%. Complimentary errors would negate.
Or vice versa depending on how you look at it.

In the flux ratio, since its change is 4 times that of temperature, that error would be multiplied by a factor of 4. So it would only take a relatively small error measuring temperature to result in a fairly large error in calculated flux. Since flux is not easily measured, it makes the use of calculating flux very common. A small error in flux measured would result in a smaller error of temperature calculated. So it would be easy for me or anyone else to have big issues if temperature measurement is wrong and the effective emissivity is off by 8 percent. The best estimate for effective emissivity (e)is 0.85, and 3.7Wm=-2 is estimate to cause a 1.2K increase in temperature, we can arraign the dT=3.7/(0.825*4)=3.7/3.3=1.12K and see that 1.12/1.2=93% of the estimated warming. Effective emissivity is however the variable to be changed causing the increase change in flux. If the Earth were a perfect black body,e=1, so the change in flux from the surface would be 155Wm-2. If the Earth were a regular back body, e=0.926, then the flux change from the surface would be would be 143.5Wm-2, so the surface flux would be 237+143.5=380Wm-2 Well, the Earth's surface is closer to a black body than the atmosphere. A one degree increase in the surface temperature would produce an increased flux of .926*4=3.7 Wm-2. The Earth though is mainly water and the emissivity of water is 0.99, so a one degree increase in the temperature of the oceans would cause a 4Wm-2 increase in flux. Conversely, one degree increase in surface air temperature would only cause a 3.3/4=0.825 degree increase in the ocean temperature, That increase in flux would produce 3.7/3.3=1.12K increase in temperature.

The ocean air interface is the greenhouse effect, radiant heat leaving the ocean surface at 100Wm-2 is restricted to 82 Wm-2 when it hits the atmosphere, conductive heat from water flows at 10,000Wm-2 and is restricted to 100Wm-2, latent heat from the ocean is restricted by the relative humidity of the air. All three modes of heat transport are bottle necked at the surface. Chop created by winds increase the cooling of the oceans, but not the absorption of energy. The Earth's real thermostat.

So looking at the K&T drawing for the surface, Fc=24, Fl=76 and Fr=392-24-76= 292 Where Fc is the thermals heat loss, Fl is the latent heat loss and Fr is the radiant heat loss. Fr though is balanced by down welling radiation created by the radiative bottleneck change from emissivity nearly 1 to 0.825. At the surface we have 292*.825=239Wm-2 leaving, 292-239=53Wm-2, which is the value that should be used for radiative absorption by the atmosphere, not the 18 implied by the 339 in and 321out for the troposphere shown of the drawing. The total of all the downwelling created by Fc, Fl and Fr is 392-239=153Wm-2. Since I undoubtedly had some rounding errors, 155Wm-2 is close enough for government work. So dF/dT=4(cFc+lFl+eFr)/T is perfectly valid at the surface, as long as the coefficients,c and l are small in comparison to e.

Update: I fixed a small error and missed one calculation. 239-155=84 which would be Frnet or the net radiative flux through the atmosphere from the surface proper. 51 of that should be absorbed in the troposphere and 33 radiated to space. Since water as a liquid and solid in the atmosphere can radiate in the atmospheric window, that should be shown at the top of the troposphere

There appears to be an issue with the K&T drawing right at the surface. DWR should be between 206 and 239 not 321.

Trenberth, Monckton and Lucia - Are They missing the Heat?

2011-10-05T06:50:00.000-07:00

In my last post Back to Baking Bacon Bread, the pork fat must have stimulated my brain or killed a few extra brain cells, not sure which. Anyway, in my pork fat euphoria, it appears I have located a missing 22Wm-2 of heat. Because of the sensitivity of errors, it is not all that easy to find out how much heat is missing versus some just misplaced.

However, since it looks like the flux generated by the greenhouse effect is 133 and not 155, there is probably a slight error in estimating the effective emissivity of the Earth's atmosphere, the planet itself or both. That is not only likely, but probable. The question would be how much would it effect the overall estimation of the change in forcing due to a doubling of CO2? Hummm?

I am not sure how to go directly to the answer. I can start by using the 133 instead of 155 just to see what that may do.

Back to my new favorite formula, dF/dT=4F/T and the ratio Tge/(288-255)=Fge/(390-235), the 390, Fs(urface)-235, Ftoa equals 155, but that does not include the effective emissivity of the atmosphere. Effective emissivity would be 133/155=0.85, which is much lower than typically assumed. So modifying the ratio, 0.85*(Fge)/0.85(Fs-Ftoa), to allow for this emissivity value we have T/33=0.85Fge/133. Since we are solving for an unknown temperature change due to 2xCO2 we have, dTge=dFge*Tge/4Fge=0.85*(3.7*33)/(4*133)=0.195, so for a 3.7Wm-2 change in forcing, 0.72 degree K change. That is a considerably smaller amount than the 1 estimated, a lot smaller that the 1.2 often estimated and one hellava lot less than the 1.5 estimate by some. So I think it is worth looking into a bit.

The nuts of the matter is that warming is likely over estimated by up to 15%, 85% of 3C is 2.55 Degrees, which purely by chance I am sure, agrees nicely with most of the recent estimates of sensitivity and is just about how much the models are over estimating the impact of global warming.

Could it be the MISSING HEAT?

Back to Baking Bacon Bread

2011-10-04T15:48:00.000-07:00

It is crusty roll fit for my crusty role.

Update: In case Fred show up, To use ratio and proportion correctly in this problem the 33C greenhouse effect would need to be equal to Surface radiation minus TOA radiation divide by four. 155/4=38.7 so either relationship in the equation is wrong, 33 is wrong or 155 is wrong, my money is on the 155.

Just in case you are wondering, the emissivity estimate of 0.926 only accounts for part of the difference, 143.5wm-2, there is still nearly 10 Wm-2 missing.

In the Monckton-Lucia online debate I am a non-combatant, I really don't care. I was curious if there was any justification for the linear approximation of flux versus temperature. Not only is there justification, there are several ways of using that approximation, with some pitfalls for the unwary. I will leave those issues to others. The one equation used was dF/dT=4F/T, so if I am going to use simple ratio and proportion to calculate a change in one relative to the other, it is a piece of cake. But is it valid with a mix of heat fluxes, latent thermal(sensible I prefer) and radiant?

I marked up this NASA energy budget drawing to determine the fluxes at the surface and atmosphere. There are a few differences between this drawing and the Kiehl and Trenberth energy budget drawings, mainly subtle differences.

If energy is fungible and the Earth's surface tends toward energy equilibrium, the sum of the energy fluxes at the surface will sum to the black body energy flux at 288K, the average surface temperature. Since the Earth has a greenhouse gas atmosphere, the temperature at the surface is greater than at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA). The difference in the heat flux at the surface is greater than the heat flux at the TOA by approximate 155W/m-2 on average. Adding twice the amount of CO2 to the atmosphere with increase the resistance to Outgoing Long wave Radiation (OLR)flow rate, or flux, changing the flux by 3.7Wm-2, which I am assuming is correct. As Co2 is a well mixed gas, the resistance will be greatest at the surface and decrease with altitude. Due to competition with water vapor in the lower atmosphere, the impact of CO2 will be more conductive and convective than radiative near the surface due to rapid transfer of absorbed energy by conduction (collisional transfer).

At the surface, all three basic types of heat flow, conduction(sensible), convection(a combination of sensible and latent) and radiative are present. To avoid confusion, conduction is used on the NASA cartoon while thermals is used on the K&T cartoons. Of the three types of heat flow, only radiative is directly changed by the addition of CO2. Of the radiative flux, only some spectral lines are effected by CO2, those spectral lines will cause the unaffected spectral lines to adjust to maintain equilibrium. Since energy is fungible, meaning it can change from one form to another as long as it is conserved, the conductive and latent fluxes with adjust to the change in radiative flux, limited by the thermodynamic relationships that influence them.

Based on the above the relationship Fout=Fc(onductive)+Fl(antent)+Fr(adiative) is true at the surface. Since only a portion of Fr(radiative) is effected, Fr can be separated into Fra(atmosphere) and Frs (space,) where Frs is the portion of the radiative spectrum not effected by the change in CO2.

For the modified drawing that yields, 390=24+79+(218+72). Fr=72+218=288 is a total of the heat loss from the surface interacting with the atmosphere only 21Wm-2 passes directly from the surface to space. The 390=24+79+21+267 would be the result of splitting Fr in Frs and Fra.

In order to use a ratio and proportion we have to define the range impacted by the change. The resistance to radiative flux in steady state creates a temperature imbalance between the surface (Ts) and the Top of the Amosphere (Toa) of Ts-Ttoa = Ts-255K or 33 degrees K, felt at the surface for an average temperature of 288K, the temperature and flux at the TOA will remain the same as it is in equilibrium with solar energy into the TOA. Then Tge=Ts-Ttoa. This range is equivalent to the change in radiative flux based on the black body temperature of the surface, 390-242=148 though 155W/m-2 is typically used after allowing for emissivity, which is the flux absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere, Fge.

So for a change in flux, (dFge/Fge) is proportional to d(Tge)/Tge, this can be written as dFge/dTge=4Fge/Tge => dTge=Tge*(dFge/4). For a discussion on this see, Uncertainty Monster Visits MIT. (This is a blog, so I am referencing a blog :)

Tge=33K, Fge=155W/m-2, dFge=2xCO2=3.7 and dTge is unknown

dTge=Tge*dFge/4=(33K*3.7)/(155Wm-2*4)=0.196K/Wm-2, based on the values typically assumed on the NASA drawing. For a 5 Wm-2 increase would produce 5Wm-2*0.196K/wm-2=0.98K, which is slightly lower than many estimates.

For the K&T old drawing, Fge=24+78+26=128Wm-2, Tge=33K and dFge=3.7 => 33*3.7/(155*4)=0.197 K/Wm-2

But this not the end of the story, Fr, the radiation from the surface, has the Frs portion that has a free pass to space and Fl and Fc have other thermodynamic issues to deal with. This will reduce the impact of Fge on Tge. In order to account for that impact we need to use Fnet = Fc+Fl+Fge+Fs

Fnet is complicated between the two drawings. In the NASA drawing, more radiation is shown leaving the surface and entering the atmosphere and less shown having a free path to space.

For NASA, Fnet = 51+21=72 and K&T 26 is calculated by converting the OLR to net and Fs is shown as 40 producing a Fnet of 66. So we have;

Nasa Fnet=24+79+51+21= 175 K&T Fnet=24+78+26+40= 168 Assuming Tge=33 and Fge=155 for both,

Nasa (33*3.7)/(4*175)=0.174Kwm-2 K&T (33*3.7)/(4*168)=0.18KWm-2
For a 5Wm-2 increase 5*0.174=0.87K

Both Fge and Fnet calculations should be considered as the increase in atmospheric temperature by Fge will feed back and the impact of that feedback will be reduced somewhat by the radiation window considered in Fnet. The truer value should be in between those two. Of the two drawings, the NASA is more realistic since water in liquid and solid formed in the atmosphere will emit in the atmospheric window to some degree.

Finally, by assuming that the net radiation is Fout-Fc-Fl=288 we can calculate,

(33*3.7)/(4*288)=0.106K/Wm-2 or we could use the total OLR based solely on the 228K radiation value of 390Wm-2 and obtain (33*3.7)/(4*390)=0.078K/Wm-2 In both cases there is a large amount of energy not actively participating either to warm the atmosphere or cool the surface. This produces an unrealistically low value for the Planck response. The atmospheric or greenhouse effect would respond only to an attempt to change the rate of flux through the atmosphere. The difference in temperature of the surface is due the effective temperature differences between the surface and the atmosphere which is in equilibrium if we assume the surface energy is seeking equilibrium, atmospheric energy is seeking equilibrium and the TOA is seeking equilibrium.

The assumption of equilibrium in no way implies true equilibrium. The impact of addition forcing on various layers of the atmosphere will have differing effects. An integration of the impact of different layers would have on their neighbors would be required for complete understanding. This method only provides a reasonable estimate of the Planck response to a change in emissivity. The varying limits of conductive, convective and latent responses would have to be considered separately.

While this has been interesting, a simple ratio and proportion of the surface is not all that valuable. It would better if used as part of an analysis of surface regions with similar feedback responses, like a tropical zone (slightly lower Planck response), northern hemisphere zone (higher Planck response with more water vapor feedback) and southern hemisphere zone (in between, but closer to the NH Planck response with less water vapor feedback). Each would have very different responses to a change in forcing. An atmospheric balance of each zone should also be considered as heat energy would migrate from one zone into another.

That's the end of me trying to act serious. Now its speculation time!

For these drawings, an atmospheric ratio is interesting. For the K$T old drawing, We have solar absorbed by clouds Fs=67, Fc(the thermals)=24, Fl=78 and Fr=26 for an Fnet=195. We do not have a Tge or Fge and temperatures in the atmosphere are well below the black body temperature at the TOA. We can calculate a change in forcing, 3.7/195=0.0036 and we have an estimate of the Planck response of 0.18K/Wm-2. Dividing the Planck response by the ratio of the change in forcing we get 50K. 288K-50K=238K, which is very close to the TOA effective temperature. If we use that as an estimate for Tge in the atmosphere, 50*3.7/(4*195)=0.23 or 5W/m-2*0.23=1.18K With an estimate of Tge for the atmosphere of 38K we would have the same Planck response as the surface. Subtracting that from the 288K surface temperature we would get an effective temperature of the atmosphere of -23 degrees C. This is roughly the potential temperature of a parcel of air at 250K and 600mb or an altitude of 4.5 km. Interesting?

UPDATE: The discrepancy between Tge and Fge is likely due to the effective emissivity plus a few assumptions. Fge should be approximately 133Wm-2 instead of the 155Wm-2 assumed, of course 288K at the surface is also assumed as well as 3.7Wm-2 being the change in forcing due to a doubling of CO2, so there is a whole lot of 'summin' goin' on. However, 22Wm-2 is a fair amount of missing heat for a high class radiation budget.

Now time to eat baked bacon bread.

Supplimental Issues for What's not Good

2011-10-03T12:07:00.000-07:00

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/(288-255)K. This produces a value of one equivalent with the initial value of the greenhouse or atmospheric effect. Optionally, 33K/(288-33) 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/(288-255) 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 S-B, a 10% change in Era would result in 10.6% change in temperature. So there is error due to non-linearity, 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 390Wm-2, the minimum average downwelling will be 155Wm-2 and the maximum should be a percentage of the flux interacting with the atmosphere decreasing toward 155Wm-2.

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 (288-3.7)/(390-3.7)=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 non-interactive radiative fluxes at the surface, but should be in the ballpark for such a small change. For an increase, 0.7409-0.7385=0.0024..., time 288 yields 0.707 For a decrease, 0.736-0.7385=-0.0025 times 288 yields -0.7214. Using dT(T)=dF/4F, I believe that results in a Planck parameter of approximately 0.18 :)

So What's not to Like?

2011-10-02T15:00:00.000-07:00

More Notes: http://ourhydrogeneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/10/back-to-baking-bacon-bread.html has come more clarification, but this situation is progressing - stay tuned.

Note: I have started a supplemental post to discuss the potential error range of the approximation.

Update: Well, Trenberth's cartoon for one thing.

I was thinking my method sucked, but I am getting the idea most of the issue is in the cartoon. In any case, the NASA budget and the K&T budget have some inconsistencies.

First, seeing that whopping 324 Wm-2 coming out of that huge greenhouse cloud, I can't take it anymore. The Earth is warmer by about 33 degrees thanks to the greenhouse effect and that is because it re-radiates 155 W/m-2. The sky is still warmed by the sun, so the 169 in red is its contribution.

In trying to figure out what Christopher Monckton was on about, I started looking at the cartoon again. To me there is a pretty obvious relationship at the surface with three heat flows or fluxes, Thermal, Latent and Radiative,All three depend on the Earth for their energy, heat flowing from a source at 288K and each have different factors that effect their rates of flow. At the surface the total outward heat flow is 390Wm-2 based on the black body temperature. At the top of the atmosphere, the flow rate is 235 Wm-2, or equivalent to about 255K degrees (actually, 240Wm-2 is the more typical value used for 255K). The difference is due to the atmospheric effect or greenhouse effect.

So for my explanation I assume that layers of the atmosphere and the surface want to be in energy equilibrium, Ein=Eout. That is the way it is at the top of the atmosphere, that should be the way it is in the atmosphere and that is the way it should be at the surface, though it will never be in true equilibrium. Over some length of time, the approximation of equilibrium would be valid. This is a pretty common assumption and no one seems to be bent out of shape over that.

Since we are mainly concerned with a change in the radiative flux due to more CO2, CO2 change mainly impacts the outgoing radiation, I am looking for what impact CO2 change would have on surface radiative flux. An addition 3.7Wm-2 of flux would be a 14% change in the portion of the radiative flux impacted by the atmosphere. Since the total flux at the surface is 168, that would be a 0.022% change in the total flux. As the radiative impact of the atmosphere is 33 degree (288K-255K), that would cause a 0.73 degree change in surface temperature. The estimated value of a change of 3.7 Wm-2 is 1.2 - 1.5 Wm-2. If I take the difference between the total flux at the surface for a black body at 288K = 390Wm-2 and subtract the TOA flux of 235 there is 155 Wm-2 difference. 3.7Wm-2 divided by 155 would be 0.024% change or 0.78 degrees change. So there are two quick estimates of climate sensitivity based on the flux averages listed on the K&T cartoon, both are in the ballpark, but neither are correct.

Also if I divided 3.7 by 390Wm-2, the surface flux, I get 0.0095, multiply that by 288K and I get 2.73 and at the TOA 3.7/235Wm-2 = 0.0157, multiply that by 255K, I get 4.0K. Why? Because the atmosphere only adds approximately 33 degrees to the surface temperature. A simple ratio will only work for extrapolating the actual range impacted for small changes. I can use the S-B equation for the change in surface radiation from 390 to 393.7 Wm-2 and get a 0.68 change in surface temperature. That is still not 1.2 - 1.5 degrees, but using the more standard method of calculating temperature of a black body, there is some agreement with the ratio extrapolation. S-B does require an estimate of emissivity, since the Earth is not a true black body.

Assumption for the use of ratio and proportion to estimate change in surface flux: In purely radiative heat flow, if one portion of the spectrum is restricted, the unrestricted portion will uniformly increase to regain equilibrium. As energy is fungible, in a mixed heat flux environment, if one portion of any flux is restricted, the unrestricted fluxes will uniformly increase to regain equilibrium within the limits of their physical heat flow characteristics.

The way I chose to handle the problem was with a simple ratio of the change in radiative flux at the surface. The fluxes are, Et(thermals or sensible heat), El (latent heat), Era (radiant energy interacting with the atmosphere)and Ers(radiant energy lost directly to space). Using the above assumption, the Eout = Et+El+Era+Ers, a change in Era would cause a change in the remaining heat flux to maintain equilibrium. I had to calculate the Era by subtracting the 324 down welling from the 350 upwelling after the Ers, or radiation directly to space was subtracted. That gives us 24+78+26+40=168 Wm-2 leaving the surface. CO2 will only impact the Era. Feedbacks from that will have some impact on the rest, but they are not directly impacted. Using a ratio of the change in Era by 3.7Wm-2 to total upward energy fluxes, I came up with 29.7/171.7=0.179 or 17.9 percent change. I could have calculated a reduction, 22.3/164.3=0.135, but it is just an estimate, so why bother?

In the atmosphere we have Esun (the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere)+Et+El+Era warming the atmosphere. Using the same ratio, I get 29.7/(67+24+78+29.7)=29.7/198.7=0.149 or 15%. For a reduction I could have calculated 22.3/191.3=0.116 or 12%. In both cases, the temperature that would be changed is 33C so the range of temperature change due to the atmospheric imbalance would be 3.96 to 4.96 from an initial value of 4.4 degrees due to radiative absorption in the atmosphere or -.48 to 0.56 degrees. At the surface, 4.4 to 5.9 with 5.2 the initial value for a range of -0.8 to 0.7 degrees.

If I were to derive a better method, Ein=Eout at the TOA, so from the top down, the integration would be from TOA to surface which is a temperature range of approximately 33 degrees. There is no need to start with 288K. If I did want to start with the 288K S-B gives me an estimate of 0.68K with an assumption of emissivity equaling one.

In the interpolation for the atmosphere, the total energy in initially is 195Wm-2. Using the same assumption of equilibrium, the effective temperature of the atmosphere is 242.2 degrees K. With increased absorbed Era, that temperature would increase by 0.56 to 242.76K. The surface would increase by 0.7 to 288.7K. The temperature differential between the surface and the atmosphere would increase from 288-242.2=45.8 degrees to 288.7-242.76=45.96K. That is 0.16K increase relative to 45.8K differential or a virtually negligible, 0.35% increase. That indicates minimal increase in the thermal and latent fluxes. Assuming that the reduced surface flux Era would proportionally divide between the other less effect fluxes, the increase would be 3.7/168=0.022 or 2.2 percent. Since temperature difference and its effect on pressure, is an important factor in the latent and thermal, the flux adjustment to regain equilibrium would of the shift to Ers, the radiation direct to space, as minimal change to radiation window is indicated, the path of least resistance. There is no indication of significant water vapor, differential temperature or radiative feedback to the small change in Era flux.

Since the K&T drawing provides 324W/m-2 value for down welling radiation, the effective temperature of the atmosphere would be 279.5 degrees. On the drawing above I split the down welling into 169W/m^2 due to Esun, Et and El, the majority of this energy is day time accumulated, and 155W/m^2 the outgoing long wave radiation greenhouse effect down welling radiation. The change in the diurnal resistance to heat loss is better illustrate with this modification.

As previously noted, the TOA flux indicated is 235Wm-2 equivalent to 253.8K instead of the more common estimate of 255K. This can cause a margin of error of 3.6 percent. Since the tropics are effective saturated for changes in radiative flux in the spectrum of CO2, most of the change in radiative balance would impact the higher latitudes. Then the approximate 0.8 increase in global temperature would be realized as greater increase in the mid to upper latitudes of approximately 1.6 degrees, predominately in the Northern Hemisphere where the land mass ratio would amplify impact. This imbalance increases potential feed back of water vapor to a significant value.

Update: On the question of is a linear approximation of any use? For a 10% change in forcing of Era, the error is approximately 6 percent due to the approximation. Cumulative errors would be pretty large. For small changes it could be useful, though a little more sophisticated method would be better. The inter-dependency of the three fluxes is interesting.

Musing: El, the latent flux is also dependent on available water vapor. With the large temperature difference between the poles, the north pole summers are near the freezing point of water while the south pole is well below freezing. Latent feedback at the south pole will be less than the north for a small change in Era. In this musing, it appears that a simple model would include three distinct regions, the Northern Extent, the Modified Tropics and the Southern Extent. With the modified tropics defined as the region where 50% of the incident sunlight is absorbed, the the thermal characteristics of the Northern Extent, more impacted by water vapor and albedo feedback could be contrasted with the Southern extent where radiative feedback would be less pronounce in individual fluxes.

As always this is a work in progress, feel free to comment.

Physical Principals for the Cartoon Sensitivity Calculation?

2011-10-02T07:20:00.000-07:00

In my rambling post on the Cartoon, I wandered a bit.

lucia (Comment #82813)
October 2nd, 2011 at 6:20 am

Dallas–
Your explanation isn’t very clear because the text mostly just throws out numbers without mentioning names or physical principle. I also notice for some reason, your first step seems to be to create a figure with entirely different numbers:

You have some sort of discussion of:

At the surface we can use the averages of solar absorbed, 168 plus thermals, 24 plus latent 78 plus radiant, 26 calculated as the net, and 40 lost to space for a total of 168 in and 24+78+26+40=168 out. If the 26 changes by 3.7, then the total radiative impact would be (26+3.7)/(168+3.7)=0.173 or 17.3% if

Could you turn those into some type of formula, and mention a physical principle of some sort? The formula, and physical principles would help me understand why you think you assembling the numbers as you have results in the climate sensitivity.

For example: I don’t know why you think this:

The 3.7Wm-2 change would produce a 17.3-15.4=1.9% change in the energy balance or a 0.019*33K=0.63K change in surface temperature.

Physical principles could help here.

For the some sort of discussion, for the surface energy balance, the total solar absorbed by the surface Es, 168wm-2 should balance the energy leaving the surface, Latent, El + Thermals, Et + Radiant absorbed atmosphere, Era +Radiant to space Ers. The radiant to space and radiant absorbed are separated because the energy lost directly to space would not feedback to the surface. Assuming that the surface over time will have a balance, then Es=El+Et+Era+Ers. Should one of the surface energies out change, the surface would attempt to re-balance requiring a higher effective temperature.

The atmosphere's energy inputs are partially dependent on the surface energy fluxes. In the Atmosphere, Esun + El +Et + Era total to equal the energy out as the atmosphere attempts to obtain equilibrium, at a time different than the surface.

Both the surface and the atmosphere would be sensitive to a common perturbation, albeit at differing amounts and time frames.

A 3.7 Wm-2 change in Era is equivalent to a 1K change in surface temperature per generally accepted theory assuming a 33K atmospheric effect on surface temperature. So for an instantaneous perturbation of 3.7Wm-2 impacting Era initially, the change in the energy imbalance would result in a temperature change proportional to the relative impact of the energy flux changed, (Era2-Era1)/(Es2-Es1). {Era2/(El+Et+Ers+Era2)}-{Era1/(El+Et+Ers+Era1)}, Era2=Era1+3.7Wm-2 for a unit change in surface temperature. {(26+3.7)/(24+78+40+(26+3.7))}-{26/(24+78+40+26)}= 0.173 - 0.155 = 1.8 percent change in the atmospheric effect, 0.018*33= 0.6 K which would the surface temperature transient sensitivity to radiative forcing, based on a Cartoon.

The same logic in the atmosphere yields atmospheric transient sensitivity {Era2/(Esun+Et+El+Era2} - {Era1/(Esun+Et+El+Era1)} yielding 1.7% or 0.54K transient sensitivity(TS). Since the change in the surface TSs is related to the change in TSa (atmsophere), the overall Ts of the Earth would lay within the range of the two.

lucia (Comment #82820)
October 2nd, 2011 at 8:38 am

Dallas–
I do agree that energy balance holds. I agree that if energy input (or OLR as a function of surface temperature) change, the surface temperature will adjust to balance.

I’m still not reading a physical principle why you think the ratios you are using are appropriate to estimating climate sensitivity. Why use 33K? Why not 288K? Explaining your notion more fully in a more conventional way might help.

I am not sure how to best describe the principle. At the surface Energy out, Eo is the sum of Et+El+Er which would be proportional to partial fraction of each with respect to the variables of dependence, time, temperature, radiative emissivity, radiative absorption, lapse rate and available moisture. I could get a pretty messy equation if I don't simplify by using the more important relationships. Et is most dependent on temperature differential which is dependent on density. El is most dependent on moisture availability and temperature difference which are both dependent on density. Et is most dependent on temperature and radiative emissivity, which is dependent on radiative absorptivity of the atmosphere. Two thirds of the Er is at wave lengths where the radiative aspects of the atmosphere are minimal. Only the Era, radiative emissions in the spectrum absorbed by the atmosphere is most dependent on emissivity and absorption. So a better answer than , "it is what it is", Would be a partial differential equation showing all the changes with respect other changes. Simplicity allows for estimations, where delta Et/delta T is sufficiently large, delta El/delta T is sufficiently large and delta Es/delta emissivity is sufficiently small, that delta Era/delta emissivity is most impacted by a change in emissivity. In the atmosphere, density decrease with height so the Et and El terms approach zero. As they decrease the Era impact increases. For the above calculation, the average of all, Et, El and Era are assumed from the K&T cartoon. An integration of the changes of all three should result in approximately those values.

This is still hand waving since I haven't set up the partial differential equation, but the physical justification will be in there. :)

That Damn Cartoon and the Third Viscount of Puzzles

2011-10-01T20:56:00.000-07:00

This is silly, but that cartoon, the K&T energy budget, is still generating confusion and it is the old version. The reason is still the big ass arrows showing 390 upwelling radiation and 324 downwelling radiation. So here's the deal as I see it.

If the Earth was a rock in space, a blackbody object, at 288 degree K, it would radiate heat to space at a rate of 390 Wm-2. At the Top of the Atmosphere TOA, the Earth only radiates 235 Wm-2. 235 Wm-2 is what a blackbody would radiate if it were at 255 degrees K. So because of the atmosphere the Earth is 33 degrees K or C warmer than it would be otherwise, that is the greenhouse effect.

But the Earth is not a rock floating in space, the Earth is a planet covered with water that has an atmosphere and it happens to have a big hotter blackbody, the Sun, shining 342 Wm-2 on the TOA. So the K&T guys drew this cartoon to show basically what is going on, but for a cartoon, this one is pretty confusing. It is confusing mainly because every thing is averaged. For its intended purpose, that is just fine, but it is being used for not its intended purpose.

So how to make sense of the cartoon for some other purpose? Well, you have to change things around. If we did a day cartoon, then numbers for the Sun would be doubled, latent and thermals would be doubled. All the IR numbers would be the same, they happen day and night so their average is just fine, it is just the Sun that gets turned off and on. All the ratios would stay the same for the day side (left) and the night side(right).

So on this copy I have the day values with one, the IR absorbed by the clouds as 54 with a question mark. The 40 straight from the surface to space, I could double if I just wanted to do a day balance, but the 54? may not be 54 Wm-2. Why? Because that number would depend upon the daytime average temperature, which I don't have.

Other than the question mark, we have 336 plus 134 or 470Wm-2 of absorbed sunlight and 204Wm-2 transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. 407-204=203Wm-2 may be locked into the oceans for some time or radiated to the clouds or space. Whatever happens, you can't tell from this cartoon.

If you go into night mode, then we have 390Wm-2 leaving the surface, 324 coming back which means a net of 66Wm-2 of which 40 passes through the atmosphere and 66-40=26Wm-2 absorbed by the atmosphere. The only thing is, the atmosphere was warmed during the day, so that 26 is likely less at night since the sun is turned off. So, since we don't know the what the actual number is, only that it changes, we can't really do a night energy balance. It should be clear, that since at night the surface temperature decreases locally, that the sky is not warming the surface, just slowing down the rate of cooling. During the day, the sky absorbs sunlight and reflect some, so it is slowing down the rate of warming. So what is actually happening in the sky, other than averages is not known, looking at this cartoon.

What the cartoon does show is the average of everything that is happening, not that the sky is warming the Earth or cooling the Earth, just that the energy flows balance at this particular temperature and solar radiation. After changing the IR absorbed by the sky to a net, you can see the rough balance of what is warming the sky and the rate of heat loss at night from the surface depends on that energy, or effective temperature of the sky. The same thing happens during the day, the effective temperature of the sky effects the heat flows from the surface. All of the heat flow, not just the outgoing radiation.

Energy is fungible, meaning it can change from conductive, convective, which has latent and sensible components and radiant. So at night, that 390 up can be split between any of the heat transfer modes, but on average, the total outgoing flux will be 390 on average. The same would be true for the 324 shown coming down.

The 324 coming down, doesn't warm at night very often. It can. There can be times when a warm air front moves in at night, but heat flows from warm to cold and typically the air temperature near the surface is cooler than the surface.

If you compare all the numbers at the TOA, the energy coming in equals the energy going out. This may not be in balance at any given moment in time, but on average it is and at the TOA it adjusts quickly to try and stay in balance. At the surface, the energy in on average will equal the energy out, but the time of imbalance can be much longer. In the middle of the atmosphere, if the surface and the TOA are in balance, it will try to become in balance. Everything wants to be in balance, but it will never happen.

So what else can the cartoon tell us? Well, the average numbers for the types and quantities of heat flow gives us a rough idea what the impact of a change to one of the flows might have, or how sensitive the temperature may be to a change in heat flux. At the surface we can use the averages of solar absorbed, 168 plus thermals, 24 plus latent 78 plus radiant, 26 calculated as the net, and 40 lost to space for a total of 168 in and 24+78+26+40=168 out. If the 26 changes by 3.7, then the total radiative impact would be (26+3.7)/(168+3.7)=0.173 or 17.3% if everything else remained the same, versus 26/168=0.154 or 15.4%. The 3.7Wm-2 change would produce a 17.3-15.4=1.9% change in the energy balance or a 0.019*33K=0.63K change in surface temperature. If the 26 increased as in this calculation, that would result in a decrease in surface temperature, a decrease would be an increase in surface temperature. The other fluxes and/or temperature would change some, trying to regain balance. Looking at the atmosphere, 67 solar plus 24 thermal plus 78 latent plus 26 radiant equals 195Wm-2 total. If we change the radiant flux by 3.7, then (26+3.7)/(195+3.7)= 0.15 or 15% versus 26/195=0.133 or 13.3 percent. The difference, 15%-13.3%=1.7% or 0.017*33=0.56K change in temperature, if every thing else remained the same, which probably won't happen.

Since I used 3.7, which happens to be the expected change in radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2, the the surface sensitivity is about 0.63 and the atmosphere sensitivity is about 0.56 degrees K per doubling or the no feedback climate sensitivity based on the K&T energy balance cartoon. Since some of the other things are likely to change besides temperature, this should be a minimum climate sensitivity, no guarantees though.

Anyway, I think this is what Christopher Monckton of Brenchley was attempting to use as a proof of lower climate sensitivity.

If this happens to be a reasonable estimate of minimum sensitivity, then it may be possible to get an estimate of something close to a reasonable maximum sensitivity by doubling or tripling the no feedback to approximate radiative water vapor feedback. Water vapor can produce negative feedbacks with cloud cover change, so a doubling would be a reasonable estimate for the surface, implying a 1.26 sensitivity. For the atmosphere, it would be more likely that a tripling would be possible as the negative potential feedback clouds would have on the surface would have some positive feedback on the atmosphere which would receive the increased latent heat and absorbed solar radiation of the clouds, yielding a 1.62 approximate sensitivity. Since one impacts the other, the transient climate sensitivity may lie in the range 1.26 to 1.62 K. This happens to be close to estimates, so there may be some validity, I wouldn't count on the accuracy too much though.

Since a no feedback climate sensitivity does not exist, there will be feedbacks, this nearly a pointless exercise, but if the Third Viscount of Brenchley is posing a puzzle, this may be part of the answer.

It is Just a Cartoon!

2011-10-01T09:09:00.000-07:00

I have dug into this some more and tweaked when my estimate are a little tighter. Based on the drawing, what I have down below is a pretty accurate quick and dirty estimate. To explain the principals involved I have this post, Back to Baking Bacon Bread. For what impact that unexpected issue may have, Trenberth, Monckton and Lucia - Are They Missing the Heat? There is a lot more that really needs to be done to verify if there is really any impact, but I will try when I find time.

Some how or another, the Keihl Trenberth cartoon radiation budget has been breathed new life and is now a scientific zombie. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, has a post on Wattsupwiththat about climate sensitivity where he derived something from the K&T cartoon. I am not sure what he was attempting to derive from the cartoon, but he was pretty adamant that he was on to something.

Well, his post was criticized by several people including Lucia at the BlackBoard. this exchange got a little heated, but what else is new. Well, the heart of the issue is whether or not you can derive the climate sensitivity of Earth from the silly cartoon energy balance. HUH?

Well, ya kinda can. If you consider that only the atmosphere responds to outgoing longwave radiation, then the amount of OLR is 26 W/m^2 after you subtract the 40 W/m^2 that gets a free pass and the 324 W/m^2 downwelling. That downwelling radiation is generated by the sum of energy absorbed by the atmosphere, so the ratio of the radiative absorbed divided by the total absorbed would be the radiative impact of the greenhouse to OLR.

26 OLR absorbed / (67 solar absorbed + 24 sensible heat absorbed + 78 latent heat absorbed + 26 radiant heat absorbed) That equals 26/195 or 0.133, 13.3% of the temperature of the atmosphere is directly due to absorbed outgoing radiation. Of course, all the other values change when radiative absorption changes, but 13.3 is pretty close to the minimum value. Since the greenhouse provides an extra 33 degrees of warmth, 13.3 % of 33 equals, 4.4 degrees is purely due to OLR. That would be the value changed with more CO2 added. One degree change in temperature is due to the overall greenhouse effect is caused by 3.7 W/m^2. I am not positive this is right, but it looks about right. If you add the 3.7 W/m^2 (26+3.7)/(195+3.7) you get 0.1495 (okay that is a few many sig digs) times 33 = 4.93 C which is (4.93-4.4)= 0.53 C minimum warming due to an increase of 3.7W/m^2 atmospheric resistance to OLR.

The latent and sensible values would definitely change with greater atmospheric resistance and the solar absorbed should a little, but is more likely to vary less, assuming it remains roughly the same, then 29.7/(67 solar +29.7 radiative) = 29.7/96.7 times 4.4, the radiative forcing portion of the 33 degree results in a maximum sensitivity of 1.35 degrees.

Considering the estimated 1.2 C climate sensitivity to no feedback is based on the 33 C and that feedbacks are supposed to kick up sensitivity, this range doesn't really say anything new, only that the K&T data was in the ballpark of reality.

Update: Just as a check, you can do the same ratio with only the surface fluxes and get 0.155K/W/m^2 or 0.60 minimum sensitivity. Not that that is particularly exciting either.

More on the Atmospheric Heat Pipe

2011-09-25T16:27:00.000-07:00

Update: I found the issues with the spread sheet so I was able to clean up the chart. This time the invert values of the Stratosphere is in orange, so the trend lines are meaningful.

The Upper Atmosphere impacts are described in the link. There is a lot more going on than just radiative changes due to surface warming.

A while back I was puzzled over the temperature relationship between the mid Troposphere and the Stratosphere. Global warming has predicted that the troposphere should warm and the stratosphere cool. That is the general trend, but there are some oddities when you compare the monthly temperature values. This lead to the tropopause as a heat sink and the heat pipe analogy.

Heat pipes are a good way to remove sensible heat quickly. It involves a liquid to vapor phase change on one end, the cooling end and a vapor to liquid phase change on the other end, the heat sink. To work properly, the heat sink, or thermal reservoir used to pipe the heat to, must be much larger than the cooling load. The upper troposphere, tropopause especially, is an ideal thermal reservoir, because it can easily radiate heat to space except for a narrow band occupied by ozone. Ozone is warmed in the stratosphere by incoming ultraviolet radiation from the sun. It is also warmed by outgoing radiation in its absorption band. Increased CO2 should block a portion of that band reducing the warming due to outgoing radiation (small point in the co2 spectrum shared by ozone and water vapor). There is more to it than that, "In Ramaswamy (2001):

For carbon dioxide the main 15-um band is saturated over quite short distances. Hence the upwelling radiation reaching the lower stratosphere originates from the cold upper troposphere. When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and the effect of the increased emission dominates, leading to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere." From Science of Doom.

Water in all its phases has a spectrum overlap with ozone. So variations in the emitted radiation by water in the upper troposphere can also impact ozone absorption. How significantly I am not sure, but it is possible that variations in the energy emitted to space by water can be causing the odd variations in stratospheric temperature.

Update: To better describe what I am calling the atmospheric heat pump, it is related to convection without precipitation. Warm moist air rising, cooling which condenses the water vapor and producing precipitation is well understood and included in all climate models. Clear sky thermals also move warm moist air higher where it cools the water vapor. Visible clouds may or may not form and clouds that do form may not precipitate, but that does not mean that heat is not being moved from warmer lower levels to colder upper layers where heat from water vapor can be radiated to either space or the atmosphere. Rising air will cause a lower pressure below it that will be replaced eventually by cooler air from above. If you have ever watched buzzards in a kettle, you have seen clear sky thermals.

All clear sky thermals would be "heat pipes" and these thermals from the surface are included in atmospheric models. They gain their energy, heat, from the surface mainly due to sunlight.

My theoretical Atmospheric Heat Pipe would be higher in the atmosphere, at the top of the atmospheric boundary layer, which is the lowest level of the atmosphere between the surface and roughly the base of the low level clouds. Water vapor in the atmosphere absorbs solar energy, not clouds, but water vapor absorbs approximately 10 percent and about half is re-radiated to space as infrared. These are approximations of averages. It is the change in the amount of the absorbed energy re-radiated that may impact climate.

Here is the crackpot part of the theory. During a solar minimum, there is a slight decrease in the overall solar energy spectrum. About 1 W/m^2 out of 1365 at the top of the atmosphere. At the surface, only one quarter of 70 percent of that change on average would be felt due to albedo, geometry and rotation. More of that change would be felt in the mid and upper troposphere. However, it is likely, that the near infrared portion of the solar spectrum varies little between solar minimum and maximum. This light energy imbalance could increase the efficiency of the atmospheric Heat Pump. Water in all its phases, is a strong absorber of infrared which is the power source of the theoretical Atmospheric Heat Pipe.

Would the Earth Really Be 33 C colder Without Greenhouse Gases?

2011-09-18T04:22:00.000-07:00

Thirty-three degrees C is the iconic value of the impact of greenhouse gases on Earth's climate. It is an estimate, probably not a bad estimate, but not carved in stone. CO2 does have a radiative impact on climate. Without it the world would be cooler, with more the world will be warmer, if all things stayed the same.

In the coming Ice age series, I am exploring the impact of water on climate, which is a much stronger and much more complicated Greenhouse gas. Most believe the addition CO2 in the atmosphere is over whelming the climate, but that same "most" don't feel that CO2 will cause a thermal runaway. The question to me has always been how much will CO2 do?

To estimate the impact of CO2, scientists calculate that with approximately 240 Watts/meter^2 at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that the Earth's temperature would be 255 degrees Kelvin (K). So with the current temperature being 288K, greenhouse gases cause 33 degree K or C of warming. Based on this 33 degrees, the impact of CO2 can be calculated and about 1.2 degrees would be the impact of double CO2.

BUT, "If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[6] (or 28%[7]) of the incoming sunlight, the planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 or −19 °C,[8][9] about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C.[10] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.", From Wikipedia.

That reflection of about 30% is due to water vapor in the form of clouds in a large part. Liquid water which makes up most of our planet reflects only about 8 percent. Ice and snow reflect some and land some as well. Not including the reflective part of water vapor, can de-emphasize its relative impact versus CO2.

If Earth were a true blackbody, the temperature without a greenhouse gas atmosphere would be 5.3 C or 279.3 K or 9 degrees, not 33. If I estimate that water vapor accounts for 50 percent of the reflectivity, then the Earth without a greenhouse would be about 14 degrees cooler. Using the estimated 1.2 for a doubling of CO2 with this temperature, 0.51 degrees would be the estimated impact of doubled CO2.

There is nothing new here. With all things behaving properly, CO2 doubling will cause 1.2 C of warming. The difference between 1.2 and 0.51 just illustrates the uncertainty in the impact of clouds to an increase in CO2. The uncertainty with respect to clouds is nothing new either.

As if by magic, the IPCC estimated warming average is 3 degrees and the estimate based on observations is about 1.2 to 1.6 degrees. As I have mentioned before, that 3 degrees is not A estimate, but the average of two estimates. The first estimate was 2 degrees. So I think we should give a cigar to Manabe, the scientist that seems to have the better estimate.

If we take a look at the second estimate by Arrhenius, 1.6 (2.3 with water vapor) we have another estimate that is pretty close. The only fly in the ointment is Dr. James Hansen with his high estimate of 4 degrees. Well, he is nearing retirement.

Continuing: A while back I read an old post on Climate Audit, where Dr. James Annan tried to explain the estimate for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.

"I noticed on your blog that you had asked for any clear reference providing a direct calculation that climate sensitivity is 3C (for a doubling of CO2). The simple answer is that there is no direct calculation to accurately prove this, which is why it remains one of the most important open questions in climate science.

We can get part of the way with simple direct calculations, though. Starting with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation,

S (1-a)/4 = s T_e^4

where S is the solar constant (1370 Wm^-2), a the planetary albedo (0.3), s (sigma) the S-B constant (5.67×10^-8) and T_e the effective emitting temperature, we can calculate T_e = 255K (from which we also get the canonical estimate of the greenhouse effect as 33C at the surface).

The change in outgoing radiation as a function of temperature is the derivative of the RHS with respect to temperature, giving 4s.T_e^3 = 3.76 . This is the extra Wm^-2 emitted per degree of warming, so if you are prepared to accept that we understand purely radiative transfer pretty well and thus the conventional value of 3.7Wm^-2 per doubling of CO2, that conveniently means a doubling of CO2 will result in a 1C warming at equilibrium, *if everything else in the atmosphere stays exactly the same*."

Before I estimated that clouds contribute about half the albedo so using Annan's equation we have 1370(1-.15)/w or 291.1 = s.T_e. So T_e = (291.1/(5.67x10^-8))^.25 = 268.9 K which is 13.9K greater than the 255K no greenhouse estimated temperature of the Earth. Instead of 33 C we could be 19.1 degrees warmer with a greenhouse atmosphere than without. Using the same derivative, the change in OUTGOING radiation required to increase the temperature 1 degree would be 5.59 Watts/meter^2 if I didn't screw up. Without going back through the derivation of the radiative impact of a doubling of CO2, I will assume 3.7 W/m^2 is correct. Then the temperature change for a doubling of CO2 would be 3.7/5.59 = 0.66 degrees C or K.

This does not mean that 5.59 W/m^2 is the radiative change in forcing required to increase the temperature one degree, just that water vapor may effect the initial estimate of 33 degrees. If the Earth was at an average temperature of 268.9 we would be in a snowball Earth, there would probably be less water vapor and more surface ice or snow so the impact of solid water with traces of water vapor could be an albedo of greater than 0.3. If the albedo of the Earth was .4, then T_e would be 205.5 and 3.4W/m^2 would equate to 1 degree change in surface temperature.

Note: This post is more of just a reminder for me. The accuracy of the ground based net infrared radiative measurements are not sufficient to confidently measure the temperature change for a small, less than one percent change in radiation. That may be changing.

The Coming Ice Age? Part V It's the Sun Stupid

2011-09-15T12:31:00.000-07:00

It's the sun stupid, has been used by skeptics of global warming for a long time. There is a fair correlation of solar cycles and temperature. Not great. Fair. Since we now know that the actual change in solar energy during its cycles is not that much, it is have to show that there is a mechanism linked to solar that can make large changes in climate. Somewhere between a tenth of a degree and two tenths of a degree is all that the sun can muster climate change wise. So how can it be the sun, stupid?

Glad ya asked. Timing and location is the answer. The short ~11 year solar cycles don't seem to do much, as expected. We haven't seen a longer cycle with our modern satellite eyes, so I am allowed to put on my Carnack turbine and foresee the future, by looking at the past.

The little ice age was in the past. it was a time when it was colder in the northern hemisphere and it just happened to coincide with a prolonged sun spot minimum, the Maunder minimum. During the Maunder minimum the solar output was less, about 1 to 2 Watts per meter squared for a prolonged period of time, about 22 years or two solar cycles were very calm with one before and one after probably smaller than normal.

Above is a reconstruction of the sun spot cycles I found on Wikipedia. The only reason I don't say there were four dead low cycles is because the accuracy back then may not have been all that great. Based on current solar energy changes, during the Maunder minimum the energy from the sun was about 1 W/m^2 less than normal. There is still a good bit of debate of that number, but that's the one I am going to use right now.

One W/m^2 is not much. Average over the whole Earth and allowing for reflection and all that it would only be about 0.25 W/m^2 at the surface. So little that most scientists blow it off and others look to explain why it should be more. But it may not have to be more.

Where that change matters is near the equator and over the ocean. Since there is more ocean than land south of the equator, that is where it would matter most. In this area, the change in solar irradiation would be closer to the full 1 W/m^2. I know the sun rises and sets and all that, but most of the heat the oceans gain is near the noon. Most of that heat is in the first few feet where the longer wavelengths of light are absorbed, but a fair amount, roughly 10% of the solar penetrates the deeper water and is locked in for a longer time period. It takes a long time for the water at depth to warm and just as long to loss that warmth. Slow motion in the ocean.

One of the fairly new revelations in he solar physics community is that the short wave lengths of solar radiation tend to change more with the solar cycles than once thought. Ultraviolet radiation may change by 6 percent while the overall change is only about 0.1 percent. A 6 percent change is a small percentage of the total radiation is still pretty small, but it is large with respect to the deep ocean energy balance. UV along with its closer wave lengths violet, blue and green, penetrate to over 100 feet in the ocean. UV is a little weird, it tends to be absorbed better and shallower if there are micro-organisms. That throws a little wrinkle in the logic, but not too much.

During high solar cycles, there is more energy absorbed by the oceans. During low or weak solar cycles less, so the energy absorbed in the deep southern ocean may vary by 6 W/m^2 per day. The W/m^2 is in seconds, so I should do the math, but let's just stick with that number as a reference. Now 6 W/m^2 is nothing compared to 1000 W/m^2 on a clear day, but at the depths, 6 W/m^2 compared to 100 W/m^2 is significant. That would give you an idea of the change in energy absorbed below 100 feet in the southern oceans between a solar maximum and a solar minimum. Still not enough to impress most folks, but enough to turn a few heads.

That is about all the change in the solar radiation. Not enough to explain things but a start. Oh, what would happen if say, cloud patterns in this area of the ocean changed? Looks like the topic of my next post.

The Truth Generally Lies in the Middle

2011-09-09T08:54:00.000-07:00

I get criticized for using this cliche on some other blogs. Well, it is a cliche because of a reason, more often than not it is correct. In the global warming debate I am more confident each day it is true. It is not always true though. The goal posts can change without someone gaming the system. Initially, the impact of CO2 enhanced global warming was a compromise. James Hansen predicted 4 degrees of warming, Syukuro Manabe predicted 2 degrees of warming. The range 2 to 4 degrees with the best estimate of 3 is the result of that compromise. Just add a half degree for uncertainty and you have the classic 1.5 to 4.5 range. At that time, the middle was the best truth, 3 degrees.

Times change. The classic 3 degrees was established in 1979, the dawn of the satellite era. It was also the at the beginning the modern warm period. Thirty years later we can see how things have played out.

The compromise is similar to the Monty Hall three door problem. With Hansen's estimate door number one, Manabe's estimate door number three and in the middle is the IPCC with door number two. Each had a possibility of being right, a 1/3 probability. Since the models thirty years later are leaning towards Manabe or IPCC, Hansen's door seems to have the booby prize. So where's the car?

If you picked door number two first, the is a little bit better chance it is behind door number three. If you picked door number three first, there is a little bit better chance it is behind door number two. Do you switch your door?

That is were the Global Warming debate is, door two or door three. So there is still a 50% chance the truth is in the middle, but if your first choice was the middle, you should think about changing.

Break Though in Hydrogen Storage - Ammonia Borane

2011-08-31T06:39:00.000-07:00

Watts Up With That has a post on Hydrogen Getting the Dynamite Treatment. As with most break through reports, I take this with a grain of salt. Once cost estimate start rolling in, then I can get more serious.

The ammonia borane storage could have a fairly large safety impact as much psychological as real. Hydrogen explosions when properly contained are pretty destructive, but most motor vehicle crashes don't create great conditions for an optimum explosion. If you have ever seen the Hindenburg film, you have an idea of what happens. Under pressure a hydrogen leak will burn like a torch until the temperature of the tank rises enough for a rupture. Then you can get a pretty good bang similar to cooking off a propane tank. The biggest difference between propane and hydrogen is hydrogen has a larger range of combustion concentrations. Energy wise, hydrogen is pretty so so.

Psychologically, this may kick interest in hydrogen in the butt. Overcoming irrational fears seems to be the trick with any energy use now a days.

Since I am on the alternate energy subject, Nanosolar has an agreement with Belectric which used to be Beck Electric. Belectric is a big time installer of photovoltaic energy farms. This can be a big boost for Nanosolar and solar in general, but on a utility scale. Residential scale is my biggest interest because it is the way to go for personal energy independence. Utility scale PV is still a warm and fuzzy experiment and not a great investment without government subsidies. Cost effective PV on small scale makes much more sense economically and aesthetically.

I still haven't gotten around to building my prototype electrolyzer. I have had a few ideas on how to increase the operating pressure - safely. I don't want to build something that will blow up on me unless I want it to. It is still in the works though, stay tuned.

Atmospheric Center of Energy

2011-08-29T19:49:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, simple analogies seemed adequate to explain the atmospheric effect. The atmospheric effect may not be familiar to you. It is the effect formally know as the greenhouse effect or the Tyndal gas effect. In these politically correct times, the atmospheric effect seems perfectly Milquetoasty.

Because of the focus on potential warming, just about anyone with some schooling in science has an opinion on the atmospheric effect. That means they have to try and explain the inner workings of the atmosphere to some degree to impress upon their friends or family that they have some understanding of what happens. Since there is a lot that actually is happening, the explanations are far short in one area or another. Without a complete knowledge weighing them down, it is much easier to leap to conclusions. Since there are so many small effects, I doubt that anyone can be assured of a complete knowledge of the subject. I believe the best way to approach this issue is with a more complex explanation from a unique and centrist point of view. So I am defining or redefining the atmospheric center of energy.

The Atmospheric Center of Energy (ACE) is the layer of the atmosphere where the heat content of the atmosphere above equals the heat content below. This layer is approximately at the average cloud altitude. This is not an exact level, it would move around and vary with latitude and all that. It is what I imagine is a good transition layer for heat transfer in the atmosphere.

Thermal energy is kinetic energy because it is motion. So thinking of thermal energy as a potential energy is a little different, but not a bad way to look at the energy in the atmosphere if you consider the average temperature/thermal energy. While there are flows and fluxes in all direction, the average temperature can go up or down with any imbalance. In daylight, that layer moves up, at night it moves down. Kinetic energy moves by three basic means, conduction, convection and radiation. The only way the sun transfers significant energy to Earth is through radiation. What! The sun impacts tides so there is also gravity! Quite true. For now assume it is important but does not interfere significantly with the atmospheric effect.

The dominate method of heat flow varies with conditions. Heat moves inside solids almost exclusively by conduction. The almost is because radiation can flow through solids, but only in significant amounts when solid is transparent to electromagnetic radiation or is permeable to high energy particles. For example a solid block of rock salt crystal, transparent to infrared radiation, can radiate infrared energy from its surface and its interior. The distance the radiation can travel is limited by its path length that depends on the density and composition of the solid. For the radiant energy consider radioactive substances which release gamma rays, alpha and beta particles. Gamma rays can penetrate a good distance in less dense substances. Beta particles penetrate less than Gamma rays and more than alpha particles. Alpha particles are stopped by nearly any substance. What limits the particle's travel is their size, the bigger they are the less they penetrate. Gamma rays are in the electromagnetic category with high energy. It is their wavelength and energy that determine how far they penetrate a substance plus the properties of the substance. In liquids, convective heat transfer is added to the mix. Warmer liquid rises, colder liquid falls to replace the volume of the rising warmer liquid. I am sure you have heard of a lava lamp. Radiant heat can flow through liquids, just like solids, with the same restrictions. In gases, all the modes of heat travel are in operation, but conductive flow is more limited, convective flow can be more rapid and the path for radiant flow is easier, but still has the limits imposed in solids and liquids. Gravity, that other weird form of energy, can play a bigger role with the lighter gases, a decent role with the liquids and a smaller role with the solids.

As I mentioned, heat flows from warmer to colder, but then all things are relative. After Fukushima, nearly everyone is aware that gamma rays and beta radiation can flow into your warmer body. Some understand that a beta particle has a mass, even though it is extremely small, that is traveling at a high speed, so it can smack into you. Since the gamma rays are there too, people accept that gamma rays can smack into you and go deeper. Those same people tend to get lost when it comes to a photon of energy in the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum smacking into the Earth or you. It is the same thing though, because that photon is a discrete quantum of electromagnetic energy that exhibits properties of both waves and particles. While not perfect, atomic radiation in general is a example of electromagnetic radiation since that is how our sun creates the energy it provides. Different process, fusion versus fission and radioactive decay, but very similar properties for this illustration.

So what does the Atmospheric Center of Energy have to do with this crap? Well, since you asked. Even though the radiant energy transfer in solid and liquids is a little complicated, in a gas with varying density, temperature and composition, it can be more complicated. The center of energy is convenient for describing some of what is going on. While the conditions related to radiant energy change with density, temperature and composition, the density temperature and composition change with altitude due to gravity and heat content. The heat content decreases as gravitational impact decreases which reduces the density of the gas molecules. We can't do much with gravity, but we can find the average heat content or center of energy as I have called it. Energy is flowing in, out, up, down, sideways, through and not, i.e. potential energy, at this point, it is a pretty busy intersection.

It is at this intersection where I feel that those explaining and those attempting to learn atmospheric physics lose it. This is where that dreaded branch of mathematics despised by every self respecting empirical science buff comes into play - STATISTICS! Or as I prefer, probability. Because up from this ACE point is less dense and contains less energy, the probability of energy flowing out to space is greater than the probability of energy flowing into the surface. Remember the down part always contains the Earth which is warmer than space and the up part only has the sun to deal with half the time. Energy is being transferred around by the big three, conduction, convection and radiation. Up is less friendly for conduction and convection and down is less friendly for radiation. Convection is really the odd energy transfer mechanism out. Convection cannot happen without conduction or radiation heating something that can expand and move or rise against gravity. Conduction only requires a difference in potential energy and a path. Radiation only requires potential energy and a path. The parallels between conduction and radiation may help better explain things

Going down, the path for conduction gets wider because there are more molecules to bang into which are its path. Up radiation has a wider path because its best path is no molecules at all. Since there are still molecules at this intersection, the probability of banging into a molecule increases downward which increases conductive efficiency and decreases the efficiency of radiant heat transfer. If the Earth had no atmosphere, there would be no convection because there are no molecules to rise, no conduction because the are no molecules to create the path and plenty of radiant energy because the path would be perfect. So the analogy of resistance to heat flow is very good for describing the atmospheric effect if you think of a variable resistor for conduction and some kind of super duper statistical radiation variable resistance for radiation. There is only one big issue with the resistor analogy, that is the relatively clear path or radiation window from the surface to space.

This image from Wikipedia shows the radiative spectrum of the window. At no point is this window 100% clear and you can see that there are several points where zero energy is transmitted due to water vapor and CO2 mainly. There are some chunks for ozone (O3) and a chunk for Oxygen (O2)near the zero wave length. This would be what it looks like if you are on the surface looking up or in a space ship looking down. At the Atmospheric Center of Energy, it looks the same if we look down and a little different as we look up. The zero percent areas due to H2O now have a little, say a few percent passing through. If we move up in the atmosphere a bit further, those H2O window grow more open. So I think it may be easy to see why water vapor that is warmed at the surface, rises with convection and condenses at or above this level can transfer its heat to space. The higher it condenses the faster it transfers heat to space. The reason that the window from the surface to space is not 100% clear, is mainly due to water and water vapor in the atmosphere. Liquid water has a little different radiation spectrum than water vapor in this range of wave lengths, so above the cloud level, the window become very close to 100%. Since CO2 is fairly well mixed, its parts of the window begin getting clearer higher as the density of the atmosphere decreases. If you figure out the area of the clear part of that image, you would have the amount of energy not transmitted by radiation from the surface to space or from the surface to the ACE.

"Now wait a minute! Radiation from the atmosphere is what slows down the rate of cooling which causes the surface to be warmer than it would if there was no atmosphere! Hurrumph! Hurrumph! Hurrumph!", you stubbornly interject. "Well, just hang on there a second bucko! From the ACE the window is clearer up so it is just as clear from up to the ACE, ain't it! So back radiation or down welling flux or whatever you what to call it, can happen more significantly the higher you go in the atmosphere. It is not my fault that from the center of energy down, it is easier for conduction to do the work." I respond with a chuckle.

"Well, heat cannot flow from cold to hot!" You exclaim with spit flying. "Great!", I say cleaning my glasses, "Then gamma rays can't cause cancer, so let's build more nukes. A photon of energy, whether from a gamma ray, cosmic ray or CO2 molecule goes where ever it goes. For enough of those photons to cause what you call heat flow, the source would have to be warmer, because the photons are also going up and to the sides. The down photons are just increasing the resistance to outgoing flow. If you think about the conductance from the center of energy to the surface, it is like you increased the voltage of the center of energy. That reduces energy flow to the center from the surface and increases the voltage at the surface. Kinda like charging a battery."

"Since you seem to have calmed down, think about that battery thing. A battery is potential energy waiting for something to do. The higher the voltage and the bigger the battery the more it can do. Since the atmosphere is storing more energy, the center of energy rises a little." Now grinning, I say.

The changes at the ACE are gradual, but imagine the radiation window above only has CO2, O2 and Ozone blocking part of the window. So let's look at the sunlight coming in. This is a link that shows a little better the goings on when the sun is shining. Unlike most descriptions, this shows what is happening with that 16 percent absorbed by the atmosphere. Two percent is absorbed by ozone, eight percent by oxygen and six percent by water vapor. A total of seven percent is scatter to the surface and 3 percent scattered to space. That seven percent scattered to the surface is 96 Watts/M^2 on a clear sky day, at high noon at the equator or 24 Watts/m^2 average for the day/night over the whole surface from scattering by oxygen. So on average, 24 Watts/m^2 of the controversial down welling radiation is diffused sunlight. The rest is not scattered back to space is solar energy, delayed on its way to the surface. Since most of the water vapor is absorbed below the ACE, most of it makes it to the surface as reduced conduction. That is also included in the controversial down welling radiation. Statistically, the vast majority of the down welling energy actually increases the potential energy below the ACE which reduces the rate of conduction from the surface. Statistically, most of the impact of CO2 on the down welling is radiation above the ACE downward, increasing the potential of the ACE which reduces the rate of conduction from the surface.

I will try and clean this up, but the perspective of the ACE, may help more people understand what is going on in the atmosphere, so they can move forward to what may change with more CO2, more or less clouds, more or less solar intensity, more of less aerosols and more or less water vapor.

How you understand the atmospheric effect doesn't really matter to most folks. To me though, without a more realistic understanding, you will probably miss some of the picture. How the radiation changes at the surface is more than just some big number getting a little bigger, it is a variety of several smaller changes interacting.

The Coming Ice Age: Part IV CO2 Causing Cooling?

2011-08-28T08:22:00.000-07:00

CO2 causes warming! CO2 causes cooling! What the hell is going on? The fact is that CO2 can do both. Thinking purely of the radiative impact, initially, CO2 causes a little cooling if a lot is added at once, then the warming impact catches up and over takes the cooling impact. It is kinda weird, but there is a pretty logical though a little complicated explanation.

The big thing is where is the energy coming from? Early when there is a rapid increase in CO2, the energy is coming from the sun until the surface temperature catches up. In the upper atmosphere, it is easier for CO2 to radiate to space than it is to the surface. Since a good portion of the incoming solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, a higher percentage of that atmospheric warming will be lost to space with a jump in CO2. The warming effect is happening just initially, the cooling wins out a little. Since there is a disruption of the outgoing energy flux, the surface temperature responds by warming until it reaches a new average temperature that is a little warmer and the atmospheric cooling and surface warming come into a new balance that is warmer if you only consider the radiative impact. Unfortunately, the world's climate system tends to be a little chaotic, so if you only consider radiation you miss the big picture.

In the first of the Coming Ice Age series, I emphasized the important role of water. Water vapor, only a part of the puzzle, is emphasized in the radiation impacts of CO2. In a warmer world the air can hold more water vapor, CO2 causes warming, more water vapor adds to the warming, so OH My God, we are in trouble!

If you only consider water vapor you are absolutely right. Clouds though are more than water vapor, they are condensed water droplets. Water reacts different than water vapor. So the cloud issue is one of the largest unknowns in the climate change debate.

The recent global not warming is likely due to cloud cover increase that causes more reflection of incoming energy than it does retention of out going energy. These changes in average cloud cover are likely associated with the longer term internal climate oscillations. The impact of these oscillations are considered trivial to long term climate because they should tend to average out. On very long time scales that is probably true. With more CO2 though, that can change in several ways.

The first is more radical internal climate variability. More water vapor in the atmosphere means more intense rain and snow events. So visions of snow in winter so rare that future children will be amazed, is totally bogus. Certain areas will have a lot more snow and a lot less snow with climate oscillations. Rain events will be a lot stronger and droughts a lot deeper. But stronger and deeper than what?

The rain and drought events so far are not exceptionally different than past recorded events and do not seem to be significant at all compared to thousand year events as best as we can tell. So while climate events will be more extreme, it is not easy at all to confidently predict how much more.

During the past 30 years of climate science, most of the period indicated warming that agreed very well with warming predicted by climate models geared to estimate the climate's sensitivity to increased CO2. For the past ten or so years, the climate appears to have shifted due to the change in one of the internal oscillations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) an now the sun is going into a quite mode, which the satellite era of science has never experienced. So there are a lot of questions that will get better answers.

Second, increased climate extremes during a general cooling internal oscillation is likely to cause more cooling, IF water in its solid state, snow and ice, increases albedo to a point where it amplifies the impact of the cooling. That possibility increases with a cooling PDO and quieter sun. Should another internal oscillation synchronize with the PDO and quiet sun, the possibility increases greatly.

Third, with less outgoing radiation from the surface due to increased albedo, the cooling effect of CO2 on incoming solar energy will be enhanced. That will result in more cooling or less warming if you like, due to atmospheric CO2.

So there is the potential of a lot of stuff happening with more CO2. The scientific community in my opinion is screwing up royally by stressing their certainty in one scenario, when the uncertainty of the various scenarios in more important.

The Coming Ice Age? Part III Is it the Sun?

2011-08-26T07:50:00.000-07:00

The sun provides nearly all of the energy for our climate system. The energy in the Earth's core is small by comparison so it can be neglected in most cases. The impact of volcanic aerosols generated by that internal energy is not negligible. Large volcanic eruptions, especially near the equator, can cause significant cooling for a year or two by reflecting solar energy and by absorbing solar energy higher in the atmosphere where it is more easily radiated to space. These aerosols, primarily sulfur based, change the chemistry of the atmosphere as well. There is a complex interaction of albedo, radiation height, radiation type, radiation intensity and chemical processes that all impact climate. Like we really need more complexity, right? The last three of those variables combine to create the most uncertainty in my mind.

The newly released Cern CLOUD report indicates that cosmic rays that increase in intensity during a solar minimum interact with the trace compounds in the atmosphere to create small particles that can "seed" clouds. These particle provide a surface making it easier form water molecules to condense. The particles created by cosmic ray interaction are smaller than required for efficient seeding of clouds. This process and the size of the particles present a statistical challenge for climate scientists.

Cosmic rays that penetrate the atmosphere increase as the solar energy decreases. If the cosmic rays increase cloud formation, the impact would amplify the change in solar energy which I have shown previously is on the order of 0.18 Watts/m^2. Albedo change provides a much greater change in solar energy absorbed, so more clouds would provide the umpf. By itself though, the change in cosmic rays doesn't appear to be that significant. Volcanic activity can amplify the cosmic ray impact by providing more feed stock for the chemical process. This increases the material and time for the cosmic rays to build bigger seed particles. With the volcanic aerosols more in the high atmosphere near the equator, more water vapor is available to form clouds around these particles.

This leads to a bit of a paradox, in order to trip the Earth system into an ice age, the Earth would have to be warmer than normal for there to be enough water vapor for a rapid change. Climate records show that climate is constantly changing with two set points, warm periods and ice ages. In either of those set point ranges there are minor warm periods and minor ice ages. The minor periods are primarily in the northern hemisphere where the percentage of land area to ocean area is higher. So these minor periods are "regional". With enough of the right conditions, these "regional" events have global impact.

This year's northern hemisphere weather shows how important the northern hemisphere is to global weather. Snowfall and spring precipitation pushed records thanks to the La Nina inspired change in weather patterns. The change is water vapor distribution has the potential to create snow pack deep enough and snow cover wide enough to increase albedo or reflectivity. The extent of the snow cover was not far enough south to have a major albedo impact this time. But imagine if you will, the snow that was in all lower 48 states, being a little heavier and lasting a little longer. The snow cover below latitude 45 has much greater impact on absorbed energy than the snow pack above latitude 50. The closer the snow gets to latitude 30 the much greater the impact becomes. So did we dodge a bullet? Maybe.

While the past year had a good amount of volcanic activity, most was above latitude 45 north or below the equator. This is not to imply that the volcano has to be located between the equator and latitude 45, but the aerosol cloud from the volcano impact the area between the equator and latitude 45 with the right mix of chemical compounds. The Laki volcano is located in Iceland near the arctic circle. When it erupted in 1783, it produced strong cooling dropping the average winter temperature in the US by nearly 5 degrees C. Thirty years later, Mount Tambora in Indonesia erupted causing a colder spring and summer. The location, timing and concentration of volcanic eruption greatly impact climate.

So how can these factors combine into the perfect storm? A large volcanic eruption with the impact of a Laki in the early spring, during a prolonged solar minimum during early transition to a cooling Pacific Decadal Oscillation with a strong La Nina could produce an increase in albedo of up to 5 percent in a very short period of time. If the volcanic climate cooling persists for two years approximately, we could tip into an ice age, minor or possibly major.

While I still have some work to do, somewhat surprisingly it looks like increased CO2 may provide enough water vapor increase to drive the cooling deeper than other wise. I will leave this with a link to a NASA animation of water vapor changes in 2005. If I can dig up the information for 2010 - 2011, the comparison may be interesting.

The Coming Ice Age? Part II

2011-08-25T20:24:00.000-07:00

In my first post on the Coming Ice Age I gave some rough estimates of the changes of surface reflectivity and a rough range of temperatures that may correspond to those changes. I am not all that concerned with how exact those estimates are, just that there appears to be more range for cooling and some range for warming that is likely buffered by the response of the climate to the increased warming.

The reason is that the sun may be entering an new minimum cycle similar to the ~~Dalton~~ Maunder minimum, thought to cause the last little ice age. With global warming all the rage, though not as raging as it once was, the new minimum is seen by some to be proof that increased CO2 is not that big a deal maybe even a good thing.

Current satellite data on the sun is providing much better quality data of the impact of the change, but seems to ask more questions than it answers. The total solar power or insulation TSI only changes about 1 W/m^2 during a minimum out of 1366 watts/m^2 average. That is not enough to make much change without some amplification of its change. There are theories a plenty of things than may amplify the sun's impact. I will let those lay while I stick with my train of thought. Do remember that 1 W/m^2 would only be felt as about 0.18 W/m^2 at the surface where a full one degree change in surface temperature would require and estimated decrease of 3.7 W/m^2

A.A. Tsonis has a few studies where he determines there have been climate shifts due to natural climate oscillation that can synchronize in warm of cool phases. His papers indicate one started around the year 2000, before the current solar minimum started to show itself. That shift appears to most likely caused by the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO seems to cause some changes in the El Nino / La Nina timing and intensities. Dr. Roy Spencer with the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) has noted that there has been a change in the percentage of cloud cover in the tropics which may be due to the PDO shift. A 1% can in cloud cover results in nearly 3 W/m^2 or about 0.8 degrees possible temperature change which will likely be less than 0.4 due to atmospheric water vapor.

Clouds have a few impacts on climate that can cool or warm things. Cloud top reflectivity is one pretty important impact. In the the original post my rough numbers indicate the range and impact of albedo or reflectivity change. Since the climate appears to have two rough set points, it takes a little push to move from one to the other. Leif Svalgard, who is a scientist studying the sun, does not think the drop in TSI due to a minimum is enough. I completely agree, but I don't think the required push is as much as many may think. Combining Tsonis' method of determining climate shifts with past climate history and the newer solar TSI reconstructions, there may be part of the push available. The synchronizing of the solar minimum with a cooling PDO.

With the PDO shift, average temperatures have leveled off. The solar minimum has started in sequence with the PDO shift and atmospheric temperatures are still pretty level but some cooling of sea surface temperatures seems be be happening. Not enough to ring any alarm bells, but a slight drop. The La Nina cycled to neutral, but instead of a new El Nino, indications are that there may be a new La Nina on the way.

The record temperatures of 1998 have been attributed to the "Super" El Nino of the same year. With our moist atmosphere, it is easier to warm with an El Nino than it is to cool with a La Nina. Temperatures in general show more rapid warming than cooling due to atmospheric moisture. So it is possible that the new La Nina if it is fairly strong, will cause a slight decrease in temperature, maybe a little more with the solar minimum. Not enough for me to say, "Ha! Its the sun and natural variability!" Possibly enough for me to say, "Watch out if the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation synchronizes with the PDO AND solar!" Which has a pretty fair possibility of happening in the next few years.

If those natural variations all synchronize, the result will be more than expected cooling. How much? I have no clue. I doubt as much cooling as the little ice age, that should take a little more pushing. That is where the other theories come into play.

One I consider a player is the reduction in UV intensity. UV has been recently found to vary more than expected. Most consider UV to be a minor player. That same "most" also underestimate, in my opinion, the impact on the deep ocean of the shorter wave lengths of light from the sun, UV being one. So we may have a variety of small impacts synchronizing to create a major impact. Not out of the realm of possibility for a system with dual set points, which has some level of instability. Interesting times may be heading our way.

Should the minor factors synchronize, albedo can amplify the cooling more than it can the warming. We have a tendency for ice ages historically, why should this Holocene be particularly special?

To hypothesize is easy, to theorize is not, scientifically speaking. So it will take more research on my part to flesh out this hypothesis. Anyone reading that cares to join in is welcome to help.

The Coming Ice Age?

2011-08-25T13:01:00.000-07:00

Climate changes on different time scales for different reasons. Ice ages or glacial periods are followed or led by warmer periods or interglacial periods. Pondering what causes these changes has been a pursuit of man since the first tree was found in a block of ice that is a glacier. I have proposed that the Earth has two temperature set points, one cold (ice ages) and one not so cold (warm interglacial periods), with water controlling the thermostat.

This is nothing new. I am sure there are many papers with similar ideas using a variety of triggers that starts the ball rolling. One question is how big the triggers have to be?

Water, in its three stages controls the show. As a liquid it absorbs electromagnetic radiation only reflecting about 7% and as a solid it reflects about 95% and absorbs only about 5 percent. As a gas water vapor is great for moving heat around absorbing and giving off heat by conduction, latent heat or phase change and radiation. So to me, water runs the show.

At this point in time the earth and its atmosphere reflects about 30% of the solar energy the Earth system receives from the sun. During an ice age, more is reflected because there is more snow and ice. Even in an ice age, the water near the equator which receives the most solar energy does not freeze. If it did, the Earth would reflect too much of the solar energy and reach a snowball Earth tipping point. To recover from that, something catastrophic would be required to jump start the Earth which would mean that the fossils of critters that survived the ice age would be piled up in an easy to find layer and we would be taught about the remarkable recovery from the Shit Hit the Fan (SHF) era. There is evidence of some the Shit Nearly Hit the Fan eras, but some forms of life survived to start things anew.
Modern man is a product of the last SNHF era or recovery from the most recent ice age.

The reflectivity of the Earth, called albedo, which I can mix up absorptivity, is right now 30%, with most of that caused by clouds mainly in the tropics and sub tropics. Snow and ice at the poles and on top of mountain ranges contributes a small amount to the reflectivity because most of the snow is at the poles where solar radiation is much lower. The reflectivity cannot reduce much more. If all the snow and ice on the Earth melted, that may drop the reflectivity to 20% but all that water would produce more clouds so 25% is closer to the absolute minimum.

During an ice age the reflectivity increases, but it also has a maximum limit. This may be pretty hard to estimate. It is unlikely that the glaciers would expand to the tropics. The tropics are between 23.5 N and 23.5 S, the imaginary lines of the summer and winter equinoxes. Just for simplicity, I want to use 30 N and 30 S as my estimate tropical boundaries. Why? Because the sine of a 30 degree angle is one half. Since the Earth is pretty much a sphere, from equator to 30 N receives 50% of the solar energy of the northern hemisphere and the same thing from the equator to 30 degrees S. So 50% of all the energy the Earth receives is collected between 30 N and 30 S. If we assume that the cloud cover in this region remains about the same, we can assume that even during an ice age the Earth still absorbs 50% of the energy it absorbs in an interglacial period. Since the sun pumps out about the same amount of energy all the time, the worst case glacial albedo would 70/2 plus 30 equals 65 percent. So the range of albedo is in the ballpark of 25% minimum and 65% maximum, that means that the Earth can absorb between 75% and 35% of the solar energy available.

Since NASA has been kind enough to publish the solar energy available at the top of the atmosphere (toa) and we live on a pretty close to a sphere planet, the range of energy absorbed is 256 W/m^2 to 120 W/m^2. Power varies by the fourth root of the temperature, so while there is a big power difference, the temperature difference is not so big. So just using the fourth root, the apparent temperature at the toa would range from 2% more to about 16% less. This is based on the absolute temperature, which is about 255 K at the toa right now, so we have a rough range of 260 K to 214 K. While the average temperature of the surface depends on a bunch of stuff, a rough estimate for my purpose would be the same percentages of the 288K average surface temperature or 293K to 242 K as rough maximum average temperature ranges at the surface if albedo varies from 25% to 65 percent.

These are of course very rough numbers and not intended to be accurate enough to be useful for anything more than an illustration of the relative limits of climate change based on albedo change.

242 K is pretty cold. 274 K is zero degrees C and 242 is -32 degrees C or -26 degrees F. The temperature during the glacial periods is only estimated to be 6 degrees less or 282K. So why would my worst case be so much lower than 282K? Because of the location of the oceans.

The image above is an artist's conception of an Ice Age Earth from wikipedia. The northern hemisphere took the biggest hit because it has more land mass which doesn't benefit from the thermal mass of the ocean. So the 30N to 30S could be extend to 45N to 55S as to determine a more accurate maximum ice extent, or back calculating from the average temperature of the glacial period find that an albedo increase to 37% could produce that change. That would give us a more realistic maximum change albedo range of 25% to 40%.

While these are rough estimates, they show how lucky we are to live on a water world that has reasonable limits with our stable sun. Not that a new glacial period or 5 degrees of warming would be fun, but runaway conditions up or down are avoided thanks to the amount of water and where it is located.

Building a Better Discription of the Role of Our Atmosphere

2011-08-23T11:39:00.000-07:00

I chose that title because I am going to work on this from time to time. This is related to the last post on the energy budget but I am going to try and stay more focused. The first part is incoming solar radiation and the atmosphere.

Going back to the NASA budget cartoon, the sun provides 100% of the energy to the Earth that is significant. There is energy from the Earth's core and people burn things, some there is other energy, but the most significant source is the sun. Of that energy, about 51% is absorbed by the oceans, 16% absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere and about 3% absorbed by clouds. The total absorbed is 70% of the solar energy available. The 30% not absorbed is reflected by cloud tops and the Earth surface.

Since I want to do comparisons of the in and out of the energy at the surface and hopefully the tropopause eventually, since the Earth system absorbs 70%, 72% of the absorbed energy is at the surface with 28% in the atmosphere. Since the sun only shines in the daytime, at least in my experience, This is the division of the total energy input into the system. Some can debate what the actual value of that energy is, but there is general agreement that this is the division of the energy.

Of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere, approximately half is can be considered transferred via various thermodynamic means to the surface and the rest lost to space. This point can be debated because the diameter of the Earth plus atmosphere is greater than the core diameter. For now we will assume a 50/50 split and possibly revisit the other possible value later. With this assumption, 60.5% of the solar energy at the top of the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface directly or via the atmospheric thermodynamics. So now I am going to give these percentages some numbers, using the 341 Watts/meter squared, the Earth system absorbs 239 W/m^2 with 172 W/m^2 directly absorbed by the surface, 67 W/m^2 directly to the atmosphere with 33.5 W/m^2 radiated to space and 33.5 W/m^2 transferred to the surface, bring the surface solar total impact to 205.5 W/m^2. These numbers vary from the values list on the Trenbert et al 2008 paper with cartoon. That cartoon has 161 W/m^2 to the surface and 78 W/m^2 to the atmosphere with no division of the atmosphere to Earth and space. Since the NASA budget cartoon is more widely accepted, I will continue to use their percentages and compare to Trenberth 2008.

At this point there is an easy comparison to the Postma online paper where Postma argues that the value should be 480 not 240 (~239), which just doesn't work. Since Trenberth uses 161 W/m^2 to the Surface and 78 to the atmosphere,the surface impact including the atmosphere is 200 W/m^2 instead of 205.5 to give you an idea of how close the two are together in this respect. During the day, approximately 480 W/M^2 is absorbed by the Earth/atmosphere with about 400 to 411 W/M^2 being absorbed by the surface assuming half of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere down wells to the surface and half is lost to space during the complex process of heat transfer being mainly radiative near the TOA and becoming a mix of radiative/convective/conductive below the TOA becoming more conductive/convective at the surface. Convection has a major impact because air near the surface rises (this is shown as thermals on the Trenberth drawing)and is replaced by sinking cooler air which is warmer than it would be because of the absorption of solar in the atmosphere. So a portion of the heat in the atmosphere is physically down welling, as in falling, to the surface.

At this point you may see why I am not disagreeable with the term "Down Welling" with respect to a cooler atmosphere contributing to the warming of the Earth or reduced cooling if you prefer. I am not fond of "back radiation" because while the radiate heat from the surface and lower atmosphere contribute to the warmth of the atmosphere, physical "back radiation" plays a very small percentage of the role.

For a second comparison, the NASA drawing shows 6% of the incoming solar directly radiated from the surface to space. This is the infrared energy that has a clear window to space. By NASA's cartoon that 6% is 20.5 W/m^2 with Trenberth showing 40 W/m^2. That is a substantial difference at first glance, but reasonable considering Treberth's goal. Trenberth's diagram better illustrates what is happening because the temperature that causes the up welling infrared is both from the surface and the warmer lower atmosphere and reason for the difference is more understandable with the next comparisons.

Per NASA, 23% or 78.4 W/m^2 is rising to the atmosphere as latent heat with water vapor. Trenberth's value is 80 W/m^2 by evapo-transpiration. Nasa has 15% or 51 W/m^2 to the atmosphere by surface radiation versus 23 W/m^2 per Trenberth (356 - 333 is the net to the atmosphere). This partially covers the surface up welling difference. Warm moist air rising with cold dry air falling is a common meteorological model. How moist and how dry is not described, so the convection is separated into latent and thermals or conduction.

NASA shows 7% or 24 W/m^2 rising from the surface due to conduction versus 17 by Trenberth labeled as thermals. Here, Trenberth seems to cover the rest showing that the atmosphere donates to the radiation lost in the free path out going radiation.

Going back to the balance in the atmosphere related to the surface, for the surface, Nasa has a total of 74.8 + 51 + 24 = 149.8 to the atmosphere + 20.5 to space I propose, equaling 170.3. Trenberth has 80 + 23 + 17 = 120 rising from the surface to the clouds plus 40 to the surface I point out, equaling 160 W/m^2 with an imbalance of 1 W/m^2. There is an imbalance of 1.7 W/m^2 in the NASA comparison due to rounding errors.

Comparing my calculation of the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere on the surface, 205.5 - 170.3 = 35.5 W/M^2 NASA and 200 - 160 = 40 W/m^2 Trenberth, the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere's impact on the surface. The difference is because I am using a frame of reference in the atmosphere, not at the top of the atmosphere. Where that point is located in the atmosphere is roughly where the up welling/ down welling energy is in balance, approximately at the bottom of the average cloud height.

Since NASA doesn't include the greenhouse effect in its budget and Trenberth uses total radiation up of 396 and down of 333 to illustrate the radiative impact, there are questions about the impact and sources of the downward radiation flux. This is where I may screw up so watch closely! The point I have picked, approximates the middle of the green house action. The difference in the net fluxes shown be Trenberth are 396 up - 333 down equals 63 W/m^2 net up. Since the solar impact is not separated 40 W/m^2 (or 35.5 from NASA's drawing) is the solar absorbed greenhouse impact and the rest, 23 W/m^2 (to 27.5)is Earth surface generated greenhouse impact. Remember that this is estimated and there are slight differences between the two budgets.

At the top of the atmosphere the main differences between the two diagrams is the 1 W/m^2 imbalance on the Trenberth drawing which is based on the model estimate of the imbalance due to CO2 (0.8 w/m^2 if you don't like the rounding). NASA assumes energy in equals energy out and Trenberth assume an imbalance due to CO2.

There are several reasons I break the drawings down this way, the main one though is to illustrate the Greenhouse effect or atmospheric gas vibrational mode effect. Some gas molecules are better absorbers/emitters of radiation than others due to the configuration of their molecules. Diatomic gases like nitrogen N2 and oxygen O2 have a simple two atom configuration. When excited by radiation they can only vibrate by stretching their bonds, pulling apart a little and springing back. Water, H20 has three atoms and a vee configuration, both atoms can stretch away at the same time, one can stretch away while the other springs back or the hydrogen atoms can swing toward each other the away from each other. So water has three fundamental vibrational modes. These are shown in this wikipedia article along with more interesting stuff. The "greenhouse gases" are called that because they have more vibrational modes which allow them to interact with electromagnetic radiation more efficiently than diatomic atoms. So there is a difference and because of the difference, so some molecules are much more effective interacting with different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), both incoming from the sun and out going from the surface, than others. Nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere are reasonable conductors of heat, but much less effective, even in much higher concentration, interacting with EMR. A simple illustration is right in your kitchen. Put a beef brisket in a pressure cooker with no water and another in a pressure cooker with water, which one do you think will cook better? Now most of the difference is the properties of steam, not just absorption of radiation, but it gives you an idea how differently water behaves when heated. So it is not unreasonable to believe water vapor behaves much differently to radiation than other gases. If you have ever seen dry ice, frozen CO2, you know that it behaves differently to heat than water. Dry ice sublimates, it goes straight from a solid to a gas. Because of their differences, CO2 just happens to interact more with EMR at certain wavelengths than water and much more than nitrogen or oxygen. Different people try to explain the greenhouse gases with different levels of success, I will just let you know there is a difference and you can study more if you like.

If you accept that greenhouse gases are good absorbers and emitters of EMR, then you can think about how they have an effect on the surface. First think about the warming of the air by the sun. A good deal of that warming is lost to space but about half wants to move to the surface both in the day and at night. In the day, you can probably believe that it helps both warm the Earth and slow the rate of warming some. The evaporation of water from the surface happens mainly in the middle part of the day, which also helps slow the rate of warming. That rising water vapor with its latent heat increases the amount of solar energy absorbed in the day by increasing the amount of water molecules that can interact with the solar radiation. Most of the "warming" effect of the atmosphere containing greenhouse gases is directly do to solar energy directly, not energy radiated from the surface. Since the NASA diagram did not try and the Trenberth diagram lumps its down welling radiation together, that point is not obvious. So remember that the greenhouse effect is a two way street.

A perfect illustration of the atmospheric impact is here in the tropics. Where I live is surrounded by the ocean. Today's high temperature will be 90 degrees F with the low today of 83 degrees F. Brownsville, Texas, just a little north, near sea level and not surrounded by water will have a high of 97 and a low of 79. Water vapor does make a difference.

Getting back to the estimated solar contribution not included in the drawings I calculated earlier, the 23 to 27.5 W/m^2 is about a third of the atmospheric warming. If you take the solar energy absorbed by the air and clouds plus the rising latent heat, that works out to about two thirds so up welling would be about a third. While not a perfect check, it somewhat confirms my estimate at the surface using my frame of reference. CO2 in the atmosphere is well mixed, unlike water vapor which mainly stays in the lower atmosphere. This makes CO2's impact a little more complicated because it can help cool by blocking a portion of the down welling radiation high in the atmosphere and warm lower in the atmosphere by absorbing more outgoing radiation. Twice as much CO2 is estimated to increase the total down welling radiative impact by about 1 percent. Because of the interaction with wavelengths associated with water vapor and that an increase will increase the amount of water the atmosphere can hold, an estimate is about the best anyone can hope for. Clouds, made of water vapor, absorb about 3% of the incoming solar and reflect about 20 percent. So a one percent increase in clouds would erase the one percent increase in down welling due to doubled CO2. There would be an increase in the solar absorbed by clouds, but only about half that increase would impact the surface. The cooling effect of CO2 should offset much of the increase in incoming solar absorption. That may limit CO2's impact to mainly the one third out going radiation to the atmosphere and a fraction of the direct surface to space radiation, but the warming will also increase the amount directly radiated to space from the surface. So what heats where, by how much and at what wavelength all have to be considered.

While I don't have a problem with down welling radiation, the sky has a temperature after all, I do have an issue with causes warming by directly radiating the surface or if it is better thought of as slowing the rate of cooling. Since the Earth system tries to balance radiative flow, energy in equals energy out, the Earth will become warmer if something tries to reduce energy out and cooler if something reduces energy in. So it is more a matter of semantics, but common thinking in thermodynamics is heat flows from warm to cold. Radiation is a little more complicated because of its relationship with its atmospheric window. Radiation from a colder object can flow through a warmer object or layer, that happens in our atmosphere. Radiation can flow from a colder object to a warmer object. That happens also. In a vacuum, a colder object can cause a warm object to grow warmer by reducing the warmer object's net out going radiation flux. In our lower atmosphere though,the path of the flux in both directions is pretty well blocked, so conduction plays a large role in the heat transfer. Conduction is a one way street, so I am incline to stick to the old school rational. It doesn't much matter because the end result is Earth is warmer because of our atmosphere.

So without argument, I can accept that a doubling of CO2 will likely cause a one percent increase in down welling which results in a one percent reduction of the net out going radiation, which will cause some degree of warming for some time period. I am not convinced that change will cause feedbacks that increase the degree of warming or that the Earth system will not compensate for the change with more cloud cover, precipitation and/or changes in circulation patterns to reduce the increase in temperature. How the Earth responds to the change is the major issue of the global warming debate, not if the atmosphere contributes to the warmth of the surface.

Most of the debate recently on the Climate Etc. blog, centers around the issue of down welling energy, specifically radiation. I think that my taking a slightly lower frame of reference may reduce the differences there somewhat, at least among the more reasonable factions. The Postma skeptics are a whole different issue.

The Postma crew does not believe that the averaging of the incoming solar radiation is correctly calculate, that it should be twice as much. Postma considers the day side with its 480 W/m^2 and integrates the distribution of the atmosphere resulting in 610 W/m^2. This is were I have difficulty following his argument. I can see integrating the incoming solar at a point in the atmosphere where the atmosphere outside the radius of the Earth is warmed that can contribute to Earth atmosphere system. The sun's rays do pass through the atmosphere around the edge of the Earth's surface creating some beautiful sunrises and sunsets. This impact was brought up is 1996 in a paper by Albert Arkin in Science Magazine;

"An atmospheric general circulation model, which assimilates data from daily observations of temperature, humidity, wind, and sea-level air pressure, was compared with a set of observations that combines satellite and ground-based measurements of solar flux. The comparison reveals that the model underestimates by 25 to 30 watts per square meter the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. Contrary to some recent reports, clouds have little or no overall effect on atmospheric absorption, a consistent feature of both the observations and the model. Of several variables considered, water vapor appears to be the dominant influence on atmospheric absorption."

Since this issue was brought up by this and other papers well before the Trenberth budget, I don't think it unreasonable to assume it has been addressed. In any case, that small of a discrepancy does not resolve Postma's situation.

Postma accurately calculates the total solar input power at 1.22 x 10^17 Watts, since the area of the Earth is 5.1x10^14, the Watts per meter squared would be 239.2 or 478.4 for just the day side. He back calculate the total energy based on an average surface temperature of 1.99 x 10^17 W which implies an average surface radiating average temperature of 15 degrees C resulting in 390 W/m^2 or 780 W/m^2 for just the day side which be radiating at an effective temperature or 30 degrees C, twice the average of 15 degrees C. This also agrees well with the mainstream calculations considering the greenhouse effect. Here though, Postma concludes that that is impossible within the laws of physics. To reconcile his perceived energy deficit he concludes that the earth system or aggregate spherical ensemble (Earth plus atmosphere) has to be considered. This is not an outrageous way to consider the Earth energy budget, it is after all a combination of the Earth and atmosphere.

Unfortunately, Postma notes that the average surface temperature of the sunlit side does not achieve 30 degrees C. That is true, because the average surface temperature is 15 degrees C, the sunlit only hemisphere does not exist in reality. It is a concept of mathematics. The Earth rotates. Then Postma concludes that if the concept of mathematics radiated at 30 degrees C that it would emit 1.22 x 10^17 Watts which equals the total absorbed by the spherical ensemble from the sun, which is exactly what the mathematical concept should do. For the real world average temperature to not equal that of a mathematical concept of a hemisphere receiving "instantaneous" solar energy is not an unreasonable concept for most people to grasp. Postma is not most people so he determines that this concept would have a maximum temperature of 87.5 degrees C, a temperature not found on the real Earth's surface. Half of the 87.5 is 43.8 degrees C, pretty damn hot still. While 43.8 is hot, it is less than the warmest temperatures ever recorded.

Except for the scientific brain fart, Postma's math is very good, his visualizing of concepts not so good. His confusing mathematical conceptual models with reality should limit his scientific career options. I, being a fishing guide, can have all the scientific brain farts I like without suffering loss of career options I am not pursuing.

Back to my ideas based on the lower frame of reference. With two thirds of the atmospheric warming due to the solar input absorbed by the atmosphere and latent heat rising, one third would be due to conduction and outgoing radiation which are related. The temperature of the Earth causes both. Separating latent makes a great deal of sense because latent heat is much greater than sensible heat which is the majority of the conduction.

This is a work in progress that will probably die, but I may continue with the Sky Dragons if the hurricane season insists.

Earth's Energy Budget Controversy: Circular Argument at its Finest

2011-08-21T11:04:00.000-07:00

The argument over the impact of changing CO2 on the Radiation Energy Budget of the Earth frustrates the hell out of me. For CO2, the impact is on the 15% of the outgoing radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. Absorbed is the first problem. CO2 has an emission and absorption spectrum where it interacts with electromagnetic radiation. Absorbed does not mean "trapped", delayed is better but still subject to confusion, interacts is what happens and there are consequences following that interaction. The net effect is that it slows the flow of radiant heat from the Earth slightly. The 15% on the NASA chart is based on the total energy provided by the sun to keep things simple. The NASA cartoon or diagram is a very useful basic tool.

Before when I posted on the radiation budget as a puzzle, my answer was that the numbers on the NASA cartoon would not change or have very little change with twice as much CO2. I still believe my answer is 100% correct.

With the Radiation Budget provide by Kieth Trenbert, there are similarities and differences to the NASA cartoon. The biggest difference is that Trenberth uses radiant energy flows or fluxes to include what he perceives to be the balance with a minor adjustment for CO2 warming that is determined by a model because it cannot be accurately measured. There is nothing wrong with than as long as it is understood what the purpose of the work is. This work is responsible for the "travesty" quote by Trenberth where he thought it was a travesty that there was missing heat. Nothing particularly unusual about that, it is not an easy task to determine because there are inaccuracies and uncertainties. Because of the intent of his work, the values are recorded differently with more focus on the difference between the outward radiation and the inward radiation.

The simplified Trenberth radiation budget cartoon is useful for his intended purpose, but since it is not a direct comparison to the NASA budget cartoon, it creates a lot of valid questions for those that look at radiation and heat transfer in the old school way. The old school understands that the direction of heat flow is from warm to cool and while there is radiation from the sky to the surface, the net is from the surface to the sky, i.e. flow is always out at night and only in during the day. The modeled value that Trenberth uses is the energy imbalance caused by increased CO2 so his cartoon indicates that the sky is "physically" warming the surface. Whether that is possible according to the laws of physics is debatable. Technically, that is possible, as a general rule it is highly unlikely for any significant amount or time period. His cartoon indicates something that may be happening in the magnitude indicated by the model, that is not physically measurable. Could it happen? Yes. Would it last a significant time period? Not likely. There are constant brief radiation imbalances and adjustments, that is why the old school prefers to use the net flow, to simplify the situation.

Since Trenberth drew his cartoon the way he did, it is difficult see what change CO2 could have and why. Major problem for those trying to understand a rather complex issue. One person that is skeptical, Tall Bloke is his internet pen name, wanted to know what part of the down radiation is "new". That is a valid question that is not obvious in most diagrams of the "greenhouse" effect.

Neither Trenberth nor NASA makes it all that easy to answer the "new" energy question. "New" Energy may be defined as energy directly supplied to the Earth system. The sun warms the air above us and the clouds directly with approximately 19% of its total energy available at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA). Moisture rising from the surface to the sky may be considered new, because it has latent, meaning hidden, heat. The latent heat is given up to the sky primarily by condensation when the water vapor becomes precipitation. As most everyone knows, the temperature of water remains constant while it is changing its state from solid to liquid or liquid to gas. So the evaporation of water does not have a major impact on surface temperature other than to stabilize the temperature somewhat during the evaporation and the main impact is felt with condensation when the heat is released. Since evaporation is at or near the surface and condensation starts high in the atmosphere on average, latent cooling is a major player accounting for 36% by NASA and 40% per Trenberth of the atmospheric warming while cooling the surface. If you combine the solar and latent factors, 61% (NASA) to 79% (Trenberth)of the warmth of the atmosphere is due to "new" energy.

This is very important for people trying to teach atmosphere radiation physics, the source of the heat and its location in the atmosphere. The reason being that radiative heat transfer of gases changes with the optical depth of the paths of radiative flow. This is known as the radiation window, the optical depth for different radiative frequencies. The higher the molecule is in the atmosphere, the cleaner the window is to space and the dirtier the window is to the surface.

While all that is fairly simple, here is were things start getting interesting. Greenhouse gases make the window dirty, it is much dirtier at the surface than it is at the top of the troposphere, that layer of the atmosphere we live in. Anyone that has climbed a mountain or flown in an airplane knows it get cooler the higher you go. That is because with the cleaner window up and the dirty window down, it is easier for the heat to leave going up so it leaves faster. In the middle layer of the troposphere it is a little easier up than down and at the surface it is barely easier to leave up and damn near impossible to go down. So knowing how much "new" energy there is and where it is important.

As a note, some try to explain the decrease in temperature with altitude with only the gas laws and gravity. That is not a complete explanation because of the three types of heat transfer, conductive, convective and radiant, conductive and convective decrease with altitude while radiant increases with altitude, all have to be considered for a valid explanation.

The new energy from latent heat rising and solar warming of the clouds is easiest to locate, it is about midway to the top of the troposphere where it is easier out than in. So more CO2 will make the up dirtier and the down dirtier which will result in very little change to the impact of these "new" energies. The CO2 may slightly increase the cooling relative to these "new" energies, but not much, at least now right away. The solar absorbed by the atmosphere is a little different. If it is spread uniformly from the top down, then CO2 will increase the top absorption and decrease the bottom absorption which will result in more cooling. If most of the solar absorbed by the atmosphere is near the surface, likely, then the impact is much more dependent on the radiation spectrum of the absorbing molecules and the spectrum of the molecules being energized by collision with the absorbing molecules. That is pretty complicated.

For old energy you have conduction or thermal updrafts and radiation from the Earth's surface. These will be most impacted by the increase in CO2 because they start at the dirtiest window. CO2 will only make it dirtier. So while more CO2 will not "trap" the heat, it will make its road to the TOA longer or slower. Longer is a good term because the path length of the radiation decreases with a dirtier window. The distant to the top is the same, but the heat has to take more, shorter paths and detours.

So most of the confusion is that the pros don't explain that CO2 only has a major impact on about a third of the heat energy traveling from the surface to space. Looking at Trenberth's cartoon it is easy to imagine that two thirds of the energy at the surface is due to down welling radiation, but two thirds of that two thirds is due to "new" energy that will have little change due to changing CO2. So in my opinion, Trenberth's cartoon would be much improved if it separated the distribution of the down welling radiation by source, if his intent is to explain the greenhouse effect.

The huge amounts of energy fluxes Trenberth show up and down are just as misleading as trying to explain the decrease in temperature with altitude with just the gas laws and gravity. The impact of radiation decreases with altitude while conduction and convection increases. Molecules with heat energy are constantly moving and collide with other molecules more often when there is a higher concentration of molecules per volume. The collisions transfer energy via conduction basically. When they are in contact they can transfer energy without having to radiate that energy. There is more to it than that, but the process is more conductive that radiative. When molecules transfer heat radiatively, they emit or absorb photons of energy within their radiative spectrum. With collision, CO2, water vapor or any molecule can swap energy with any other molecule most likely nitrogen which makes up most of our atmosphere or oxygen which comes second. Nitrogen and oxygen swap energy with other molecules nearly exclusively by collision. They do emit radiant energy, only the amount emitted via radiation is miniscule compared to collision and much lower than CO2 or water vapor. What nitrogen and oxygen do though is transfer energy from one type of greenhouse molecule to another. Radiative transfer is restricted to the spectrum of the molecule emitting, collisional transfer is not. So when a CO2 molecule bumps into a nitrogen molecule, then the nitrogen bumps into a water vapor molecule, that photon of energy from the CO2 can be emitted by the water vapor at a different wavelength. Neat huh? So now the CO2 energy can increase conduction also called thermals or rising air and latent heat. So the radiative heat transfer picture gets muddy near the surface. The "greenhouse" gases can absorb photons of radiation but it is almost impossible for them to radiatively emit because of collisions. So the down welling radiation which does exists causes an increase in the overall rate of energy transfer between molecules but reduces the rate of flow of heat to the TOA. This is a bit of a paradox, increased down welling radiation higher in the atmosphere does cause the surface to be at a higher temperature, but conduction and convection are the means of heat transfer that increase at the surface, since emission of radiation by "greenhouse" gases is pretty well maxed out at the surface.

There are plenty points to debate on the climate change front, but the fact that there is warming of the sky that warms the Earth is not one. That warming can be expressed as net radiation flux increasing, causing slower cooling or individual fluxes up and down or sideways doing that same thing, but either way the sky has a temperature and anything with a temperature radiates energy which impacts the radiate energy flow rate of any other object, dependent on the temperature difference between the objects, the radiation window between the objects, the absorption/emission spectrum of the objects, the effective thermal conductivity and their separation. Simple right?

Update: Since I am talking about the sky, I should have had the effective thermal conductivity which I added in bold. In a vacuum things are purely radiative, in the atmosphere, even pretty high, there are molecules that can collide. So the temperature difference and the effective thermal conductivity play a role that decreases with increased altitude, minor I know, but I was being a smart ass.

As usual this was just a quick post while waiting on something to dry, so there may be a few typos or minor errors, but it should be pretty accurate.

Pondering Climate and the Greenhouse Effect

2011-08-18T11:00:00.000-07:00

While most of the world has moved on to other more pressing issue, the climate change debate still rages among the devoted. Joseph Postma is a smart guy with degrees and everything that believes that CO2 has no significant impact on climate at all. Postma has a published paper, The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect,where he attempts to set the scientific world straight. I can't really comment on the paper because the error in calculating the average solar power at the Earth's surface is so obvious, I won't waste my time. A year or so ago when I first heard of this my bullshit detector went off and I did the rough calculations myself and they happen to agree with NASA and the rest of the mathematically literate world, not Mr. Postma.

Most view Postma arguments comical or worse, but he some sway in the radical skeptic community. One defense he uses for his calculations is that there would be no liquid water on the planet if NASA's numbers are right. He is wrong, but the liquid water thing is something I have never written about.

Water is a remarkable substance. While all life needs to consume water to survive, water is much more important to our survival. On our world which has a surface covered with 70% water, things are a lot different than if there was less or if it were not located where it is. For example if the water was only at the poles and all the land mass was at the equatorial region, there would be no life as we know it. If there was 50% water and 50% land the same thing. Climate is somewhat stable because of the amount, location and properties of water. Our climate is extremely sensitive to water in all its phases.

First, think about the reflectivity of the Earth or its albedo. Snow is highly reflective, the tops of clouds highly reflective and liquid water high absorptive of solar radiation. Snow and ice reflect between 90 and 95 percent of the sun's rays. Water absorbs about 93% of the sun's rays. Same molecule, radically different properties. Water also has one of the highest thermal capacities of any element as a liquid, solid or vapor. It is remarkable.

The average albedo of the Earth right now is about .7 meaning we absorb about 70% of the solar radiation. The vast majority of that albedo is due to water which covers most of the Earth's surface and a good portion of the atmosphere. While the climate change debate is mainly about CO2 which may cause a percent or so change in the outgoing radiation that cools the Earth, water can make a 10% change in the outgoing and the absorbed incoming with just a little push.

With climate, water's importance is best viewed by the conditions during the glacial periods. Some trigger, an asteroid impact, slight change in orbit, passing through a comet's tail can reduce the absorbed solar radiation enough that more ice and longer lasting snow cover persists for a while. This decreases the Earth's albedo which decreases the heat absorbed, decreasing the heat stored in the oceans. The Earth moves toward what has been called a snowball Earth. Unlike too much global warming, too much global cooling has happened pretty regularly. Luckily, Snowball Earth is not really a complete snowball. Glaciers move further towards the equator and move closer to the surface, but never completely cover the entire planet. If they did, Earth would not recover without another catastrophic event. All indications I have seen indicate that the Earth recovers naturally until the albedo increases to a magic number that cues a new interglacial period like the one we enjoy now.

It is not really magic, but the combination of the right albedo, the right solar cycle series and the right amount of volcanic activity cue the change. There is not a lot of solar change, nor a lot of volcanic change, but a little of each change albedo which feeds back on itself to cause the big change. Just like the right decrease in albedo triggered and amplified the cooling, the right increase in albedo triggers the warming. The Earth has two temperature set points controlled primarily by albedo which is controlled by water.

Mr. Postma seems to think that the calculated average solar energy input is not enough to sustain liquid water. In my opinion this is the most glaring error of his paper. Even in the glacial periods which have much lower solar energy absorbed there is still liquid water near the equator. Since there is much more water along the equator than there is land, even a snowball Earth can sustain life.

Water is also the largest unknown in the global warming debate. A warmer world means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor which can either add to the warming or tend to reduce the warming. The room for warming to increase albedo is not as large as the room to reduce albedo. There will always be ice and snow at the poles in winter which will persists into the summer. The normal weather patterns with more water vapor in the air means the chance of larger snow storms and rain storms increase, both reduce albedo. The warming can cause longer and more severe droughts, but droughts are over land and most of the droughts will be in the temperate latitudes. Droughts in the temperate zones have less impact on albedo, tend to increase atmospheric dust which can promote cooling and increase radiative cooling locally because of less water vapor.

Increased water vapor also tends to block a portion of the CO2 radiative impact at the surface. The reason most impact of increased CO2 should be at the poles and upper troposphere is because there is less competition with water vapor.

So while there is no guarantee that warming will not be enough to worried about, thanks to water the likelihood of catastrophic warming is reduced.

Note: The average albedo is more like 30% meaning the absorbed is 70%. So the references to albedo are reversed, but the idea remains the same.

Slaying the Sky Dragon Slayers

2011-07-07T16:14:00.000-07:00

The climate change debate is really fascinating because of the opinions expressed and some of the really off the wall "proofs" that harmful warming does or does not exist.

This chart is pretty simple. It is just the linear regressions of the University of Alabama - Huntsville lower troposphere temperature data for the northern and southern extents (latitude 60 poleward), the tropics and the global temperatures in anomalies. The north pole is warming big time, the south pole not at all, the tropics and globally if they keep the current pace since 1979 will result in 1.5 degrees warming. Some warming due to CO2 increase does exist, only it is not performing as advertised. How much is due to CO2 is not easy to say. Because of the physics of trace greenhouse gases, it is hard to argue that nothing is due to CO2, but that doesn't stop people.

The religious extremes people go to press their respective cases is laughable. With current data it should be obvious that there is some climate change due to man, just not a solid number of how much or how much due to just CO2.

Back in the day, when the theory was proposed, the data was not all that great. In the early 1980's, the potential of catastrophic warming was real enough. The available data indicated something was changing and that is could possibly be very bad. It has only been the past decade or so enough data has been available to revise estimates. The data is still far from perfect, but the quality has improved enough to at least look at the potential differently than a decade ago.

That is the frustrating part. Scientists, that should be naturally curious, are not. They just doggedly preach the same gospel rarely looking impartially at the overall data. If it were my theory, I would be looking for real answers not excuses.

The debate has some virtue. It is forces more followers to become thinkers. Independent thought is moving many of the masses to the center where they should be. Not only with healthy skepticism of Climate Change, but alternate energies, nuclear power and realistic politics. A new wave of centrist questioners of the political norm. A very good thing.

Real change takes time. So it may be decades from now when centrist becomes a true political force, but that appears to be future reality. People that vote knowledgeably not emotionally. The day when voters demand information instead of motivational speeches. Fun times.

Is it Statistically Signficant?

2011-07-01T10:00:00.000-07:00

That is the biggest question that has to be answered in most nuclear, climate and economic debates. In some cases, radiation for example, any risk, no matter how small, is considered significant. In reality, there is always a non zero risk. It is irrational to believe otherwise. This short post, Statistically Significant, by James Annan is related to detection and attribution of climate change. You can correctly say that events like the spring tornadoes in the US or flooding in Pakistan, Brazil, Australia etc. are impacted by anthropogenic climate change. You cannot say to what degree they were impacted or even if they were more or less damaging due to man's impact on climate. To a lesser extent, there is the same issue with man made nuclear radiation.

Radiation can cause long term cancer risk. But cancer caused by radiation, natural or man made, is a small portion of the overall cause of cancer. The largest cause of increased risk of cancer is advances in medical technology and overall improvements in living conditions. If the average life span had not increased, fifth and sixth decade cancers would not be significant. What is significant is that changes in our lifestyles have given us the luxury of worrying about different causes of death.

Climate change is due to the same reason. If humans were not able to live longer and be more productive, there would be no concern about climate change. It is the fact that man kind has adapted to and has adapted the planet to his use so well that there is any concern. If were not for the advances made by man, there would not be the luxury of worrying about the damage that may be caused by those advances.

Fukushima is now the largest nuclear health experiment in human history. In the decades to come there will more and better data collected that will lead to better understanding of the risk of nuclear power. The experiment will show the the risk is much less than many expect and somewhat higher than some have predicted. That is just the way it is. Most of the anti-nuclear advocates have over estimated risk based on emotional and political feelings. Emotions, politics and "feelings" have no place in statistics.

Can risk be reduced? Of course, but reducing one risk just adds to the significance of another. At least we have the luxury of worrying.

More Radiation Stuff - Hot Particles

2011-06-22T17:13:00.000-07:00

I touched on hot particles previously. They are still somewhat in the news with the west coast of the US testing for up to 5 hot particles per day estimated per person.

A hot particle is a microscopic bit of a radioactive substance. The size of the particle can range from a few nanometers (a billionth of a meter) to a few micrometers (millionths of a meter). An atom of Cesium-137 has a diameter of about 0.4 nanometers. So a molecule of Cesium-137 oxide or whatever it happens to react with would be a little larger. For the sake of simplicity, let's say 1 nanometer since the particle may contain a little of something else.

Then a hot particle of Cesium-137 will contain anywhere from a few hundred Cesium-137 atoms to a few hundred thousand. For simplicity, let's say 100,000.

With a half life of 30 years, there would be 50,000 decays in 30 years, around 1700 decays per year, about 5 decays per day, per hot particle. With the bad luck of inhaling all 5 hot particles per day, that would be about 1 decay per hour. So if your bad luck continues, in sixty days you would add 60 decays per hour or 1/60 Becquerel to your radiation exposure. Becquerel is defined as decays per second.

Cesium-137 is convenient since it makes up the bulk of the radiation fallout. If the Hot Particle was Plutonium-239 with a half life of 24000 years, the decays would be 30/24,000 times 1 Becquerel. Roughly of course, since the diameters are a little different, but not much.

Based on food radiation limits, about 500 Becquerel per kilogram is safe, so to add the health impact of supposedly safe food day of meals, every sixty days you add one Becquerel so in 82 years you have accumulated 500 Becquerels of radiation from hot particles if you are unlucky enough to inhale all five hot particles per day of a Cesium-137 compound for 82 years.

Update: I used CPM instead of CPS, but you should still get the idea.

Wow! That sounds pretty dangerous to me! So if you plan on living to be 240, I would be scared shitless.

During the atmospheric nuclear testing age, there were a lot of hot particles. Chernobyl produced lots of hot particles. How much health impact have those hot particles had on cancer rates? Not a whole hellava lot since most folks don't live past 80 years. Do you think maybe that the hot particle press releases might be a little sensationalized?

Political Climate Change

2011-06-21T05:46:00.000-07:00

Allegations of corruption are again making news in the Climate Change debate. A press release for a not yet published report made a claim that 80% of global energy could come from sustainable energy sources IF political will focused on that goal.

Whoop d friggin' do!

The lead author of the now published report is a bigwig with Greenpeace and the report list a variety of scenarios, one of with is a maximum possible sustainable energy percentage by 2050. So does this indicate a conflict of interest?

Of course, but what should you expect? Like it or not, the real world of politics is not all warm and fuzzy idealism. The social mores of the undeveloped nations is not the same as the developed nations which is not the same for all the developed nations. That is the way it is, has been and will continue to be. Working within the system with its imperfections is a political exercise. Science, well, would best be apolitical. It is not though. Scientists carry social baggage just like the rest of us. Intellectuals have much more baggage because their idealized views of a perfect world are unattainable because man is imperfect. There is a great deal of frustration for all to share.

Perfectionists are constantly disappointed while pessimists are often pleasantly surprised. A realist is a pessimist with hope. When it comes to policy, realists should be in charge.

The realist recognizes that good enough for now, not perfect solutions, are always required in an imperfect world. My focus in this blog changes with the general political opinions which drive transitions to hydrogen technologies. Hydrogen is not perfect, it has several issues that are challenging, but not insurmountable. I am a fan of hydrogen because it has awesome potential for not only national energy independence, but personal energy independence. That, the potential for personal energy independence, is one of hydrogen's largest obstacles. The ability to make your own fuel from less than perfect energy sources can create serious political problems for those wishing to financially control the masses.

That may sound like a paranoid conspiracy mentality, but there is plenty of basic truth in its foundation. Without sustainable profit for governments and industry, there is no political motivation for home brewed anything. For that reason, the components scaled for home production of hydrogen have taken a turn to industrial scale components. Hydrogen made from reformed natural gas is taxable because natural gas production and distribution is controllable. The US Department of Transportation research into hydrogen is focused on larger scale, taxable plant sizes. That is the way of the world.

Once you allow for the independence afforded by home brewed hydrogen from water, the cost and efficiency factors become more flexible. Fifty percent overall efficiency is more than acceptable for home brewer desiring a self directed lifestyle. For the Government, 50% is unacceptable, even though 33 percent has been more than acceptable for other energy sources in the past. This is a humorous conundrum.

More Biological Decay Chain

2011-06-15T07:08:00.000-07:00

Besides the name sucking, the Radon Biological Decay Chain (RBDC), see I changed the name from Biological Half Life because that is confusing, has potential. The comparison of decay energy probability of known Radon, which we can't avoid, to other ionizing radioisotopes should be pretty easy to understand. Converting that to counts per minute is a little tricky.

Since we are comparing energy released over time for an isotope, a Radon atom will have one or two measurable counts in the decay chain, but the future counts have to be considered for biological impact. While Radon-222 has a lag of 22.3 years in the last half of the decay chain, the Pb-210 tends to stay in the body, so there is a high likelihood that the final energy in the decay chain will have a biological impact.

Since we are comparing decay energy, we compare to the probable decay energy of the other isotope, Uranium, Cesium, whatever, and few have the total biological decay chain of Radon. Radon has four alpha decays and five beta decays while most other isotopes will have one possibly two during a human life span. The RBDC ratio considers the decay energy, but the counts should be considered since that is the most common way of determining exposure. In the previous post I use the multiplier five. With one or two Radon counts out of nine probable being countable, 4.5 would be the worst case (9/2) with 9 being the best (9/1)case. Rounding to 5 should be reasonably conservative. The two multiplier just allows for normal biological tolerance and background fluctuations.

The 2 multiplier for comparing counts is most likely to be challenged. I include it because it allows for a multitude of uncertainty without pressing reasonable probability limits. One is the biological half life of the isotope. Another the the likelihood of absorption. To make the comparison more accurate, each could be considered resulting in a more complicated evaluation. The idea of the Radon Biological Decay Chain comparison is to simplify things. For the common isotopes that are likely to be fallout from a nuclear incident, it does the job.

Since Radon is naturally occurring and the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers, the RBDC ratio may not be all that comforting. The reality though is that life has risks and it is the magnitude of avoidable risk that is in question. Ten times the tested Radon count for most isotopes possibly causes the same risk of natural Radon exposure, remember, this is conservative. At this level other life choices cause more risk, over eating, alcohol, driving, sex you name it, all have equal or greater risk of shortening your life.

I will continue digging, but everything I have seen so far indicates that radiation risk is overly emphasized. Next I may tackle the risks in other forms of energy.

Biological Decay Chain - Understanding Ionizing Radiation

2011-06-14T10:21:00.000-07:00

The Biological Decay Chain may be my own personal concept, but I doubt that. The biological damage caused by ionizing radiation should be proportional to the energy released by decay in the body. Isotopes that are likely to be active in an average lifetime less cancer growth time, about five years, have a ionizing biological impact. The isotopes may also have poisonous chemical impact, like heavy metal poisoning, but damage due to decay energy when isotopes give of alpha, beta or gamma radiation, (there are other forms, but let's stick to the basics), cause the most negative health impact.

In the photo from Wikipedia above, you can see that a lot of stuff happens after Thorium-232 decays to radium-228. In this chain, once Thorium-232 decays, the entire resulting decay process takes less than eight years to complete, resulting in stable lead-208. To simplify the biological impact, assume that each alpha decay is five and each beta decay is one. This chain has a BHL of 32 or approximately 32,000 KeV. You will notice that there is a branch near the end of the chain. There is a little difference in energy depending on the path, but not much if you consider the whole chain.

I have written about Radon-222 before and its impact. Behind smoking, Radon is the main cause of lung cancer. It is naturally occurring and it is the greatest ionizing radiation risk. Radon-224 is more harmful because the time to stable lead is much shorter.

This is the Uranium-238/Radium-226 decay chain commonly called the Radium Chain. Things really start happening at Radium which is probably the reason. Starting at Radium, this chain has a BHL of 30 with alternate paths, it can increase to 32, though the time to stable is about four times longer, 22.5 years with a less likely start at Radium.

These are the two main decay chains since the Neptunium chain is considered extinct and the Uranium-235 chain start with a rare isotope. For the U-235 chain, the Radium 225 to stable lead is very close to the other more common chains.

Since Radon gas is more commonly inhaled, we can reduce the BHL radium energy by one alpha decay to give us a basic Radon BHL unit of 25 to compare to other isotopes. So the danger is greater if another isotope released more energy in a life time of say 70 years.

There is one thing that complicates things a little, Spontaneous Fission. Isotopes with an atomic weight of 230 and over have the possibility of under going fission which releases much more energy. Plutonium-240 is likely to under go fission outside of a reactor, but luckily Pu-240 is rare outside of a reactor.

Plutonium-240 is formed when Pu-239 absorbs a neutron. That is extremely improbable outside of a reactor but not impossible. Pu-239 can also spontaneous fission with little probability. The odds are pretty remote, but a spontaneous fission cannot be ruled out. Pu-240 has a half life of 6569 years and the probability of fission during a decay is 5 time 10^-8 or 1/500000000, that is a low probability which I consider negligible.

Note: For the nuclear purists, spontaneous fission is negligible as a biological factor. If you are trying to build a bomb, don't neglect it or your bomb will fizzle like North Korea's. Weapons grade Plutonium has less than 7% Pu-240 and the complex geometry of Plutonium based bombs is due to billions of Pu-240 atoms that are to expensive to remove. I may have to do a post on commercial nuclear waste and how it doesn't make good bombs.

To compare the relative dangers you have to consider two things, the energy and the probability that the energy will be released inside of the body in a normal human lifetime. The main consideration is the half life and quantity, to determine the probability of decay energy.

Plutonium-239 has a half life of about 24,000 years with one alpha decay of any significant probability since it decays to Uranium-235 with a half life of 700 million years. Since Radon WILL decay to stable in a human lifetime if ingested early in life and Pu-239 has a probability of 0.3 percent of decaying in a human lifetime (70/24,000) with 1/5 the energy (5 versus 25), Pu-239 is 0.06 percent as likely to cause biological damage as Radon.

For Strontium-90 with a half life of 29 years and two beta decays to stable Zirconium-90, compared to radon it is 2/25 or 8 percent as likely to cause biological damage.

Iodine-131 with a half life of 8 days and one beta decay to stable Xenon-131, it is also 8 percent as likely to cause biological damage as radon.

Note that in the comparisons, if the half life of the isotope is less than 70 years, average human life time, the ratio of the energy determines the comparable risk.

Just to round things off assume the comparison is ten percent instead of eight percent, then ten times more of Strontium-90 or Iodine-131 ingested than normal Radon ingested from background would give you the same cancer risk. The types of cancer would be different, Strontium-90 is likely to cause bone cancer or leukemia, Iodine-131 thyroid cancer and Radon lung cancer, but the chance of cancer would be close using the Radon BHL.

Note: Just to make this perfectly clear, ten times is on an atom to atom basis, counts is a different issue.

Plutonium-239 at 0.06 percent as likely as radon to cause harm, is barely statistically significant on an atom to atom basis. Radionuclides with half lives greater than 24,000 years would produce insignificant risk in small quantities compared to radon.

The amount of these longer lived radionuclides is then the issue. This is where the dose meters come in with a little qualification. Dose meters record what your body is exposed to not what is ingested. For this purpose ingestion would be by consumption, inhalation or direct absorption into the blood stream. Inhalation and direct absorption more directly compare. With consumption, only a percentage consumed makes it into the blood stream. Food limits then have a built in safety factor since they do not consider the percentage absorbed. Strontium-90 when consumed in food is 20 percent absorbed, Plutonium between 1 and 5 percent absorbed. Inhalation is the greatest likely danger and most directly comparable to Radon which is primarily inhaled.

Cesium-137 is a common fallout isotope with a half life of 30 years and a beta decay to stable Barium-137. There are a couple routes to stable Barium with a comparison energy of about 1.25. 1.25/25 equals 5 percent as likely as Radon at the same quantity. Cesium is more likely absorbed into the blood stream through consumption, so there is not extra safety factor.

So how well does this radon biological half life factor work? If you consider Strontium and Iodine, ten times the quantity produces equal risk, so ten times normal Radon is the cancer threshold where you would be equally likely to develop cancer. Ten times background is the prudent limit for normal safety. At this ten times limit the counts per minute or second would be roughly equal to background, so twice background would be the possible statistically significant threshold if measuring absorbed radiation.

Measuring absorbed radiation is complicated. Only some of the Radon would be measured, about a fifth because of the delay in the chain, so exposed radiation, the real counts that can be measured, would result in five times two or ten times normal background in counts to meet the threshold.

If measuring food, the normal background is approximately 100 Becquerel per kilogram. Ten times normal is 1000Bq/kg would be the implied limit by the radon BHL, which compares will with most national standards which are less than or equal to 1000 Bq/kg. For exposure limits, ten times background would be 1 Microsievert per hour in Japan or about 9 milliSieverts per year.

So the Radon biological half life standard does not change any limits, it only offers a better indication on the amounts of different radionuclides based on half life and energy required to add significant risk.

I need to double check my math, but this may give a better perspective of radiation risk than the banana dose.

For a double check, the radon decay energy to stable lead is close enough. While Radon-222 takes over 22 years to decay, the 25 is reasonable as a basic reference. To compare with another radionuclide, determine the probable decays in 70 years, that does not have to be exact. Then divide that energy (as an integer)by 25 to get a raw percentage. If the half life of the radionuclide is much greater than 70 years, divide 70 by the half life and multiply that by the probable energy in integer form divided by 25. That gives a fair conservative estimate of the relative harm of that radionuclide compared to common radon.

This may seem incorrect because of the horror stories. For example Uranium miners may have a higher cancer risk, but that is more likely due to the variety of radionuclides in the ore or pitch blend, which includes a good deal of radium. Radium alpha decays to radon so a comparison to Radium-226 with a half life of 1600 years would be (70/1600)times (30/25) yields 0.043 times 1.2 equals 0.0525 or 5.25 percent. With Radium-223, which has a very short half life, that comparison would be 30/25 or 20 percent greater chance than radon. Radium-224 would also be 20 percent greater as an estimate. Radium-228 would be 35/25 or 140 or 40 percent greater risk. Brazil nuts contain Radium-226 and are not considered a cancer risk in reasonable quantities. If they contained significant amounts of Radium-228,-224 or -223, they would be.

The decay chains with half life and energy are available online in several places. For this post I used Wikipedia Decay Chain.

As far as the ten time natural background for Cesium, Strontium and Iodine radionuclides, the ingested should be reasonably conservative. The external exposure relationship may be debatable, but should be conservative because those radionuclides are beta emitters.

Another thing that makes the Radon Biological half life comparison conservative it that Cesium-137 for example has an actual biological half life of under 120 days.

I may try and make a comparison chart, but the isotopes covered should give you an idea of how to make your own rough estimate of risk.

Name That Decay Chain!

2011-06-13T21:05:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of studies comparing different energy sources and risk. A lot of the risk is more political than real. Popular opinion means a lot to politicians. Actual risk seems to get lost in the politics.

One comment I saw today was based on a coal versus nuclear study. A large part of the study was a pole of people living near nuclear or coal power plants. That is a big part of the decision of course, what will people vote for, but education of the real risks involve is not as big a deal as I think it should be.

A coal power plant emits a lot of stuff if not scrubbed and filtered. Then if it is scrubbed and filtered, the ash and particulates contain stuff that can be nasty. Heavy metals are a big concern, with radiation a little bit of a concern that looks to be over emphasized.

Coal contains traces of Uranium and Thorium, plus other natural radioactive isotopes. Natural isotopes are generally very long lived, but a there are a few short lived isotopes in the natural decay chains.

For some odd reason, long lived isotopes have a bad reputation. Statistically, it is the short lived ones that are nasty. The short lived are more likely to decay releasing ionizing energy. Uranium-238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years. So a few atoms of Uranium-238 are essentially stable in a biological environment. You would have to ingest a fairly large amount of Uranium-238 to have any radiation harm. It would likely be more harmful as a poisonous heavy metal than a radiation hazard. Think about it. It takes 4.5 billion years for half of the ingested amount to decay. If you ingested 4.5 billion atoms of U-238, 2.25 billion would decay in 4.5 billion years, so only 2.25 would decay per year in your body. Compare 2.25 per year to 4400 per second beta decays normal for a 160 pound (about 75 kilo)person, and that ain't a lot, even if U-238 is 60 times more harmful than K-40. Plutonium-239 is only supposed to be 100 times more harmful than potassium 40, so that makes sense.

I need to build a biological decay table to make it easier for people to compare radiation risk by isotope. Then maybe people can start focusing more on the real risks. A biological decay table would b e the probability of harmful decay energy per microgram of isotope. Then everyone could compare fallout danger to the banana dose or Brazil nut dose.

Sanity in Energy Choices - Has the Time Come?

2011-06-13T10:18:00.000-07:00

With the prospect of radical Green Energy only changing, it may be that rational decisions may finally be made. It's the economy, stupid has finally sunk in.

There are plenty of paths on the energy road to take. Affordable is the biggest road block. Natural gas while far from perfect, is affordable and offers plenty of options.

Electrical generation has gotten most of the attention. Coal fire power plants do produce a lot of pollution if not fitted with state of the art scrubbers and filters. Even then they produce more CO2 that other fuel choices. Natural gas combined cycle power plants produce much less pollution and up to 70% less CO2 than existing coal fire power plants.

A new MIT study not only promotes the future of natural gas from shale, but also points in the direction of Liquid To Gas (LTG) synthetic fuel production. Compared to Generation IV nuclear and a combination of "sustainable" energy sources, the technology of efficient natural gas and GTL technologies are a piece of cake.

As I have ranted before, Synfuel is has both economic and political advantages. While the cost of synfuels is higher than average oil based products, the swings in oil prices kill economic growth. Synfuel will help stabilize energy prices which is key to planning for the future.

Also as I have mentioned, synfuel offers a variety of green options for those so inclined. Biomass conversion to liquid fuels is limited both by feed stock and product. Synfuel expands both offering needed flexibility. Food to fuel can return to its intended role as a use for surplus or unsalable stocks instead of diverting, or at least appearing to divert, food from the starving masses.

For hydrogen fans, natural gas is both good and bad. Hydrogen from natural gas is the more cost effective method of producing hydrogen. It doesn't have the Green stamp of approval, but it can be the step needed to move into a more hydrogen based economy, buying time for fuel cells and hydrogen storage to make the next move into affordability.

Fuel cells are very close to affordability. Ballard Power and others have products that with increased production are very affordable. The Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) technology should improve mainly with new versions of the PEM using less expensive catalysts. The basic design of the components other than the membrane may very well not change. With companies focusing on reliable and reasonable cost maintenance of the fuel cells, a fuel cell purchased now may not be obsolete in a few years. That is the big fear when investing in improving technology, the chance of your investment being replaced with something costing a fraction of the cost.

Storage of hydrogen is a bigger question. Metal hydrates offer a lot of potential but are expensive. High pressure storage can be overly expensive if a reasonable useful life cannot be expected from the expensive composite construction storage tanks. Polymer lined metal cylinders are reliable, but the volume is limited due to pressure limits. Then there are other technologies that may rise in the near future. Once storage issues are resolved, direct conversion of electricity to hydrogen will become much more attractive.

All in all, the natural gas step makes a great deal of sense.

Fukushima Fallout Continues

2011-06-12T08:23:00.000-07:00

The world is full of well intentioned people with not grasp of statistical probabilities. The Fukushima radiation fallout will continue because statistically misguided, but well intentioned people seem to have to repeat poorly contemplated probabilities. It is not just radiation, it is every part of our lives that statistics are involved that suffer.

On CCN, a well educated professor spoke on the risk of minute levels of radiation causing health problems. He could not say that there is zero probability of one or two cases in millions that MAY result because of Fukushima fallout, because there is always a CHANCE. How do you quantify the chance for the population to understand?

In the professor's case, Fukushima Iodine 131 fallout in the United States as of the first of April 2011 could cause a person on the west coast to absorb 3 to 5 decays or counts per day. Five counts per day is equivalent to 0.000058 Becquerel or counts per second. Compare that to an average background radiation of 12 counts per minute or 720 counts per second and you have a 0.000% chance of any health impact. What? Not enough decimal places? How about 0.00000806 percent chance of cancer risk over the normal background? If that percent risk frightens you, play the local lottery. Someone has to win right?

Even that estimate, 0.00000806 percent is high. It is only the percent increase in radiation. The radiation threshold is approximately 500 times normal background, with 100 times normal background showing no increase cancer risk. So the risk is verging on astronomically small. There is a chance though.

In Japan, the risks are much higher. Still, the risk is very low if the cause were anything but radiation. The 500 times normal background threshold is a conservative estimate. Studies for individual radioisotopes place limits in the range of 1000 times before there is any statistically significant (i.e. possible) chance of cancer. Those studies generally use linear no threshold (LNT) methods to determine risk. LNT in itself is overly conservative as it does not consider nonlinear factors and can confuse other risks with radiation levels. So the gray area can be 50 times greater. So being 20 pounds over weight has roughly 60 times more risk that having radiation levels 100 times normal and about 20 times the risk of radiation levels of 500 times normal. There is still a risk.

What is acceptable risk? That is the question of the millennium. There will never be zero.

For the Tokyo Radiation Levels Gang

2011-06-11T10:46:00.000-07:00

Citizens testing radiation levels is both good and bad. It is good because more people will become familiar with the normal radiation everyone in the world lives with daily. Bad because some will jump to conclusions that may frighten others.

Setting basic standards for testing will help increase the good and decrease the bad. The various detectors that are purchased by private citizens vary greatly. The main differences between detectors will be the biological impact readings. These are generally given in MicroSieverts or Roetgens Equivalent Man (REM). Biological impact depends on the type of radio isotope, whether its radiation is internal or external, how easily the isotope is inhaled or ingest. For example, Uranium 238 is pretty common, is an alpha particle emitter and is not very harmful unless ingested or inhaled. Alpha particles have high energy, but they can be stopped by a sheet of paper, the human skin, even air restricts the distance it can travel significantly. A dose meter would assign a fairly high microSievert reading to a sample of Uranium, but really it would have virtually no biological impact.

Iodine 131 is a beta/gamma emitter with a short half life that can be very harmful, so a microsievert setting for Uranium would underestimate the biological impact. Since radio Iodine is so harmful, dose meters may be calibrated for that harm, so they would over estimate the harm of uranium. Most dose meters are calibrated for Cesium 137 as a compromise, but may have settings for other isotopes like Iodine 131. Without knowing the calibration and calculations used, the microsievert reading is nearly useless. If calibration and calculation are known, it can be invaluable for determining the potential harm of known isotopes.

For the amateur, The counts per minutes is much more useful. To get the most use, you should have a standard method for testing and recording your data. For instance a common natural radiation in the background is Radon gas. Radon has a half life of four days. It can react in rain to form compounds that are solids, so it can be rinsed out of the air and collect in drainage ditch, culverts, and soil. With a half life of only four days, a Citizen Radiation Patrol (CRP) participant can measure a level after a rain at actually determine if the radiation is due to Radon by measuring the same spot over a number of days the same way. This would be a reasonably scientific method of testing.

To make it better, record the type of meter, background level of the area, time of day, weather conditions and an average of more than one test per day of the site in question. Three five minute tests should be enough to determine a reasonable average in counts per minute or second. Recording the microsievert reading as well could provide more information on how conservative you detector is. It should be conservative, read higher, because it is a safety device. Repeating the tests in the same manner over a number of days may give you an indication of the types of radioisotopes present. Radon222 and Iodine131 should be the easiest to isolate since they have half lives of 4 and 8 days respectively. Other isotopes with longer half lives would require more complex test equipment, but the CRP can gather pretty good information if they use a standardized test method.

Food testing can also be done with reasonable accuracy, provided natural levels in food are considered. I found a couple of good references for natural radiation in foods, but to simplify, 125 Becquerel per kilogram is good average to expect. Since the average radiation detector cannot test the whole one kilogram mass, a small amount, approximate 1 gram can be tested which should produce 125/1000 (0.125)becquerel or counts per second. Since there is normal background radiation in the air, your meter may measure virtually nothing in the food sample. Then again it may show a few counts above background for perfectly normal food. A much higher reading is what to expect if the food is contaminated. Since 10 to 15 counts per minute is a typical background level, food with more than 30 counts per minute (0.5 counts per second)may be suspect, but over 60 counts per minute ( 1 counts per second)would indicate significant contamination. That does not mean the food would exceed safe limits, only that it has more than just natural radiation. It takes a very strict method to produce repeatable results. Considering the numbers and limitations, four times normal background is a good indication of other than natural radiation, anything less is a maybe.

With high quality equipment and proper test procedure, one gram of a food item with the 500 Becquerel per kilogram upper limit would measure 0.5 counts per second or 30 counts per minute. Natural radiation levels would produce about 7.5 counts per minute. With normal background which should be subtracted, 17.5 to 20 counts per minute may be perfectly normal.

With background measurement the same should apply. Twice normal background is not unusual, four time normal background is an indication of significant contamination.

Even with readings that indicate significant contamination, that does not mean unsafe conditions. Japan like most countries has areas with higher natural radiation. There are natural springs high in radiation. So there may be other areas with higher than normal background levels. This leads to a good deal of confusion. Man made radioisotopes are assumed to be more dangerous. Some are and some are not. Radon, which is a decay product of radium is the prime example.

"222Rn belongs to the radium and uranium-238 decay chain, and has a half-life of 3.8235 days. Its four first products (excluding marginal decay schemes) are very short-lived, meaning that the corresponding disintegrations are indicative of the initial radon distribution. Its decay goes through the following sequence:[20]

218Po, 3.10 minutes, alpha decaying to...
214Pb, 26.8 minutes, beta decaying to...
214Bi, 19.9 minutes, beta decaying to...
214Po, 0.1643 ms, alpha decaying to...

At the next step, 214Po decays to 210Pb, which has a much longer half-life of 22.3 years. Its progenies are:

210Bi, 5.013 days, beta decaying to...
210Po, 138.376 days, alpha decaying to...
206Pb, stable."

From Wikipedia, Radon has a 50% chance of decaying to 210Pb (unstable lead) in the sequence above in 4 days. Then alpha decays, where the atomic weight drops by 4, have an average energy of 5,000 KeV (thousand electron Volts) and the beta decays (elemental change with the same weight) release an average energy of roughly 1,000 KeV. So the total energy from 222Radon is about 8,000 KeV. From Radium the total energy would be about 13,000 KeV, (I had a typo in the Plutonium post). With a possibility of another 11,000 KeV to stable 206Pb from 214Pb with a 22.3 year half life.

Plutonium 239 for example, considered the most dangerous man made isotope, has about a 24,000 year have life and alpha decays to Uranium 235 which has a half life of 700 million years. Energy wise, radon 222 is just as harmful if not more so.

Do double check my numbers, but I think you will find radiation deserves respect but not fear. Everything I have read supports the limits imposed by different countries for safety with a few overly conservation limits that could be relaxed.

Japan's Citizen Radiation Patrol - The Geiger Counter Explosion

2011-06-10T06:41:00.000-07:00

With all the purchases of Geiger counters and dose meters I wrote a post a while back about testing your food. It is not all that easy to take an off the shelf Geiger counter and accurately test stuff on your own. You can get an initial range or baseline to compare things, but accurate readings that can compare to another reading with another counter is difficult. There can be a wide range of counts per minute or second. The REM or Sievert readings are even more difficult to compare from one unit to another. So I recommended sticking to counts per second which is the same as Becquerels.

There are now radiation clubs posting results online. I found one group on Facebook thanks to Japan Probe. In the video, one Citizen Radiation Patrol member, measures a fairly high Sievert level in a street drain. Street drains should be higher than normal because radiation in the air can be rinsed out by rain and collect in the water run off. Remember that there is often natural Radon 222 that adds to the counts for a few days following rain.

The reading obtain is a little humorous. The little dp802i dosemeter sounds the alarm for high radiation. The Sievert reading hits 5.77 microsieverts per hour compared to the initial background reading of 0.11 Microsieverts per hour. So is this a danger signal that should be heeded?

First, isolated patches of higher levels are not uncommon. A 25% increase following rain is not uncommon, but should drop in four days if the extra radiation is due to Radon 222 washing out of the air. If you plan on living in the drain, that may be a indication that that is not a great idea.

Second, the Sievert readings on most dosemeters are very sensitive. It is after all suppose to warn you of potential danger. The counts per second readings are what the overall dose is based on, or at least that should be the plan.

In the video, the Sievert reading is in the middle of the display in the largest font. Below that is the counts in what appears to be per minute (could be counts per hour, hard to see the decimal placement). The 11.4 Counts per minute is pretty normal as I stated in my previous post.

A second video linked by the Japan Probe post shows a variety of counters or dose meters being compared when using a slightly radioactive lantern mantle or a test sample. One of those happens to be a model dp802i.

The dp802i is on the left.

In the test, you can see the Sievert reading fluctuate wildly and the counts gradually change up dating every 15 seconds or so.

The Japan Probe poster believes that the dp80i is either wildly inaccurate or requires a longer time to obtain a reliable reading. He(she) is right that it does take a longer time. As far as accuracy, the dp801i appears to be pretty good, it is just the sievert readings sensitivity is very sensitive. This is not a sign of inaccuracy, more of a safety feature. It warns of a increase, but it takes time to determine the energy which is needed to determine the actual potential harm. So I would say that the dp802i is not a bad dose meter, just that it is not the final word on radiation evaluation, which it is not designed to be.

The Tokyo Radiation Levels Facebook page is dedicated to locals learning about radiation detection. If you are interested, you can follow their efforts a learn along with them. There are and will be plenty of high sievert readings that seem scary, but once you learn that Sieverts are very inaccurate until properly calculated, you will be amused. Dose meters should read well on the high side for safety. Then the high quality equipment can be brought in to provide the needed accuracy. It is not a conspiracy, just the nature of the beast. The dp802I is on the overly sensitive side, but if you consider the counts, not too bad of an inexpensive dose meter.

Radiation: So Many Experts - So Much Controversy

2011-06-07T20:29:00.000-07:00

I spend much more time than I should trying to understand why there is so much disagreement among experts over the subject of radiation. We are bathed in radiation every day of our lives. Some is harmful, some beneficial and some we cannot agree upon. The Three Mile Island incident started my first inquiries into ionizing radiation. The sudden interest in Radon gas prompted another inquiry. Chernobyl brought it to mind again. Now Fukushima has piqued my interest again.

Before Fukushima I just assumed that Plutonium was extremely dangerous. It was the terrorist dream material. It was used to make the big bombs. It was supposed to be the most poisonous of the radioactive elements made by man.

Trying to sort out which experts to believe, I have spent more time studying Plutonium and Radium this time around. It is hard to find an expert opinion that makes sense.

Radium 226 is the most stable of the radium isotopes and is naturally occurring. It is a decay product of Uranium 238, the most common form of Uranium. Radium 226 has a fairly short half life at 1601 years. It decays by releasing an alpha particle into Radon 222 giving off 4871 KeV of energy. Radon 222 has a half life of only 3.8 day and decays by releasing an alpha particle into Polonium 218 with a half life of 3.1 minutes, giving off approximately 5500 KeV of energy, which decays to Lead 214 with a half life of 3.1 minutes giving off an energy of approximately 5000 KeV, which decays by Beta emission to Bismuth 214 which beta decays with a half life of 27 minutes to Polonium 214 with a half life of 20 minutes to Lead 210 with a half life of 160 milliseconds. I'll stop there since Lead 210 has a half life of a full 22 years.

Plutonium 239 decays has a half life of about 24,000 years which decays to Uranium 235 releasing 5245 KeV. Uranium 235 has a half life of 700 million years.

Energy wise, if you consume Radium 226, there is a lot of radiation released within a day or so on the order of 23,000 KeV, after one Radium 226 atom pops. Radium has a pretty significant decay chain with a large biological impact. Still, since it is common in Brazil nuts, it does not seem to be that harmful with tests indicating it is safe in levels up to 1000 times normal background.

Plutonium 239 with about of the quarter of the energy and 15 times less likely to pop than Radium 226 is considered 100 times more dangerous. That does not make sense.

In a reactor, Plutonium 239 produces 207,100 KeV during fission. There should not be a great likelihood of fission in the body, but perhaps this is where the 100 times more dangerous comes from, an unlikely situation. During fallout following a nuclear incident, it is pretty unlikely that large concentrations of Plutonium 239 would end up in an area far from the power plant. That is the case at Fukushima, a few traces were found and only one appears to be confirmed from power plant. The rest appear to be due to atmospheric testing in the fifties and sixties.

The danger from ionizing radiation is the decay frequency and energy per decay. There is some danger from the chemical properties of the heavy metals, but that is unlikely to be the case in food contamination. So Radium 226 should be 4 times more dangerous than Plutonium 239 if ingested.

So this has me really suspicious of some of the anti-nuke experts warning of the dangers of fallout from Fukushima in the US and Canada. That fallout may possibly increase radiation levels by 5 pops per day versus about 25 pops per second from a good thick steak or 15 pops per second from a tofu burger. The source of the ionizing radiation may be different, but it is the energy that counts.

Natural Radiation in Foods: Where is all the Information?

2011-06-05T06:58:00.000-07:00

It would seem with all the health conscious organic food affectionados, there would be more information on foods high in natural ionizing radiation. Really, the organic food guys are trying to avoid part per billions of pesticides, hormones and inorganic fertilizer elements. It would seem that they would have stepped up to the plate to warn the world of all the radiation in certain foods. The best list I have found so far is at this site at Idaho State University.

This list is pretty basic as far as individual foods. With the exception of Brazil Nuts, the list may be useful for types of food stuffs. At least it gives a little bit of insight.

The propagation part of plants seem to be highest in radiation, so the root vegetables and seed portions should be the highest source of radiation in the plant. That is not a definite, but it makes some sense. Leafy vegetables should have radiation levels proportional to their potassium content. Since cesium 137 is chemically similar to potassium, it is likely that vegetables high in potassium would also tend to be higher in cesium if grown in an area with radiation fallout. Since the first atomic bomb tests, wine has traces of cesium 137, which seems to support that thought.

It would seem reasonable that farmers and gardeners that want to reduce the Cesium uptake of their crops would increase the potassium in their soils. The plants would fill their potassium needs more easily with the abundant potassium instead of scrounging around for traces of Cesium. Since the potassium content of the vegetables is lower in Becquerel/kilogram than the limits set by governments, it is unlikely that plants would shift gears to absorb more Cesium than potassium. To me that would indicate that most of the excess radiation contained in food stuffs would be external to the plants. Rinsing vegetables well before serving should then significantly reduce the exposure to radiation fallout.

Meats are a little different. Pork and sheep that are mainly feed in pastures would tend to absorb more fallout. Pork especially since they are rooting feeders. They would ingest more soil with the fallout. Sheep feed close to the ground so they also would tend to be higher as well as free range poultry. So to reduce the amount of radiation farm animals absorb, their feed should be limited to the least amount of radiation possible. Milk producing cattle are pasture feed primarily. Milk is susceptible to higher radioactive iodine levels early in a nuclear event which reduces quickly with the decay of the iodine 131 and rain rinsing the radiation off the grass leaves into the soil. Cattle generally consume less soil when grazing.

Radioactive cesium is the primary isotope of concern after the first month of an incident. With its half life of 30 years versus many millions of years for potassium 40, it only takes a small percentage of cesium replacing potassium to make a large increase in radiation activity. Cesium and potassium have similar biological half lives of 70 to 100 days, so it is quite possible that animals fed high potassium feeds would reduce Cesium levels in the meat and other products.

How effective is blocking with potassium? That is kind of hard to say. The Becquerel reading is decays per second or pops per second. It takes a tiny fraction of Cesium to produce the equivalent counts per second of the huge amount of potassium. A single Cesium 137 atom is about a billion times more likely to pop in its biological half than a potassium atom. On the other hand, only a very small amount of Cesium would need to be replaced to prevent a lot of pops. So reducing the likelihood of absorbing Cesium is much better than trying to get rid of it.

The banana dose, while not perfect, does give a pretty good indication of risk. White potatoes have a natural Becquerel reading of 126 per kilogram. That is close to the 130 Bq/kilogram for bananas, 126 for carrots, 111 for red meat, and 172 for raw lima beans. Brazil Nuts which seem to not be harmful, have an average around 350 Bq/kg with a high of about 465 Bq/kg. Most of the Brazil nut radiation is from Radium 226 which has a half life of 1600 years. Radium 226 is an alpha particle emitter with energy of about 5000 KeV per decay. While alpha particles travel less than Beta particles or gamma rays, the energy is significant. Brazil nuts by the way have radium levels nearly 1000 times higher than most foods. That just gives you an indication of how flexible the radiation level can be in the body without significant damage. So the 500 Bq/kg limit in Japan is quite safe as are the 600 Bq/kg in the EU and the 1000 Bq/kg in the UK for sheep meat, unless the body absorbs more than a normal percentage of the more active isotopes.

The main concern should be good nutrition and healthy lifestyle. Good nutrition with normal electrolyte levels and regularity, helps the body prevent absorption of excess amount of the stronger radiation. Normal body weight would also reduce absorbed radiation. Active lifestyles burn more calories which would reduce the biological half life of radiation in the body. Home remedies and special diets may be of some help, but good health is the best defense.

While I was researching to provide a more comprehensive list a natural radiation levels in foods, I could not help but notice the similarity of radium 226 decay energy and plutonium 239 decay energy. Pu239 is also an alpha particle emitter with just a little higher energy than radium 226. A very small amount of Pu239 was released at Fukushima. Since Ra226 has a half life of 1600 years and Pu239 a half life of 24,000 years, milligram per milligram, naturally occurring radium is more dangerous than plutonium. While both are dangerous, it seems that plutonium fears may be a bit overstated. The Radium Girls were workers employed to paint watch dials with radium for glow in the dark operation. The workers ingested radium from licking their paint brushes to smooth the tips. Research on the dial painters determined a threshold of 0.1 microcurries (3700 Becquerel) of radium which was established as the tolerance level for radium. The Argonne National Laboratory performed further research finding that 1000 times normal radium 226 levels is a suggested threshold for radium induced malignancies. Interesting that threshold is verified by Brazil nuts.

Inhalation of radium or plutonium is much more hazardous than ingestion. Approximately 20% of the radium and one percent of the plutonium ingested with be absorbed in the blood stream. Once in the bloodstream, both radium and plutonium are likely to treated as calcium in the body. This is not to say we should add plutonium to our diets, just that naturally occurring isotopes are so similar to the nasty man made ones, that natural dietary radioisotopes give a better clue of what to expect.

There is no way anything I write will calm many fears, but if some of the health food guru's look at the facts, they may be able to have more influence. Everything I have read so far indicates there is no governmental or nuclear industry conspiracy to force us to accept dangers. If the health food gurus devoted a little more time to natural radioactivity and how it compares to the unnatural radioactivity things would be more understandable for the general public. One thing they should more greatly research is natural iodine in various foods such as sea foods and kelps. Natural iodine does help block radioactive iodine, but daily doses need to be on the order of 120 milligrams to make a difference early in an event. Most that I have seen do responsibly recommend stable iodine tables, but a few are misleading. Another thing they may wish to research is the odd radiation paradox. Relatively low levels of radiation in addition to normal background seem to have produce a vaccine effect helping to reduce cancer risk.

Added resources: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/TotalDietStudy/UCM184305.pdf This is a pretty in depth study that generally confirms the other one.

I found another US study that generally confirms the 1000 Bq/kg limit for most accidental release isotopes except Plutionium 239. That study lists that Pu239 is 100 times more dangerous, but did not include Radium 226. It did list the biological impact of Pu239 at 1.7 e-5 Sv/Bq. Since only an extremely small amount of plutonium has been released and radium 226 is much more abundant, it would be interesting to see a more direct comparison.

Natural Cures for Radiation?

2011-06-03T07:17:00.000-07:00

Whenever there is a nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) scare people break out the natural or holistic treatments to protect themselves and loved ones. Some of the natural treatments have some scientific basis which may produce statistically significant results, most don't. From a total lay point of view, I want to look at the logic.

With Fukushima, I have only really looked at the most common radioactive isotopes in the fallout. Since I am not there, I look at things rather coldly. I am more concerned with the increased real risk and economic damage. Nuclear energy so far have proven to be pretty safe, but situations like Fukushima have a low probability of happening and the degree of damage has various level of probabilities. Following Fukushima, there have been plenty of inaccurate reports, most appear to be due to poor translations and inaccurate conversion of the confusing units of radiation levels. One was a report that spinach in one area of Japan tested over the limit of 2000 Becquerel per kilogram. The actual limit on foods like spinach is 500 becquerel per kilogram. That sounded odd, so I did some checking and 2000 Bq/kg is not really that far fetched compared to the UK limit of 1000 Bq/kg for meat.

When food contamination or fallout exposure is at or below the limits set by a government they should be safe, i.e. no probable statistically significant health risk. 2000 Bq/kg meets that assumption depending on manner or methods used. It is getting pretty close to the gray area when competing methods begin to diverge.

Statistically significant isn't all that well understood by the public. Any risk from accidental radiation fallout is significant in their opinion despite the fact that being 10% over weight has a greater probability of harm than 2000 Bq/kg of radiation in your hamburger may have.

Combating Radiation Poisoning is one of many websites that have tips to reduce your radiation damage with natural means. Some of the treatments produce desired results, but do they by combating radiation or reducing other risk factors?

The Macrobiotic diet is a big one. The story behind this one starts with a doctor at a hospital one mile away from ground zero of the WWII Nagasaki blast saving all his patients from radiation poisoning. One mile is very close to the blast. But the terrain of Nagasaki protected some areas from the initial blast, so that part is believable. The items in the diet are very unique to the Western world, but probably not all that unusual for the area. The combination of items in the diet are given credit for the survival of the patients. One of the interesting foods was Hokkaido pumpkin, which is a winter squash as best as I can determine.

Winter squashes are good, nutritional foods. They are high in vitamin C and potassium as well as other stuff good for you. Potassium should be a very good nutrient to reduce absorption by the body of various radioactive "salts". Most of the more dangerous radioactive isotopes react with moisture to produce salts which the body thinks are normal salts that it incorporates to maintain electrolyte levels. Cesium 137 forms an ion similar to potassium for example. If your body has a normal potassium level or more that it needs, it is less likely that it will use the Cesium. Another dietary item is sea salt. Sea salt would balance the body's need for sodium as an electrolyte, doing the same thing. So far so good.

Sea salt contains traces of iodine. Stable iodine is used to prevent the absorption of radioactive iodine in the thyroid, so it has to help right? Not so much. Stable iodine is given in very high dosages to protect the thyroid. There is just not enough iodine in sea salt or iodized salt to have much impact.

Without going into all the other food items, the overall diet is healthy but not high enough in calories to promote obesity. Sugar was not a part of the diet which would be normal for a restricted war time diet. The lack of refined sugar and rather high in fiber diet would promote regularity which would help reduce the time radioactive isotopes spent in the body before flushing. That is basically reducing the metabolic half life of the isotopes in the body. So overall the diet is a good preventative method to reduce risk of radiation harm to the body. It is not the particular dietary items, but the diet in general. So a healthy diet with plenty of electrolytes, vitamins, fiber and fluids is a good thing.

Baking soda and sea salt baths are also touted as being good for releasing radioactive energy from the body. I am not particularly a fan of the logic behind this idea. It does have benefits that are real. Cleanliness is next to Godliness is a clique for a reason. It has health benefits, especially when radiation is involved. Cleating, detoxifying or neutralizing the radioactive isotopes may have a minor impact on the radiation, but cleaning is the most important part. About equally important is the relaxation that you could get from a twenty minute bath and laying naked in the sun afterwards. The naked in the sun afterward may be inconvenient and potentially harmful if you are not a normal naked in the sun layer. If you are on a good healthy diet and in good physical shape, the laying naked in the sun may benefit others, always something to consider.

Baking soda gargling with or without exotic salts is excellent within reason. Too much of anything is bad and too much baking soda can cause gastrointestinal issues. Gargling though is cleaning so it has a benefit depending on how dirty your mouth and throat are.

Clays and rare earths are highly touted by some "experts". Radioactive isotopes often form ions because they react in moisture to become salts. Ions easily react to form other compounds some of which are more stable that others. This is the cleating angle assumed to detoxify, but some of the compounds formed may be toxic negating the "detoxifying". Clays and/or rare earths may form less toxic compounds when they react with radioactive ions or they may not. Outside of the body, you can control the reaction to decontaminate different isotopes. Inside the body it is a little more of a crap shoot. All things in moderation, but as with stable iodine, it normally takes much higher quantities to be therapeutic which pushes other health concerns.

Teas and beverages are good because they promote flushing, can improve electrolyte levels and provide vitamins, minerals and simple sugars. I would be skeptical of detoxifying beverages, but anti-oxidants are beneficial. There are various food items high in anti-oxidants, chocolate is one of my favorites, red wines, dark beers, darker beans, about anything with darker natural color has decent anti-oxidant properties. While some elaborate teas may be more beneficial a dark beer with some potassium chloride salt to kill the head is similar. Teas and beverages are going to be beneficial as long as they don't overly act as a diuretic. Maintaining proper hydration and electrolyte levels is more important.

One of the biggest things to remember are the other risk factors. Twenty times normal background radiation may increase cancer risk by a fraction of a percent. 100 times normal background may increase risk between 1 and 5 percent. Being 20 pounds over weight increases your other risks by about 15 percent. Smoking increases your risk about 50 percent. Improper hydration increases your risk proportionally to how dehydrated you are. Being overly stressed increases risk. It is normally better to relax and weigh your options. Have a beer, wine or some tea and think over the situation.