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.
Showing posts with label cosmic puzzles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cosmic puzzles. Show all posts
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Another Shot at Explaining the Atmospheric Effect
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Phonon Versus Photon Research List
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.
"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
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.
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
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 outminus 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.
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
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.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
What the Heck is Effective Emissivity?
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.
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.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Relative Motion of Low Energy Photons in a Mixed Gas Environment
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.
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.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
I am Still Getting Flack over the Value of Down Welling Radiation!
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!
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!
Monday, October 10, 2011
Dark Energy and our Not Accelerating Expanding Universe
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)