Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
On Jun 4, 2009, at 11:37 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: You are making it up as you go by the look of it. Now consider a column through which the photons of S_T are passing through the atmosphere they have a momentum what happens to that momentum due to interaction with the particles in the amosphere on the way out? Try to stay focused on the question. Photons require about 2.94x10^9 watts per kg of thrust, or about 3 million square meters per kg of thrust at maximum insolation. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PhotonThrust.pdf Using earth's radius r as 6400 km, the area is Pi*r^2 = 1.3x10^14 m^2. Total solar insolation thrust on the earth is thus (1x10^3 W/ m^2)(1.3x10^14 m^2)/(2.94x10^9 W/kgf) = 4.4x10^7 kgf. In other words, about 4.4 metric tons of force. Using Newton's F=m*a, or a=F/m, we have, for a 6x10^24 kg earth, that a = (4.4x10^7 kgf)/(6x10^24 kg) = 7x10^-17 m/s^2. Light shining on the earth for a year thus would accelerate the earth by a whopping 2.2x10^-9 m/s, or about 22 angstroms per second, a truly nanospeed. You may want to check my work. I didn't. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
I don't have a refference, i grabbed that from someones post on a message board, to, as i said, give thought to those who know more about the subject than i to see if that made sense. 2009/6/5 Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net: Just so you all have an idea of what its all about, first, a summary of the theory and then I'll comment on Nick's post: The standard theory of anthropogenic global warming is challenged by a new theory which is based on empirical evidence and a reevaluation of the Eddinger equations, using a different set of boundary conditions. In this exposition the Eddington radiation equilibrium equations (which apply to stars) are solved correctly for a planet with a semi-transparent atmosphere, like the Earth. The correct solutions predict that Earth's atmosphere holds an amount of greenhouse gases that maximize radiation of heat into space. It appears that the Earth has a self-regulation mechanism that allows increases of CO2 to exert only a very minor influence on the planet's temperature. Independent measurements give insight into the mechanism of how this self-regulation takes place. Still other measurements contradict the atmospheric heating that supposedly follows directly from standard climate models as a result of increased CO2 during the last few decades. Cooling is observed, instead. Due to the importance of the problem for policies that affect the well-being of the world's population, we conclude that there are now ample grounds to organize a discussion between the scientific proponents of these two theories. REF: http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction Nick: Your disparaging comment is unconvincing, and misleading; ALL THE FACTS, not just what supports what you believe to be true. I went to your reference (and BTW, I'm still waiting for leaking pen's reference!) and did some reading there and at other sites, and it didn't take long to find one person's comment about you: Nick you are still obfuscating, but thanks for the response anyway. As I said, momentum is a vector, and because it is symmetric about the Earth's axis, for S_T it sums to zero anyway. Ok so how do they do this? You said, The escaping photons provide an effective force on the earth. These might budge the orbit by a nanometre or so You are making it up as you go by the look of it. Now consider a column through which the photons of S_T are passing through the atmosphere they have a momentum what happens to that momentum due to interaction with the particles in the amosphere on the way out? Try to stay focused on the question. ME: For those that are truly interested in this topic, there is some very good DISCUSSION about Dr. Miskolczi's papers on these sites: http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4t=556 http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm Here's a bibliography and review of recent peer-reviewed papers which questions Global Warming Science: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb% 206-07.pdf ME: And some of this is beginning to sound very (FP) familiar... ... Then Miskolczi himself posts a few messages in his defense and he is insulted by Gavin and 'raypierre.' Gavin and 'raypierre' claim that Mikolczi makes several blatant algebraic errors in the first 9 pages of his report that invalidate his entire thesis. They don't say what those errors are; they are apparently saving them for a paper written by a sophomore physics class as a class project. In other words, Miklosci's math errors are so obvious that sophomore physics majors can point them out. Maybe they are right, but that was in March and, as far as I can tell, the class paper has not been posted yet. -Mark -Original Message- From: Nick Palmer [mailto:ni...@wynterwood.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance? Ferenc Miskolczi - balance? - oh please! Before you now it he will be proving his theories using the size, relationships and angles of the great pyramids. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 05:53:00 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 05:53:00
RE: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
Give me the reference, even if its not peer-reviewed... -Mark -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance? Im not too familiar with some of the mathematic principles mentioned, but i did find this First, he mis-applies the Virial theorem. The virial theorem applies to kinetic vs. potential energy, and it can be shown that for an atmosphere in equilibrium it is trivially satisfied by any hydrostically balanced atmosphere. The second error is that he misapplies Kirchoff's laws --in fact the so-called application of these laws bears no relation to the actual statement of the laws. Both of these errors are in the first 9 pages. You can spot the error in the virial theorem because the dimensions aren't right -- he applies the theorem to energy fluxes, rather than energy, and his result is just a fiction. as a comment on the paper. perhaps others here can make more sense of it. as for changing albedo... you mean, through increased city building, melting and spreading of the oceans, and deforestation? the albedo of the earth is indeed changing. 2009/6/3 Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net: Or has the balance always been there? Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has quite a distinguished scientific career, including a number of years at NASA Langley. It's a long read, but well worth it... http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/ZM-MF_short.pdf And here is one of his later peer-reviewed publications: http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/2007.pdf -Mark Dr. Miskolczi's theses: 1.There are hitherto unrealized global average relationships between certain longwave flux components in the Earth’s atmosphere; 2.The new relations directly link global mean surface temperature to the incoming shortwave radiation F0 ; 3.The Earth’s atmosphere optimally utilizes all available incoming energy; its greenhouse effect works on the possible energetic top; 4.The classical semi-infinite solution of the Earth's atmospheric radiative transfer problem does not contain the correct boundary conditions; it underestimates the global average near-surface air temperatures and overestimates the ground temperatures; 5.Recent models significantly overestimate the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth perturbations; 6.Resolving the paradox of temperature discontinuity at the ground, a new energy balance constraint can be recognized; 7.The Earth’s atmosphere, satisfying the energy minimum principle, is configured to the most effective cooling of the planet with an equilibrium global average vertical temperature and moisture profile; 8.The Earth-atmosphere system maintains a virtually saturated greenhouse effect with a critical equilibrium global average IR flux optical depth tauA = 1.87; excess or deficit in this global average optical depth violates fundamental energetic principles; 9.As long as the Earth has the oceans as practically infinite natural sources and sinks of optical depth in the form of water vapor, the system is able to maintain this critical optical depth and the corresponding stable global mean surface temperature; 10. The new transfer and greenhouse functions, based on the finite, semi-transparent solution of the Schwarzschild-Milne equation with real boundary conditions adequately reproduce both the Earth’s and the Martian atmospheric greenhouse effect; 11. The Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 global mean energy budget estimate (c.f. IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 FAQ1.1. Fig.1.) is erroneous; the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (USST-76) does not represent the real global average temperature profile (not in radiative equilibrium, not in energy balance, not enough H2O); it should not be used as a single-column model for global energy budget studies; 12. The observed global warming on the Earth has nothing directly to do with changes in atmospheric IR absorber concentrations; it must be related to variations in the total available incoming F0 solar plus P0 heat energy (geothermal, ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, industrial heat generation etc.). Runaway greenhouse effect contradicts the energy conservation principle; global mean surface warming is possible only if the solar luminosity, the Earth-Sun distance and/or the planetary albedo changes (depending on the extent of the cryosphere, on cloud coverage, and/or on the varying surface properties according to land use change etc.); 13. Without water vapor feedback, the primary greenhouse sensitivity to a doubling CO2 theoretically would be about 0.24 K, according to the semi-transparent solution of the radiation equations in a
RE: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
Nice shot on the messenger, well done! (got anything on his message? ) -Original Message- From: Nick Palmer [mailto:ni...@wynterwood.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance? Ferenc Miskolczi - balance? - oh please! Before you now it he will be proving his theories using the size, relationships and angles of the great pyramids. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
Rick Monteverde wrote: Nice shot on the messenger, well done! (got anything on his message? ) The page in question was actually directed at his message, not the messenger, despite the title. There was no ad hominem involved at all. Anyone unclear on this should go read the page to which Nick posted the link, which directly addresses Miskolczi's arguments regarding global warming. Nothing at all that I saw on that page attacked Mizkolczi, the man. -Original Message- From: Nick Palmer [mailto:ni...@wynterwood.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance? Ferenc Miskolczi - balance? - oh please! Before you now it he will be proving his theories using the size, relationships and angles of the great pyramids. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
RE: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
The message, despite the link, was clearly ad-hominem. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:13 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance? The page in question was actually directed at his message, not the messenger, despite the title. There was no ad hominem involved at all. Anyone unclear on this should go read the page to which Nick posted the link, which directly addresses Miskolczi's arguments regarding global warming. Nothing at all that I saw on that page attacked Mizkolczi, the man.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
i am in agreement partially. since it included substance, it was simply an insult, as it was not the basis of his arguement. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Rick Monteverde r...@highsurf.com wrote: The message, despite the link, was clearly ad-hominem. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:13 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance? The page in question was actually directed at his message, not the messenger, despite the title. There was no ad hominem involved at all. Anyone unclear on this should go read the page to which Nick posted the link, which directly addresses Miskolczi's arguments regarding global warming. Nothing at all that I saw on that page attacked Mizkolczi, the man.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?
Im not too familiar with some of the mathematic principles mentioned, but i did find this First, he mis-applies the Virial theorem. The virial theorem applies to kinetic vs. potential energy, and it can be shown that for an atmosphere in equilibrium it is trivially satisfied by any hydrostically balanced atmosphere. The second error is that he misapplies Kirchoff's laws --in fact the so-called application of these laws bears no relation to the actual statement of the laws. Both of these errors are in the first 9 pages. You can spot the error in the virial theorem because the dimensions aren't right -- he applies the theorem to energy fluxes, rather than energy, and his result is just a fiction. as a comment on the paper. perhaps others here can make more sense of it. as for changing albedo... you mean, through increased city building, melting and spreading of the oceans, and deforestation? the albedo of the earth is indeed changing. 2009/6/3 Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net: Or has the balance always been there? Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has quite a distinguished scientific career, including a number of years at NASA Langley. It's a long read, but well worth it... http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/ZM-MF_short.pdf And here is one of his later peer-reviewed publications: http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/2007.pdf -Mark Dr. Miskolczi's theses: 1.There are hitherto unrealized global average relationships between certain longwave flux components in the Earth’s atmosphere; 2.The new relations directly link global mean surface temperature to the incoming shortwave radiation F0 ; 3.The Earth’s atmosphere optimally utilizes all available incoming energy; its greenhouse effect works on the possible energetic top; 4.The classical semi-infinite solution of the Earth's atmospheric radiative transfer problem does not contain the correct boundary conditions; it underestimates the global average near-surface air temperatures and overestimates the ground temperatures; 5.Recent models significantly overestimate the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth perturbations; 6.Resolving the paradox of temperature discontinuity at the ground, a new energy balance constraint can be recognized; 7.The Earth’s atmosphere, satisfying the energy minimum principle, is configured to the most effective cooling of the planet with an equilibrium global average vertical temperature and moisture profile; 8.The Earth-atmosphere system maintains a virtually saturated greenhouse effect with a critical equilibrium global average IR flux optical depth tauA = 1.87; excess or deficit in this global average optical depth violates fundamental energetic principles; 9.As long as the Earth has the oceans as practically infinite natural sources and sinks of optical depth in the form of water vapor, the system is able to maintain this critical optical depth and the corresponding stable global mean surface temperature; 10. The new transfer and greenhouse functions, based on the finite, semi-transparent solution of the Schwarzschild-Milne equation with real boundary conditions adequately reproduce both the Earth’s and the Martian atmospheric greenhouse effect; 11. The Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 global mean energy budget estimate (c.f. IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 FAQ1.1. Fig.1.) is erroneous; the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (USST-76) does not represent the real global average temperature profile (not in radiative equilibrium, not in energy balance, not enough H2O); it should not be used as a single-column model for global energy budget studies; 12. The observed global warming on the Earth has nothing directly to do with changes in atmospheric IR absorber concentrations; it must be related to variations in the total available incoming F0 solar plus P0 heat energy (geothermal, ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, industrial heat generation etc.). Runaway greenhouse effect contradicts the energy conservation principle; global mean surface warming is possible only if the solar luminosity, the Earth-Sun distance and/or the planetary albedo changes (depending on the extent of the cryosphere, on cloud coverage, and/or on the varying surface properties according to land use change etc.); 13. Without water vapor feedback, the primary greenhouse sensitivity to a doubling CO2 theoretically would be about 0.24 K, according to the semi-transparent solution of the radiation equations in a bounded atmosphere. But taking into account all the energetic constraints, the actual value is 0.0 K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.52/2152 - Release Date: 06/03/09 05:53:00
