Subject: | Re: AGWers , Show me the Physics ! |
---|---|

Date: | Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:27:59 -0400 |

From: | alan |

To: | Marc Morano-ClimateDepot.com <Morano@ClimateDepot.com>, 'Bob Armstrong' <bob@cosy.com> |

My
immediate post @ 13:37 :Thanks for your quick response . I haven't had time to read your whole post and need to run out and get some horse and duck and dog food , but you seem to be saying the same think that I am . For a uniform ball Kirchhoff balances the 0.7 absorptivity with an equal reduction in emissivity leaving the equilibrium temperature of any gray ball the same as the black body temperature . It's not the "divide by 4" that's a problem , altho my implementation is far more flexible and will handle any shading of a ball , It's the ignoring of Kirchhoff . Anybody with a vacuum chamber , a light bulb and a thermometer should be able to experimentally prove which notion is correct . |

*Even on the realist side, the discussion always
sounds like the
Sun is just another "forcing" whose effect is still open to question.*

Well, because the actual physics involved opens a can of worms that neither side of the debate is willing to deal with. This is why both sides ignore Gerlich and Tscheuschner, for instance.

*arguments as to why the [Stefan-Boltzmann] equation
doesn't
apply to earth (despite the fact that it clearly does).*

Okay, here are a few. Assume that the method of dividing irradiance by four to obtain the temperature of a spherical, reflective Earth is valid (although it isn’t). Thus, with 1366 watts per square meter available but with 0.7 absorption, you divide by 4 and get 239 W/mē, which, via Stefan-Boltzmann, corresponds to about 255 Kelvin on a blackbody. The accepted method also assumes that this 255 K body will then emit 239 W/mē. But Kirchhoff says it won’t, for emissivity is equal to absorptivity. Given an absorptivity of 0.7, then, this semi-smooth body at 255 K will emit 167 W/mē. Since it can’t absorb as well as a blackbody, it can’t emit as well either. In short, the accepted method of obtaining the Earth’s base temperature incorporates absorptive but not emissive reduction. No body radiates as efficiently as a blackbody. This means that a graybody necessarily retains its heat longer than a blackbody, which thereby invalidates the initial 255 K assumption, that of dividing irradiance by four.

**AE** ,
and treat planets as absorbing as a gray body but radiating as a black
body . This creates an error to the down side of **AE ^ %
4** ( fourth root of **AE**
) . You confirm below that the temperature of every planet is
above this erroneous value . Are they in fact much closer to the black
body calculation ? It appears the earth is quite close thus
not immune to the **correct** classical physics which
holds for every other object in the universe . It seems
"climate science" is working with an **incorrect null
hypothesis** . I don't understand what the nature of the theory
can be after this other than epicycles attempting to get back to that
correct classical hypothesis .

` SfeerPart`

```
1
= +/ SfeerPart
```

` SfeerPart`

**Tcs** , and Kirchhoff
parameters , **AE ,** for each element **. **
Given the Stefan-Boltzmann law :

```
sb : 5.6704e-008
/ Stefan-Boltzmann constant in ( W % m ^ 2 ) % K ^
4
```

Psb : {[ T ] sb * T ^ 4 }
/
Stefan-Boltzmann Law . returns W % m ^ 2

```
PgrayBall
: { +/ AE * SfeerPart * Psb x } / total
radiated power from shaded gray ball
```

```
Tdif : { -/ PgrayBall @/: ( Tcs ; x ) }
/ Difference between celestial sphere & earth
```

```
T
```

```
0.0
= Tdif T
```

**J**
and Dyalog's **APL** so anyone can elaborate the
partition as they wish , for instance , specifying grayness as a
function of latitude . Even at this level one can think of a
lot of predictions testable either thru experiment or data analysis .
I've seen the statement that the sun's temperature varies by only a ten
of a percent from max to min of its sun spot cycle . But we we're only
dealing with variations of a few tenths of a percent at most
in mean temperature .

**W%M^2 **,
just temperature . I think it useful to be able to state a fraction ,
determined completely by geometry , for the mean temperature of a
planet
heated just by the sun .

This chart shows the deviation between predicted and actual lunar surface temperatures throughout the moon’s one-month "day".

The blue zone depicts the moon's thermal handicap, the orange its advantage.

A real body exposed to the sun doesn’t heat up as fast as a
blackbody because it’s busy storing heat, conducting it internally into
itself rather than fully radiating it. So it never gets as hot. But
then it never gets as cold. Reaching its highest temperature in the
solar ** afternoon,** it begins to
cool thereafter. And as it
does so, the stored heat below now creeps toward the surface. In
effect, a real body is a thermal battery. A blackbody has no such
attributes. And this gives the moon a higher than predicted average
temperature.

As a final point, let me add that EVERY planet is warmer than predicted by a divide-by-four blackbody formula.

- 1. As one can see by the yellow band on this chart, something happens to a planet's gases at pressures above a tenth of a bar. In every case, air that had been getting cooler as it approached the planet now becomes progressively warmer, irrespective of what it’s made of -- hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, carbon dioxide... whatever.
- 2. Moreover, in every case it's apparent that air temperature would only keep rising if the planet itself (rake symbol) didn’t get in the way. As its atmospheric pressure mounts, for instance, Jupiter grows far hotter than Venus.
- 3. Finally, see how the heat lines extend beyond
the red
circles?
Each circle’s position refers to the temperature assigned to that
planet by the blackbody equation (see note). In every single case,
then, even for Mars, the actual temperature exceeds the estimate, i.e.,
the scientifically
temperature for this planet.*predicted*

Does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation apply to the Earth, then? No. There are too many other parameters (some perhaps unknown as yet) that compromise its applicability. But does this significant discrepancy bother so-called climate realists, let alone alarmists? No. In my view, both sides of the radiative forcing debate are chasing their tails, having never verified the initial assumptions of a theory they both endorse. As you say, Bob, show me the physics.

Alan Siddons

--

```
Planck : {[ f ; T ] ( 2 * h * f ^ 3 ) %
c * ( _exp ( h * f ) % Boltz * T ) - 1 }
```

** AE**
can be expanded across spectra . While simply varying a spatially
uniform flat spectrum gray parameter does not change the equilibrium
temperature , a difference in the correlation of spectra between an
object and its radiant heat sources and sinks will . Then the actual
effect of various gas spectra can be computed .

**Show
me the experimental physics .**

Source: NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheets

- Earth 254.3 Kelvin
- Mars 210.1
- Jupiter 110.0
- Saturn 81.1
- Titan 84.6 (my estimate based on its 0.22 albedo)
- Uranus 58.2
- Neptune 46.6