( Boy I wish there were a way to preview posts . )
Wayne , your question @ May 16, 2010 , 05:27 highlights why I continue
to judge the quality of understanding of the basic physics apparent on
both sides of the conflict is pathetic . Certainly , so called "climate
science" has become detached from the fundamental quantitative constraints well understood a 100 years ago .
I keep being given lists of $100 textbooks to slog thru to understand the problem . But if any of them had the definitive quantitative , ie , equation by equation , experimentally confirmed , explication of planet/atmosphere temperature profile , we would not be having this controversy . There certainly has been no Chandrasekhar in the field and that strikes me as bizarre given that these issues appear much simpler than those he analyzed .
be so bold as to assert that my own implementation , in several modern
Array Programming Languages , of the StefanBoltzmann & Kirchhoff
relationships for non-uniform gray ( flat spectrum ) spheres with
arbitrary surrounding heat sources and sinks is the clearest and most
general explication of the first-cut calculations which explain all but
about 3% ( 9 kelvin ) of our temperature .
I'll attempt to insert here the graph of the "Calculated &
Observed Temperatures of Inner Planets" which I thank Dr Bill for his
complement about the other day . If it didn't show , you can find it on my website .
will see how enormously higher the surface temperature of Venus is
compared to a gray ball in its orbit simply heated by the sun . Given
the StrfanBoltzmann P = sb * T ^ 4 relationship , where the sb
constant drops out of any comparisons of temperatures between bodies ,
the surface of Venus is trying to radiate more than 16 times the amount
of power it is receiving from the sun .
Sorry dr.bill , Wayne 's right on his intuition that "black"
and "white" balls will come to the same temperature . That was
Kirchhoff's incredible insight 151 years ago . But it applies to flat
spectra so that the correlation between the ball's spectrum and its
heat sources and sinks will be the same . That's why the graybody
temperature is the first term to be extracted . It is orthogonal to
spectrum , thus makes no difference whether dark or light .
I have never found a quantitative definition of "the greenhouse effect" on the web -- which is all that matters . So I'll give one which makes sense :
GHE is the ratio of the correlations between the spectra of an object and its radiant sources and sinks
since this is the ratio between absorptivity from sources versus
emissivity towards sinks . Given any set of object and source and
sink spectra , the equilibrium temperature can be calculated .
I'll leave as a homework assignment for those who understand
vector geometry what spectrum of an object will maximize its
temperature for a simple situation like our sun's spectrum versus the
3k cosmic background .
If the mean surface temperature of a planet exceeds that value , then it must have an internal source of heat .
I don't have the time , you will find on my website that I am offering
$300 to any student who elaborates the handful of lines of my
algorithms to calculate values for full spectra - and calculates the
equilibrium temperature for a bunch of spectra of interest such as pure
CO2 . That's well below minimum wage but the answers should be most