Which are really anonymous?

Which can unblock facebook, myspace etc, in other words: are fresh ?

Which can you recommend?

Thanks for your help,
Dschibut

P.S.: In my land, the freedom of speech is somehow limited, please give me a hint, if you are not sure about your recommendation.

Inscribed on his internet grave stone, “Rabbit Goulash Stew” ? or ? – Come on Eli, prove some complex virial atmospheric unknown. Become a leader, by example, inspiration, not only for Wabbit ice cube counters.

Magic of the virial can inter-relate, other atmospheric variables, more directly than Miskolczi ?

Since that note was posted, I remembered how to accelerate convergence of a numerical integral and obtained the results:
directly calculated KE = 5.08134E+23
directly calculated PE = -3.29664E+26

and hence:
KE_vt = 5.07923E+23 calculated from the equation; and

KE_vt/ KE = 0.99958 shows that agreement between the two is excellent.

Thanks, yes, I have been following the discussion at landshape.org, and I am indeed finding it very interesting.

At http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine/#comment-170534, I am having a discussion with Ferenc on the paper. You may find this interesting.

In my letter to you, posted at http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/m_questions-4.pdf, I pointed out that the proper application of the Virial Theorem leads to different results than you have in your article.

I also ask the question: “Even if we grant [KE]/[PE] = 1/2, what are the equations that specifically relate Eu and [KE], [PE] and temperature?”

I also have other questions in that note, but I would like to focus first on these.

(Sorry I’ve been on travel the last few weeks, so I wasn’t able to participate in the discussion above.)

What do you think how much your own comments worth? All over the web you contributed with quite a number…

You say the Kirchoff’s law and the Virial concept is not applicable for the
atmosphere. Why do not you try to prove it? Just because you say something it is not necessarily true. This thing is bi-directional, you also has to prove what you say. Think of Neal King’s effort regarding the Virial concept.

I showed that the atmospheres of the Earth and Mars obeys the Su=Ed/A relationship. You may call it whatever you like. Long time ago, back in Hungary I was taught that it is the Kirchhoff’s law. But simply take an atmosphere compute Ed and A and show that the Su=Ed/A relationship is not true…and then it will be fair to increase the number of your comments on the web.

- He responded initially, and said he would get back to me in August.

- Recently, I revised my original letter and sent it to him; but there was no response.

- He just recently showed up at: http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine/#comment-168893, where I pointed to the revised letter (now posted). Maybe he will respond to this.

I take it Miskolczi never responded?

From what I saw way up above, you might be talking more about self-consistency than actual empirical support. But I admit to not following those issues closely, since I have been more interested in what he was able to show logically & mathematically.

If I get a response, you’ll hear about it here first!

Thanks for your time & patience.

I remain somewhat persuaded by the apparent empirical support & feel that at the very least the mystery needs to be explained. Miskolczi’s various plots showing the computed relationship of AA & ED at various altitudes, in various atmospheric profiles, derived by various methods, cry out to me for an explanation.

However, I agree that your questions deserve a response & I can’t answer them. So I’m going to sit back & patiently wait to see if Dr. Miskolczi responds.

I’m not bringing up the issue with eqn.(4) in this letter: It takes too long to explain the background. Until I get a first real response, I prefer to stick with things that are pretty much cut-and-dried.