Debate Thread: Miskolczi semi-transparent atmosphere model

This thread debates the Miskolczi semi-transparent atmosphere model. 

The link with the easiest introduction to the subject is http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolczi_theory.htm

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
BillSheldon

I readily admit most of the equations in this go WAY over my head given the time available to review the article; but if I understand the concept correctly it’s based on an analogy I’ve always wondered about.
If I put a pot on the stove and turn up the heat until it is ready to boil, but without enough energy to make it boil, there isn’t really any change I can make to the contents of the post (presuming I don’t replace the water by a large percentage) to change that temperature. For example if I add a pinch of salt to the water I may raise the boiling point but the water will remain at the same temperature – because the overall heat available to the pot hasn’t changed.
As I’m sure you can guess the pot represents the earth, the flame the sun and the air our universe. The heat put into the pot is sapped by the universe at a constant rate.
Thus if I next add a bunch of noodles to the water what happens… well if the noodles are cooler then the water I’ll see a temporary drop in the temperature of the pot, however over time if I did nothing the equilibrium temperature of the pot would return to the same level.
Similarly if I added hot noodles the reverse would apply the overall temperature might briefly increase but because only so much energy was being added to the system the original equilibrium would eventually be restored. – (of course this isn’t a valid question on the temp of the water increasing since we aren’t claiming global warming is coming from outside our system) which leads to the actual experiment…
Finally I could have had 2 pots one with noodles and one without and in the end the temperature of the water in both pots should reach the same equilibrium point – they might need slightly different time frames to do so but the contents of the pot, so long as the contants remain primarily the same do not significantly change the equilibrium temperature of the pot’s contents.
To truly mirror our system I would need to pot to reach equilibrium with the noodles in a bag, and then slice open the bag (CO2 in the earth is represented by the noodles in the bag) and would have to see a sustained temperature difference once the bag was opened to defeat his energy model.
In other words this theory appears to pass the common sense test, but maybe I’m way off…

Mark Nodine

Let me prime the discussion a little with a comment I posted on an earlier thread that received no responses.
———————–
Does anybody know how to pronounce “Miskolczi”? His work (http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolczi_theory.htm) seems to me to be more robust than that of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161).
Although the latter has the best description I’ve seen of why the greenhouse effect works and how it differs from the atmosphere, they seem to go too far in several arguments: denying the existence of an average surface temperature of a body (because it cannot be calculated from first principles), the proposition that because the atmospheric greenhouse effect as commonly described constitutes a perpetuum mobile of the second kind the atmosphere does not provide overall warming, and their questioning of the meaning of the arrows in the radiative heating diagrams (the obvious answer being “energy”, which is conserved). On they other hand, their description of the folly of trusting GCMs, especially those that would purport to give accurate solutions to the Navier-Stokes equation from uncertain initial conditions over dozens of years, is exactly right. Their analysis left me puzzled by certain observations, such as why it becomes much colder at nights where there is no cloud cover than on nights where there is.
The analysis by Miskolczi has much more explanatory power, in my opinion, taking into account convection and the optical depth; it also makes predictions that are upheld by current measurements, such as the drop in water vapor as CO2 increases.

nice overview here.

crosspatch

I find this one statement somewhat of an over-reach:

“The observed global warming on the Earth has nothing to do with the changes of atmospheric LW absorber concentrations; it must be related to changes in the total available incoming energy (solar, geothermal, ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, etc.)”

It doesn’t take into account changes in surface land use. For example, if I paved the entire North American continent, I would expect there to be a significant change in the climate of Kansas with no change in solar input. Ripping out millions of acres of native grasses or forests and replacing them with various crops, housing developments, and asphalt roofs might result in some changes as would dams and large scale irrigation. To say that ALL observed warming MUST be caused by only solar changes is, in my opinion, a bit of a reach. BUT I will add the caveat that land use changes would tend to be step changes and their impact on a global scale would probably be minimal at this time. By that I mean that the building of Chicago probably hasn’t melted any Antarctic ice.

Bill Marsh

Interesting that the resignation of a Scientist from NASA over perceived ‘muzzling’ of his work is not newsworthy if that work goes counter to prevailing AGW sentiment, but perceived ‘muzzling’ of a scientist due to views that are not counter is front page news.

Ron McCarley

Many kudos on the 6/25 and 6/26 posts. No offense to others, but to me you have the best GW website on the web. The format changes that you made recently were very good, and you should be proud. It’s the first site that I go to each morning. BTW, I haven’t heard anything lately about earthshine. The last that I saw, it seemed as if they were trying to get a few other measurement locations on-line, to go along with a new scope. Are they coming back with more data? What’s there is several years old.
REPLY: Thanks for the kind words. As for earthshine they are still working on getting the worldwide robotic telescope network up and running.

Robert Wood

Crosspatch, his terms Sg, K and P are the “landuse” variables.
I’ve been reading the PDF of the published paper, where he takes more care in defining the terms. This, remember, is taken from a presentation so some of the verbal information is missing. The PDF is pointed to at the beginning I believe.

BUCKO36

I’m an AGW Skeptic, however I am not a climate scientist. That said, I am really interested in the assessment of Dr. Miskolczi article, by those of you who are.

crosspatch

Re: Robert Wood (11:22:24)
Agreed, the statement was in only the higher level “Thesis” section. Overall I would say Dr. Miskolczi is taking a much more “holistic” approach to atmospheric dynamics than others have in the past.
I think folks should be mindful of how the whole “global warming” thing started back when it was used as a lever to support the large scale adoption of nuclear power over coal. Then once the environMENTAL group put the kabosh on nuclear, it was kept as a lever used against fossil fuel energy in general.
It isn’t as if someone did years of research and discovered that CO2 was causing warming, it came about from the opposite direction. People with a certain world view wanted there to be warming from CO2 and so they have built various ways of validating the idea. And that is why there is so much “push back” from the AGW crowd. It is because we aren’t invalidating some scientific conclusion, people who find no evidence of AGW are basically invalidating the world view of these people which is something very personal and some personality types experience that as adversarial on a personal level. Their conclusions are a closely held part of them and to criticize those conclusions is to criticize them personally. That is why they lash back with personal attacks against those would would question them … becuse they feel personally attacked.
AGW has no basis in science. It is a religion. And when you invalidate someone’s religion, they can become extremely defensive. You have to approach it as you would trying to tell a devout Christian about evolution.

David Segesta

That paper is well beyond my knowlege of the subject. But I hope other skeptics, who are ture climate scientists such as Lindzen and Spencer, will review it.

David Segesta

Nuts – typo! That should read …”true” climate scientists…

Jim Arndt

OUCH my brain hurts I think I need a brain surgeon. Man the equations made my brain go numb about page 19. Very well articulated paper. Clearly spells out the problem the current AGW theory has. That is why they can’t explain past CO2 to temperature issues. The number are just wrong. This is a book mark page for me.

swampie

Re: Crosspatch

AGW has no basis in science. It is a religion. And when you invalidate someone’s religion, they can become extremely defensive. You have to approach it as you would trying to tell a devout Christian about evolution.

I fail to see why people who know evolution exists because they’ve seen it in action/nudged it along a bit cannot simultaneously pray for rain and believe in a higher power. I have been known to darken the doorway of a Christian church myself a time or three, and I can envision the dinosaur in the poultry.
Re the Miskolczi paper, I’m still wading through but found that Ken Gregory gives a pretty good cheat sheet version for the people that are not math majors.

deadwood

Like many other who are skeptical, my own expertise is in a field other than climate physics. I too will be lurking back here to see what folks with a better uderstanding of the physics think on Miskolczi’s (Miss Coal Ski?) alternative to modeling CO2 in infinitely thick atmospeheres.

stas peterson

Dr. Mikolczi’s theory appears to be correct; or at least to be more correct, than the classical theory with its simplifications from a 100 years ago.
Newton said that: “Force is proportional to the derivative of Momentum”. Or F= d(mv)/dt. Or F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt, mathematically.
Since mass m is = to a constant –> that vdm/dt =0, since the derivative dm/dt of a constant, is zero. And then Newton’s equation simplifies to F=mdv/dt. It was widely adopted, since in produced (almost) correct answers for 3 centuries.
Then a physicist said F != mdv/dt; Newton said F= d(mv)dt and that is correct. He really says that F = mdv/dt + vdm/dt and the vdm/dt term is not always = 0. Mass sometimes is a variable.
This “simplification correction” is called The Theory of Relativity.
It led to E=MC**2 and changed the World. It was merely a “simplification correction”.
Dr. Mikolczi shows where “simplification” was in error, and he provides a “simplification correction” Thinking about it, in hindsight, the “simplification correction” should be as obvious as Einstein’s correction was. After the fact, of course.
The atmosphere is obviously not infinite, for one thing. Secondly, the atmosphere extends all the way to the Earth’s surface. There is not some “discontinuity”, some piece of vacuum between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, as the “simplification” postulates.
The atmosphere is a gravitationally bound atmosphere that varies in pressure from the surface to the edge of space. Therefore, It can and does support a convection mechanism, and can use convection to move Energy about.
The atmosphere is connected to an effective infinite source of H2O at one end, and the effective infinite Vacuum at the other end.
These were all neglected in the “‘simplification” from 1928. I don’t know what kind of atmosphere that the simplification described, but it obviously doesn’t describe the reality of Earth and its atmosphere.
How could that be even marginally correct?
These changes make all the difference. It allows some continuity equations that allow for ground and near ground temperatures converging and equal, in equilibrium. Convection as an energy mover process due to gravitation. And a constant optical depth via the limitless H20 pool, at least until the Oceans dry up.
Dr. Mikolczi theory is already confirmed by existing measurements. These measurements of existing thermal profiles more correctly agree with Dr. Mikolczi calculations, and is the measured reality. Versus the “as received” warming theory that was first suggested more than a century ago.

Dishman

Mark Nodine wrote:
denying the existence of an average surface temperature of a body (because it cannot be calculated from first principles),
If that’s a fair description of what they’ve done, as Miskolczi also seems to indicate…
then it sounds to me like they’ve failed their basic thermodynamics.
If their atmosphere model does not match the actual surface temperatures, then it’s not because the surface temperature doesn’t exist, it’s because the model is wrong.

crosspatch

Swampie:

I fail to see why people who know evolution exists because they’ve seen it in action/nudged it along a bit cannot simultaneously pray for rain and believe in a higher power.

I agree with that 100% and believe that many do (including me).
The underlying point was, though, that some people will always call for people who question their world view to be put on trial. It has been that way since before the time of Copernicus.

D Buller

BillSheldon,
If you put a lid on your pot, would not the water temperature increase even though you do not increase the heat applied to the heat? If you prevent some heat from escaping, would not the water temperature increase?

leebert

Mark Nodine:
I’m glad to see that the observed decrease in RH in the mid- to upper- troposphere is being met with a real and ready model created by an expert. As the middle troposphere at 400 mb cools markedly it helps the warmer and damper lower troposphere continue to regulate its preferred temperature range. IOW, the real GHE is at the surface and its warming is both cooling and drying the middle troposphere.
It’s as though the lower atmosphere not only saturates H2O but as it saturates it acts as a barrier to more H2O rising higher, thus drying the middle troposphere. And with more energy retained near the surface, the middle altitudes cool. But with the middle altitudes cooling they offset some of the surface warming, bringing the system back to its preferred thermal constant.
It’s notable that according to the climate models this cooling was only expected at higher in the tropopause and stratosphere, which have warmed slightly since Pinatubo. Maybe that’s b/c the climate models also wrongly modeled a constant RH across all altitudes (another oversimplification recently identified by other researchers). Likewise the air over Antarctica has also been found to be drier than expected, hence being markedly less prone to warming.
It might also reflect upon the paleo record where , with both CO2 & WV lagging behind the temperature rise. The paleo WV record (proxied via light oxygen) tracks much more consistently with interglacial temperatures than CO2 ever has!
IOW this validates the inability of CO2 to drive temperatures past a certain saturation point. Since CO2 can only contribute so much before effect and metaeffect saturate, temperatures might continue to climb for other reasons.
http://i32.tinypic.com/28h3dqh.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg

Philip_B

This goes to the heart of the Forcings Model of the Earth’s climate.
Simply put, the Forcings Model says any change to energy inputs results in climate warming or cooling (using some multiple that includes feedbacks).
If the Earth’s climate is in dynamic equilibrium, then forcings have no (significant) effect. And everything the IPCC and most climate scientists say is irrelevant. Put another way, feedbacks swamp forcings.
Which leads to the interesting question – If feedbacks swamp forcings why does the climate change at all? And we know that it does – glacial and interglacial phases of the current ice age.
The answer is that things that affect feedbacks drive the Earth’s climate (as well as oscillations such as PDO and AMO). So the primary determinants of climate change are galactic cosmic rays, dust and particulates, and irrigation.
These are things that affect phase changes of water and the net amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
IMHO, as always.

From the Climate Audit forum: http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=161.
There’s 286 posts in response to the thread, and it may be useful to reference. The conversation over there has mostly been centered around the math/physics. Because they are currently disecting that side of the debate over there, and because it seems that the CA responders seem to know what they’re talking about, we can still be useful and use his description of the atmosphere and determine if his predictions about a compensating (through a decrease in water vapor), saturated greenhouse effect can be indepently confirmed in observations.
David Stockwell has also made several posts on the topic, giving the clearest description of Miskolczi’s theory I’ve seen: http://landshape.org/enm/category/audits/miskolczi/.
His posts were made in a relevant order, so start at the bottom and read up.
Also relevant to this debate is how Miskolczi’s theory effects paleoclimate interpretation. Here is Miklos Zagoni’s (a Hungarian physicist) powerpoint presented at the ICCC, entitled “Some paleoclimate consequences of Dr. Miskolczi’s new greenhouse theory”: http://www.heartland.org/newyork08/PowerPoint/Tuesday/zagoni.pdf
There are other paleoclimate consequences of this theory, including the attribution of the cause of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release).

James Van Winkle

I am happy to see this thread as I was hoping for more eyes looking at this theory. I found this web site that has picked the theory apart, and might be of interest. http://landshape.org/enm/category/science/climate/page/2/
A couple of things to note, previous papers by Miskolczi laid the ground work for this paper, and Miskolczi views the atmosphere as a heat engine with corrected boundary conditions (one of which is no energy is coming from volcanism).
I check this web site daily as a sure bet to see new insights of the follies of GW.

“Niche Modeling” has discussed Miskolczi’s new equations too:
http://landshape.org/enm/category/audits/miskolczi/
The physics and mathematics are often beyond my ken, but this type of discussion allows some of it to sink in. It sure would be nice to have some credible experts who could explain it all to the rest of us.

Robert Wood

I recommend the link pointed to by JSH, or go directly to http://www.friendsofscience .org for a good explanation.
I like the agreement with empirical data.

evanjones

No offense to others, but to me you have the best GW website on the web.
Nobody beats the Rev!
If you put a lid on your pot, would not the water temperature increase even though you do not increase the heat applied to the heat? If you prevent some heat from escaping, would not the water temperature increase?
That makes sense to me. Also, if you added salt and the boiling point went up, so would the that of both the water and the “atmosphere”, assuming the lid was loose (like the “lid” on the atmosphere) allowing steam to escape?
The tightness of the lid would affect the equation.

Thanks very much for the inlinks, and I am glad to see M’s work profiled. I hope that the posts and discussions on the landshape.org/enm site give people enough background to the issues that potential future responses to the paper from RealClimate and the literature can be reasonably assessed.
I would also like to bring your attention to the post http://landshape.org/enm/another-theory-of-global-warming/ announcing a publication in AIG where I have explored possible mechanisms for explaining surface temperature changes despite constant troposphere temperatures. This is to address one objection to M’s theory that it cannot account for surface temperature variations.

Bob Cormack

Climate models showing Enhanced Greenhouse Effect achieve the enhancement by assuming positive feedbacks to temperature increase (such as “relative humidity is constant”). Actual observation of the climate, such as the response to the 1998 El Nino, show that temperature responds as if negative feedback effects were dominate — the temperature rapidly returns to the previous value after the driving event disappears.
Miskolczi’s theory seems to predict this from first principles.
So while this doesn’t prove that Miskolczi’s theory is correct, the observations do falsify EGE. If this were a scientific debate, EGE would have been discarded long ago and alternative theories (like Miskolczi’s) would be actively sought and tested against observation.
However, when I look at the material on RealClimate (for example), I see argumentation that looks very much like they started with the assumption that EGE must be right, and whatever it takes to achieve that is assumed true. The bald-faced inversion of logic that this requires is heavily camouflaged with mathsmanship and jargon.
It reminds me of an old professor of mine in solid state physics: He was able to prove conclusively that superconductivity couldn’t exist above 16 deg K – he submitted this masterpiece for publication just 3 weeks before the first high-temperature superconductor discovery was announced. To his credit, he withdrew the paper. Today (if he was using the RealClimate playbook) he might try to claim that 77K superconductivity was “consistent” with his theory.

Rico

While reasonably proficient with numbers, I have no ability to evaluate the underlying physics. One thing does bother me though… clearly there were epochs in earth’s history where global temperature was much warmer than it is now. And they appear to be much more easily explained on the basis of gas concentrations in the atmosphere than any other variable. And yet Miskolczi’s model suggests that gas concentrations aren’t important. No discussion of Miskolczi’s model I’ve ever come across discusses that apparenty discrepancy. I think that’s kind of important. Does anyone know where I can find such a discussion?

DAV

BillSheldon (10:38:38 ) :

If I put a pot on the stove and turn up the heat until it is ready to boil, but without enough energy to make it boil, there isn’t really any change I can make to the contents of the post (presuming I don’t replace the water by a large percentage) to change that temperature.

You probably don’t want to take your analogy to this point. The boiling point is at a phase change. The temperature stops rising because, even before the bubbles appear, the exchange between the two phases has started.
It’s hardly apt to treat the atmosphere the same way.

I add a pinch of salt to the water I may raise the boiling point but the water will remain at the same temperature – because the overall heat available to the pot hasn’t changed.

True even in a glass of water at room temperature (assuming the resulting reduction of salt crystals to ions doesn’t itself appreciably change the heat balance).

To truly mirror our system I would need to pot to reach equilibrium with the noodles in a bag, and then slice open the bag (CO2 in the earth is represented by the noodles in the bag) and would have to see a sustained temperature difference once the bag was opened to defeat his energy model.

Maybe I’m totally misreading what you are saying but opening that bag would be the same thing as releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Think of releasing more as taking a blanket out of a knapsack on a cold night an wrapping yourself with it. Let’s ignore the fact that this type of blanket blocks convection instead of radiation because energy loss is still energy loss. The blanket was probably at the same temperature as you but your skin temperature will now rise to a new equilibrium. CO2 blocks radiation but the idea is roughly the same.

It seems to me that the major argument in AGW is that CO2 heating causes more water vapor. Now there are some problems with this. RH depends on the temperature and it’s the raised temperature which is causing the problem. So the only real test of AGW theory would be to show that the temperature (or humidity) SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING ELSE!
But there’s really no way to predict what the measurements should have been. The next best hope would be to show a correlation between CO2 rise and temperature. The AGW’ers however are stuck with the fact that nature swamps any change so drawing any correlation is nigh impossible.
Nature is likely far more diabolical. There MUST be one or more negative feedback mechanisms in place. I can’t believe the Earth’s atmosphere is neutrally stable (picture a kid’s marble on a flat plate). The only way to achieve POSITIVE stability is with negative feedback (picture the same marble in a mixing bowl). If it weren’t positively stable, it would have runaway long ago at the slightest change in parameters such as the sun getting ever so slightly brighter or more CO2 occurring because of a volcanic eruption.

crosspatch

“One thing does bother me though… clearly there were epochs in earth’s history where global temperature was much warmer than it is now”
The last interglacial period was warmer than this one has been. Sea levels were some 40 to 60 feet higher than today. Trees grew farther North. The Arctic was probably ice-free in summer.
And the polar bear survived.

Robert Wood

Rico, The gross (large) variations in the Earth’s cl;imate are due to eternalities, such as passing through cosmic duist clouds, precession of the equinoxes, variations in the Sun etc.
The theorem here that the earth’s atmosphere maintains a maximal “greenhouse” effect assumes a constant external input of energy.

Robert Wood

Sorry tyupo correction for clarity
Rico, The gross (large) variations in the Earth’s climate are due to externalities, such as passing through cosmic dust clouds, precession of the equinoxes, variations in the Sun etc.
The theorem here that the earth’s atmosphere maintains a maximal “greenhouse” effect assumes a constant external input of energy. In fact, the whole end point of the theory is that gloabl warming or cooling can only be produced by external variations.

DAV

DAV (15:42:40) :

Maybe I’m totally misreading what you are saying but opening that bag would be the same thing as releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Erratum: sentence should have read: “Maybe I’m totally misreading what you are saying but opening that bag would NOT be the same thing as releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.”

Michael Hauber

Why do they throw all those letters in the equations without defining most of them? Is there some list somewhere where I can find out what ‘P’ is? Is this supposed to be common knowledge if you’ve done a ‘climate 101’ course?
Apparently K, P0 and P are listed as a ‘radiative flux’ of ‘non radiative origin’.

Nick Stokes

As Carl W says, the most extensive debate has been at CA. I’ve been a detractor of the paper there, under my blogname of pliny. The main items of the case against are:
1. The whole theme of the analysis as something that undermines current AGW practice is wrong. Dr Miskolczi’s modelling is of a gray-body atmosphere (no spectral lines or shapes). No GCM or practical climate study would use such an assumption, or use any gray-body theory due to Milne. A gray-body model is sometimes used for teaching purposes to convey concepts.
2. The paper is presented as a physics-based theoretical analysis. It is based on three fundamental errors:
a. Kirchhoff’s Law, which is completely mis-stated. KL says that emissivity equals absorptivity. These are coefficients, which are used with other environment variables (temperature, incident radiation) to determine actual emittances and absorbances (total energy amounts). Dr Miskolczi simply assumes the emittances and absorbances can be equated.
b. The Virial Theorem. People who know about this scratch their heads here, because it is a principle which can be important in stars, but applied to Earth just describes the hydrostatic balance of the atmosphere. Dr Miskolczi’s statement is totally mystifying – he says that because of some relation between energies, two fluxes must have a certain relation. No-one can work that out.
c. A third equation, (7) in the paper and on this site. Dr Miskolczi has two equations which describe the result of applying conservation of energy to the Earth and the atmosphere, the two entities in his simple model. In the paper he introduced (7) as a third, but never said over what entity or region energy balance was being assessed. In an earlier version of this on-line “proof”, he sought to invoke conservation of momentum instead – a different principle, and very strange in the context. In this latest version, it sounds like it’s back to energy conservation, but eq (7) still makes no sense.
So with the physics not really working so well, he (or Zagoni) says now on this site
“Regardsless of the names and laws referred to in their derivation, the equations of Dr Miskolczi given in the points 3.-9. above are original and proved to be valid.”
3. So the proof is now, presumably, held to be empirical. But what does empirical mean here? In the paper, Dr M makes frequent reference to plots of 228 points, which seem to have reasonable regression fits. But what are the points? He sometimes talks of (“selected”) radiosonde readings, but there isn’t much detail offerred. And sometimes of simulations, using his code “HartCode”. In this site he assembles the results to prove the main principles, but the claim to their observational nature is somewhat undermined by the fact that he has similar graphs for Mars. It seems clear the results are simulations – how real-world observations fit in is quite unclear.
The key finding, often quoted, is that the greenhouse effect is limited. This result follows from his claim that the optical depth has a theoretical value (about 1.84), so if more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, somehow water is squeezed out. But that theoretical depth is based on a claim that the atmosphere must somehow optimise cooling, which he never justifies. Towards the end of this “proof” site, he lists comments from some of the referees of journals that rejected his paper. I don’t know why; the referees seem to make very strong points. On this particular point, one said: ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….” Quite right – the radiative balance can’t remove or add gases to the atmosphere.

Michael H.: see comment at 11:22:24 above

Alan D. McIntire

In response to RICO: Temperatures in the past were also strongly
influenced by the location of continents and seas.
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc320/Campbell_Cont_Drift_Climate.pdf
– A. McIntire

Bruce Cobb

clearly there were epochs in earth’s history where global temperature was much warmer than it is now. And they appear to be much more easily explained on the basis of gas concentrations in the atmosphere than any other variable. It’s the sun that drives climate, not atmospheric gasses. Yes, of course there’s a “greenhouse effect” – no one has ever said otherwise. It’s overall role in climate, although important is rather limited, though. You might try this paper by David Archibald: The Past and Future of Climate .

Robert Wood

Michael Huaber,
You are looking at a presentation, without the words. If you follow a couple of the links suggested here, by me among others, you will come to the original paper, wherein the Ps and Qs are defined.
But remember, this analysis and theory is not about a “radiative budget” but an “energy budget”. This takes into account thermal expansion of the atmosphere (gravitational energy) as well. The specific details are not required top sketch teh theory. But look at the match of theory and reality.
The variable “K” basically stand for the non-radiative processes (Konvection, get it?). The radiative part is Sg, or as he unfortunatley decides to rename it Su, which confusing. P0 stands for all those things, inclduign human heating and tidal heating and volcanoes, that are not included in other theories. They all inject energy into the atmosphere.

Robert Wood

OK I don’t know much about the virial theorem, but I understand its application in this situation is to account for the effect of heat expansion and gravitation on the energy content of the atmosphere. I mean, ultimately, if the atmosphere got warmer, wouldn’t it also expand? I would have expected something more complex, but it is a first approximation, which no other theory contains.

Rico

Robert Wood (15:56:11) : “Rico, The gross (large) variations in the Earth’s cl;imate are due to eternalities, such as passing through cosmic duist clouds, precession of the equinoxes, variations in the Sun etc. ”
Given the paleoclimate record, none of those things seem likely. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say?

Robert Wood
DAV

Michael Hauber (16:17:39) :

Why do they throw all those letters in the equations without defining most of them? Is there some list somewhere where I can find out what ‘P’ is? Is this supposed to be common knowledge if you’ve done a ‘climate 101′ course?

It’s an all too common practice in practically every field. One of the reasons is that some things are so common it becomes background to the author. It becomes almost the equivalent of Internet abbreviations and idioms. The one distinguishing characteristic though is that it’s really hard to do a search for ‘P’ or ‘K’ and still get something relevant.
To answer your last question: I seriously doubt that anyone can.
You may (or may not) find this helpful. The book refers to the K and Psi operators. Anyway, they seem to be used in the same way. My guess: Psi is probably being transliterated as P. Short-Wave Solar Radiation in the Earth’s Atmosphere: Calculation … . CAUTION: not light reading IMO.
I came across the book by Googling “K P0 P radiative model”

Robert Wood

Ah, Rico, what do I do with you?
What would the internal causes be for the known and accepted gross climatic variations in the Earth’s history? There are facts, and there are explanations. What are your explanations? Mine are externallities. Your’s?

Nick Stokes

Robert W,
Yes, for the atmosphere, the virial theorem just amounts to the ideal gas law plus gravity. So it expands when warmer.

MrMGA

Have any of you read the posts about Miskolczi on the Real Climate message boards? Go to the search engine on their web site and enter “Miskolczi” to retrieve all relevant posts. They trash Miskolczi’s paper pretty good. 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.

Steve in SC

I have always said it is a thermodynamic / heat transfer problem.
Physicists tend to be long winded. I dare say that a solution can be had and integrated over the entire planet with potentially different boundary conditions over each one. I’m also not sure that Kirchoff is the guy to invoke in this case. For practical solutions I would turn loose some good Mechanical Engineers with experience in Thermodynamics and heat transfer. That would surely give the physicists gas though.

retired engineer

“If you put a lid on your pot, would not the water temperature increase even though you do not increase the heat applied to the heat? If you prevent some heat from escaping, would not the water temperature increase?”
Certainly. Without a lid, you reach a point of equilibrium, heat in=heat out. Add the lid, the point shifts. Heat in will eventually equal heat out, but requires a higher temperature to achieve it.
As one who has boiled over many a pot of pasta…)

Rico

Robert Wood (17:40:29) : Ah, Rico, what do I do with you?
A little data might help. And then an explanation consistent with those data. Take the Permian/Triassic period, for example. The data indicate that lots and lots of species died. The data indicate that large amounts of volcanic activity occurred around the same time. The data indicate that the climate got cold for a while then much warmer for a very, very long time. All of those events are hard to explain on the basis of “externalities”. The same could be said for the more recent K/T boundary. The evidence there suggests that a large celestial object impacted the earth, followed by a period of intense volcanic activity, leading to a prolonged period of climate change. That again is hard to explain on the basis of “externalities”.
So… what’s your data? Or do you just have explanations independent of data? If it’s the latter, what do I do with you? Lol!

Alan D. McIntire

Nir Shaviv, the Israeli astrophysicist, has some articles on his website regarding the effect of the galaxy’s spiral arms and cosmic rays on ice ages:
http://www.sciencebits.com/myresearch
Also, you must consider the location of continents and oceans in affecting climate. During the Mesozoic Era, most continents were closer to the equator, also the Arctic wasn’t closed off as it is now, and there was no continent covering the Antarctic. Warm equatorial water could more easily flow to the Arctic and Antarctic regions, moderating climate throughout the earth.
With an ice covered Antarctic, we get lower ocean levels. Also, the Arctic is relatively closed off from the rest of the world’s oceans, limiting the moderating effects of equatorial current flow. This would have a much more significant effect on climate than CO2 levels- A. McIntire