tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post21786602241476563..comments2017-09-08T23:21:59.273-04:00Comments on DENIS RANCOURT ON CLIMATE: Denis Rancourt on climate science and on climate politicsDenis Rancourthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-77565185552852441722014-02-26T10:36:53.924-05:002014-02-26T10:36:53.924-05:00Ooops, the last comment was deleted by accident! I...Ooops, the last comment was deleted by accident! It was, from Ron C:<br /><br />"Denis, Thanks for your response. I see that I mistook the 2ß in equation 6 as doubling, when in fact the sign is negative. So I take your point about the radiative flux.<br /><br />If I understand your comment correctly, it must also be true that ß– a in equation 5 will be negative, LWR from earth surface being greater than LWR from the atmosphere. (unless eat makes a difference).<br /><br />Do you have any comment about the ATE analysis I suggested above?"<br />Denis Rancourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-9061544083250532982014-02-26T09:13:10.840-05:002014-02-26T09:13:10.840-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ron C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-84157527913437330062014-02-25T17:32:20.301-05:002014-02-25T17:32:20.301-05:00@Ron C:
Ron states:
"You then write an equa...@Ron C:<br /><br />Ron states:<br /><br />"You then write an equation where you double the amount of radiation emitted, based upon the double surface area of the atmospheric "shell". This then results in calculations where the full amount of earth radiation is returned to the earth, i.e. Half of a doubled amount. Later on, with a multilayered atmosphere, there are multiple doublings and a hugely enhanced "greenhouse effect."<br /><br />This is not credible. You cannot have double the radiation from a doubled surface area; rather each of the 2 atmospheric surfaces will radiate with half the intensity. I do not accept your enhancement of the "greenhouse effect.""<br /><br />My response:<br /><br />No, you misunderstand the equations and the physics that leads to these equations.<br /><br />Your statement "the full amount of earth radiation is returned to the earth" is incorrect. Rather, half of the longwave radiation emitted by the atmospheric shell goes to the earth, while the other half goes to space. And, the thus returning radiation is NOT equal (in intensity) to the longwave radiation from the earth's surface. Each body (earth's surface, or atmosphere shell) has it's own emission intensity dependent solely on its own temperature. The atmosphere shell, like any opaque emitter, must radiate from all its free surfaces, here, the inner surface of the shell, and the outer surface.<br /><br />You need to think about it more. That is how black body emission works. Hope that helps.<br />Denis Rancourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-17640944019700361532014-02-25T10:01:52.623-05:002014-02-25T10:01:52.623-05:00Denis, I recently came upon your website and publi...Denis, I recently came upon your website and publications and have read with interest. I share your skepticism about AGW and commend you for your activism against CO2 hysteria.<br /><br />I have some concerns and comments regarding your paper on Radiation Physics Constraints on Global Warming. I liked your approach, but have some difficulties with the logic and some equations. My comments are intended to be constructive and come from a lay scientist who wants a more solid foundation regarding climate science.<br /><br />My issue starts with this statement in your paper:<br /><br />"In this case, the longwave emission of the atmosphere (eq.1) up and out is equal to its longwave emission down and in (which is fully absorbed by the planet surface, ~ 1). In addition, since the atmosphere layer emits both up and down, it has a thermal emission surface of 2A in area for every surface of area A of the planet surface."<br /><br />You then write an equation where you double the amount of radiation emitted, based upon the double surface area of the atmospheric "shell". This then results in calculations where the full amount of earth radiation is returned to the earth, i.e. Half of a doubled amount. Later on, with a multilayered atmosphere, there are multiple doublings and a hugely enhanced "greenhouse effect."<br /><br />This is not credible. You cannot have double the radiation from a doubled surface area; rather each of the 2 atmospheric surfaces will radiate with half the intensity. I do not accept your enhancement of the "greenhouse effect."<br /><br />FWIW, here is the analysis I would like to see, building upon and modifying the good work you have already done.<br /><br />I want to see a physical analysis of the effect of earth's atmosphere upon the surface temperature of the earth. I would call this the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE), and totally avoid the term "greenhouse" and all the confusions it brings.<br /><br />The elements of the analysis should be as follows:<br /><br />A) The average temperature of the the earth surface<br /><br /> As you say, we know from averaging thermometer readings that the earth's surface temperature is about +14C on average.<br /><br />B) The temperature on the surface if everything stayed the same, except there were no atmosphere (As you say, Hypothetical, since many things such as vegetation, animals, ice coverage, etc. depend upon air)<br /> You calculate the predicted surface temperature of an Earth with no atmosphere but otherwise unchanged is –4C.<br /><br /><br />C) The temperature on the surface if the atmosphere is present but without any IR active gases <br /> I don't see this in your paper. I want to see the effect from the 99% of the mass of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) from conduction and convection and the thermal gradient from gravity and pressure.<br /><br />D) The temperature of the surface if the atmosphere is present with H2O but without non-condensing IR active gases<br /> I don't see this in your paper. Here I want to know the effect of H2O with evapotranspiration (latent heat and also clouds) and radiative activity, interacting with the bulk of the atmosphere.<br /><br />E) The effect of non-condensing IR active gases, principally CO2, is the remainder, and can now be calculated by subtracting D from A..<br /><br />F) The effect of human use of fossil fuels can then be calcuated as a portion of E.<br /><br />I would find such an analysis compelling, though I lack the skill to produce it myself.<br /><br />Ron C.Ron C.noreply@blogger.com