What are you talking about? Miskolc's further PROVES that AGW is real and serious and happening now! Miskolc is not a denier. His conclusions SUPPORT the IPCC!
@OvoidCranium and Campbell the editor of Nature doesn't?
Why do you think he was excluded from the investigation into the UEA emails?
These emails actually give away the fact that a small group of scientists who are not worthy of the name conspired to interfere with the peer review system.
Now can you stop you irrelevant attacks and refute the paper?
@joshcryer the second rate science fiction writer?
Yeah right no one has yet debunked it in the peer reviewed literature Levenson makes some very basic errors that he would never be able to get through like assuming the atmospheric pressure can do work on the rigid surface.
@joshcryer neither are you so that puts you on equal footing. It's Miskolczi's papers that have passed peer review and have stood for 6 and 3 years without effective refutation.
@OvoidCranium The "journals" he was printed in are third rate and not recognized by the peer review at large. His papers would not make it in to any credible journal.
@OvoidCranium For an example, the editor for Energy and Environment, Boehmer-Christiansen, has confessed that she is allowing her political agenda to affect her editorializing.
Sorry your data is old, Per, Jim White, Director of CU Institute of Arctic Ice & Alpine Research. A mere 12.500 years ago the Earth's atmosphere heated up 20 degrees F in a 50 year time period. Dr. White studies Greenhouse Gases trapped inside Ice Cores. Global Warming occurs with or without human input. Greenhouse Gases are pushing 390.
Yesterday at 9:14am I don't believe this but does it have anything to do with your study? Please friend facebook Jim Cunningham, so we can clear this up.
Sir, I believe in you and trust your study. I am not an expert so I would like to know what you think of this comment in response to your post.
Says your info old Per, Jim White, Director of CU Institute of Arctic Ice & Alpine Research. A mere 12.500 years ago the Earth's atmosphere heated up 20 degrees F in a 50 year time period. Dr. White studies Greenhouse Gases trapped inside Ice Cores. Global Warming occurs with or without human input. Greenhouse Gases are pushing 390.
"part winner of a Nobel Prize". Please. There were 2500 IPCC reviewers. Is someone who reviewed a paper by Einstein is a part winner of a Nobel prize? Kiehl and Ramanathan don't derive g_a as a constant but as a number that depends on the scale of the greenhouse effect. For the claim that the greenhouse effect is a constant to make any kind of sense, you have to explain how Venus has such a hot surface. This is not a theoretical result, it arises from curve fitting. Correlation is not causation.
Only about 60 actually participated. Many of the much touted "2500" had no idea they were included and some asked for their names to be removed. IPCC refused. One had to threaten suit to have his name removed.
@jwhat01 This would be Paul Reiter. He alleges that the IPCC ignores evidence then goes on to claim that many other scientists asked for their names to be removed with no effect. His evidence? Nothing. Not a single name. Knowing many scientists as I do it is NOT credible that many scientists have asked for their names to be removed from IPCC reports and have kept quiet when their request was not honoured. Scientists care a lot about their reputation. Most of them anyway. Maybe not Reiter.
You most certainly are confused. I'm not trying to make a fool of you. Check the facts. The number of 2500 that I quoted was reviewers. The only person I know who made a big deal of having his name removed was an author. It certainly is not true that there were only 60 reviewers. In fact a good number of deniers happily cite the fact that they are a reviewer as if that was some sort of qualification (it's not: volunteering to review is a fairly open process).
Just so you know, there arent 2500 "climate scientists". Your 2500 reviewers list includes all kinds of hangers on like zoologists, economists, politicians and activists. They may as well have added you to the list. There are only about 60 scientists who actually contributed to the IPCC reports. And the politically charged, non-scientific summary statement is made without regard to their opinions, and makes claims that the authors work does not. As you said before...check your "facts."
You obviously did not read my original comment very closely. I made no claim of that the reviewers are all climate scientists. In fact I ridiculed the claim that an IPCC reviewer is a "part winner of a Nobel Prize". It seems you are agreeing with me so there's no cause for further argument.
You made and stated poor assumptions about my understanding of things I never commented on. If YOU read carefully you will see that. You are/were the only one "arguing."
As an aside, with all the lies and sloppy work of the IPCC being exposed each week, I would not put anything past their leadership and colleagues in their quest for riches, power, prestige and control.
Having seen their admitted fraud, I will not believe another thing they say. A useless organization at this point.
"Mr Miskolcsi's theorm is like fairies in the garden" [sic].
Considering that it is indeed a scientific paper, if it truely was as much bunk as you say it is than it should be easily debunked empirically. Science is not ignored because a different scientist feels that it's just a bunch of hoobaloo. That's not the way science is done. Everything is scrutinized and falsified if it can be. So your argument is crap.
Did I use or imply either the word daily or forecast in my post, brainiac? He says that only a variation in the heat input can effect global temps. You don't even have to run the numbers to see that even in theory that's bs. And as I said, the observations comparing solar output and global temp put the kabosh on this and all other pure solar forcing theorems.
One set of data one moment in time. This is like a naturalist making population predictions from the elephants spotted in a single day. Worse, even as we have centuries worth of climate data. This guy is almost bad as LaRouche, who thought he could model all economics on a single diff. eq..
Better than me explaining,just google the author and go to RealClimate,there are two very good evaluations of the paper in question,only difference is they explain and say bollocks scientifically,enjoy.
I would say that after reading it isn't clear who is right here. I am not sure.. I am worried that the authors of real climate seem in most of their articles to ignore trends such as the atmosphere becoming less humid, even though their models assume the opposite and it is one of the biggest feedback..
"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." Real Climate
No look at the data for relative humidity of the upper troposphere...
Clear declining trend..
Now the mechanism may not be above but something is pushing out water..
That would suggest a problem with their ability I should think. If you can't understand and they can't understand it then you really don't know if if it's bollocks or not.
I can see where you're coming from gerjanp,but I really don't think it is a problem with the ability of the climatologists,I think our Mr Miskolczi's even got himself confused!!!
And of course that happens sometimes,especially when your talking bollocks.
No wonder science journals would not touch it,but no doubt he will be a legend in his own lunchtime.
However,look on the bright side,it got a lot of the deniersaurs mildly excited for a while.
What makes you think that? Miklos seems to understand it well enough.
You don't even understand the paper, and you say it's bollocks this makes you a real fruitcake :- a persistent one with a persistent delusion. You can't even point out what or who it misrepresents so you can't even say what makes it a strawman. Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
Yeh,maybe strawman was slightly inappropriate but let's be fair it is confusing and hard to categorise!!and I really do think Mr Milkolczi's has got his knickers in a twist.
Like I say it is a load of convoluted bollocks,but no doubt it makes you happy gerjanp and that must be nice for you.
What makes me happy arry is seeing you making such a fool of yourself by saying something you don't even begin to understand is bollocks.
If you want to make an argument that something is boolocks you are going to have to explain why it is and I'm afraid that the fact the you don't understand it doesn't cut it.
Eu is a flux of energy from the atmosphere into space - but he claims it "represents" the total kinetic energy of the atmosphere. Su is the flux of energy from the ground (at least, if going through his rather odd list of assumptions we take the point Su = Sg in his diagram figure 1), but he claims it "represents" the total gravitational potential energy, because the surface temperature is related to the total gravitational potential through the surface pressure and density.
He does not explicitly state any linear relationship or other analysis that justifies the Eu = Su/2 claim. Eu depends on the absorptive properties of the atmosphere and the vertical temperature profile, which doesn't seem to be derived or discussed here at all.
It does happen that for Earth, Eu is roughly half of the surface radiative flux, so Miskolczi's relationship roughly holds for our planet. But it sounds like he "guessed" that it was some sort of universal law based on looking at the parameters for Earth, rather than actually deriving it from the physics of the situation. At least I don't see any physical basis for the claim in this paper, and it's certainly not obvious from the meanings given to the terms here.
You can compute total internal kinetic energy from the molecular formula for a gas - the average of 1/2 mv^2 = 3/2 kT. That means total kinetic energy = 3/2 n R T (n = number of moles of gas), or total kinetic energy = 3/2 P V (for a small region at constant pressure and temperature - you would need to integrate over the range of temperatures in the real atmosphere to get the proper number).
But what bearing does this have on outgoing thermal radiation (E_U) from the atmosphere? If the atmosphere absorbs most infrared radiation then there's going to be some rough top-level layer of the atmosphere (the photosphere) from which most of the outgoing thermal energy is coming; if temperature in this region is T_A then E_U would be given by the Stefan-Boltzmann relation, i.e. proportional to T_A^4
If the atmospheric temperature was roughly constant, that would give you an E_U value varying as (total kinetic energy)^4, rather than linearly, but then it also depends on the total mass of the atmosphere (the 'n' value above). In any case, the author's claim that E_U literally "represents" the total kinetic energy seems very far from reality
I've exchanged some email with the author now, and it seems pretty clear he does not have an actual derivation of this relationship from physical principles. Rather he seems to have done some simulations relevant for Earth's atmosphere, noticed that this relationship roughly held, and then claimed this analogy to the virial relationship that has no actual basis in physics. As far as I can tell, anyway....
I actually sent the author an email the other day asking that very question - how does he go from KE = PE/2 to Eu = Su/2? His response so far was not very clear, and included the word "guess" which left me a little concerned.
By adding in this relationship, Eu = Su/2, he overconstrains the problem, and that means you can get out of it just about any result you could wish, at least if you did a full analysis.
LOL he makes an issue out of the word "guess" which is totally unrelated (since it has to do with training neural nets on satellite instruments) he just repeats something addressed ages ago on climate audit forum.
BTW Eu = Su/2 is verified by satellite data as found on the Kiehl & Trenberth cartoon (and paper) in the IPPC FAQ.
In addition to all of the above [misapplication of Kirkhoffs Law, an unintelligible invocation of the virial theorem, and an incorrect and apparently inspirationally derived psuedo-energy equation (his eqn 7)], it appears that the linch-pin solution presented in Appendix B is not what it is claimed to be. It does not satisfy the required boundary conditions, nor does it have the properties required to produce Figure 3.
Yes you are right,Mikolczi is talking bollocks gerjanp.
Good job his weird and crazy notions were not taken seriously,world leaders may have chosen to abandon the Copenhagen climate talks this December!!
Can you imagine the scenario:
"Hi Barack,this is Gordon,listen it is all called off for December,apparently this guy Miskolczih has proven it all wrong,no problem after all,take the kids skiing instead.
That would be Dr Miskolczi to you nad the theorem has been published 2 years ago and no one has been able to refute it yet.
What is more you can't even state what it is but you can say its a "crackpot theory". That would have to be the best example of an empty vessel making loud noises that I've seen for a while.
Harry serious researchers continue to work with Dr Miskolczi. this is something hay I expect that you don't know.
The clowns at RealClimate promised a refutation last March and have been unable to deliver.
I'm sure they can make up their own feeble excuses and don't need the help of someone who cannot not even state what it is that he thinks is bollocks to help them.
Deary me gerjanp,you are persistent,seems like you are trying to earn yourself some undeserved kudos.
From what I can gather nobody can refute Mr Miskolczi's theorem because it does not make sense,it is unconventional,it's a dead parrot,so they ignore it.
I guess it is like formulating a new language that no one else speaks or can interpret but it is claimed to be superior to all other languages,but the claim is made in the language that no one else speaks or can interpret.
harry it might be like a foreign language to you because you don't have a background in radiation physics and remote sensing.
The reviewers at Idojaras, one of them an astrophysicist, had no difficulty wtih it Dr Zagoni who does this video explains it reasonably well. Dr Noor van Andel checked the conclusion with a different data set and got the same result had no difficulty either.
It seems only warming alarmists have serious troubles with it.
No insult there just informing you what I think of you and always have thought of you, "So you shouldn't reply right?"
If I wasn't house bound with a nasty cold I would be ignoring you. I'm just responding between sleeps and trying to get a high score in a bejewelled tournament.
NO you are misinterpreting I'm blaming the virus for doing more that just asking you if you have bought your skates yet (and not getting a higher score in Bejewelled)
However I should draw your attention to your own double standard (duplicity).
You complained about an insult yet you are quite happy to consistently insult *Dr*. Miskolzci with *Mr*
Try Niche Modeling search Miskolczi. There are direct responses from Miskolczi to the authors posted directly or in boards following the articles. You have to understand the assumptions and consequences of the model proposed.
Just to let you guys know, I'll be going offline until next week. If I don't respond, then that's why - before you jump to other conclusions. When I come back the comment count might have gone beyond 500, in which case I won't try to carry on the debate (since viewing previous posts would be impossible). This would be a shame because I've enjoyed it.
Interesting comment quoted in that paper (which you can find online, by the way) by Ernst Pringsheim, who gave a proof in 2003: "The meaning of Kirchhoffs law, however, lies in the fact that in the only physically interesting case, which is that of mixed radiation, and which consists of oscillations of infinitely many different frequencies, Kirchhoffs law is satisfied for each single frequency."
"Sorry, gave a proof in 1903. Only a century out :D"
You should read the papers you cite instead of just citing them because if you had read A. Schirrmacher, HSPS Vol. 3(2) you would know that David Hilbert complained 9 years later that there still was no adequate proof of Kirchhoff's law, but then he was a mathematician so what would he know:-P
Yes, I read it, so what? Hilbert attempted to prove it from basic axioms, got into a fair few conflicts with physicists, who were trying to prove it except with more "physical" proofs (involving verification at each step, which isn't necessary in maths) and he eventually came round to a more physical way of seeing the problem. It was eventually solved by Einstein in a way that I don't understand. But you are the one that wanted to use Kirchhoff's law to disprove the albedo effect, as I said.
Haha, you do know how pathetic that is right? It was YOU that tried to use Kirchhoff's law to prove, mathematically, that albedo is impossible. You even gave us the equation (big mistake, it would have taken me longer to get there otherwise) or at least you gave us something like it. I have used the correct form of Kirchhoff's law, as used by Planck and others, and your only objection to my reasoning is that I don't know enough physics. Seriously, come up with an argument or drop it.
You have been arguing for day now and You have not yet even begun to address my initial point that changing albedo cannot affect the equilibrium temperature of an object within the range 0 \leq albedo<1.
You have been too bloody arrogant to even ask what I mean by "you haven't even played" that is why I don't think you'll ever learn.
I've addressed it: you either haven't understood or are just being stubborn. The equation e(\nu,T) = a(\nu,T) (the form of Kirchhoff's law used by Planck and others) is not only consistent with the albedo effect, it IMPLIES the albedo effect for wavelength-dependent absorptivity.
You have so few objections to my points, completely lost without your "a = e" equation, that you are resorting to vague 'look at me I'm a physicist'-style comments that don't answer any of my points.
Trust wikipedia? Don't be silly. I've given you a version of Kirchhoff's law which is not found on wikipedia, but IS found in scholarly articles on the subject. You have simply denied that this one is valid without any justification. I've given you a mathematical deduction from that form of Kirchhoff's law which shows indeed that the albedo effect is real - it's incumbent on you to find a flaw in my argument. You haven't done so.
Absolutely and the rest of your post shows that you haven't a clue as to what I'm referring to.
You still haven't played and you are still too arrogant to ask what I mean. You have to tell, you think you are right, you think that you cannot possibly be wrong when arguing from a no physics background with a physicist with 30+ years experience.
Haha, still banging that old physicist drum. I don't really give a shit about your knowing little jokes - I'm not here to massage your ego. I presume you are talking about quantum theory, but like I say I don't care.
"I don't really give a shit about your knowing little jokes - I'm not here to massage your ego. "
I've noticed. You are here ot make a fool of yourself.
"I presume you are talking about quantum theory"
Very presumptive of you. You really aught to stop and reflect whether you really do know what others are thinking or talking about in a context that you don't even begin to understand.
I've given you 3 or 4 scholarly references that state Kirchhoff's law with a wavelength dependence. You haven't provided one reference to back up your claim that a = e is the right equation.
Just to point out: the equation a = e is the version of Kirchhoff's law found on wikipedia. ;-)
I asked you for a reference, not your anecdotal experience.
I am not appealing to my own authority, I am giving you pretty reputable sources from physics, and some incontrovertible maths. Your reference to my "authority appeals" is bizarre, to say the least.
I gave you the historical paper by Schirrnacher which included a direct quote from Pringsheim; the book by Slater; the fact that Gerlich-Tscheuschner gives the *exact same* description of Kirchhoff's law. If you have an alternative source, then give me it. I've asked several times now.
Yes I saw all of those and I have read most of them long before I ever heard of you. It doesn't matter how many authoritative tomes you produce saying the same thing all it takes is one counter example to blow them all to hell.
and e_{\lambda} = a{\lambda} does not hold for fluorescent objects, and I'm sure you have several examples of fluorescent objects in your house and if not you are wasting energy you naughty boy.
Haha, so you are now saying that the one counter-example you have actually "blows... to hell" the version of Kirchhoff's law which was the subject of such long attempts to find a proof.
Again, mentioning fluorescent objects. But not a decent source for your version of Kirchhoff's law.
"I've been reading at WUWT in the comments that there has been early snow in New Zealand again"
We had some early snow in the Alps in May already, and I'm going camping in SA next week the hot springs at Witjira are sounding good at the moment it's a long drive from Adelaide where I'm meeting a friend.
here are 2 videos for you that you may not have bothered to watch, but they show data for negative feedback. Please take the time to watch them before debating here further.
Didn't see that the post was from you, thought it was from gerjanp. The sources I've given certainly appear to be reliable, and Kirchhoff's law is supposed to be a fundamental law, not one that is open to a lot of interpretation.
Gerjanp - you say you are a physicist, but your behaviour is self-aggrandising and immature in a way no academic I've ever known would behave. You have also made many mistakes, confusing the coefficient a(\nu) with the *amount* of energy absorbed at frequency \nu on several occasions and posing bizarre questions about experimental evidence.
This debate is not about the definition of effective temperature, it is about whether the albedo effect is consistent with Kirchhoff's law.
"confusing the coefficient a(\nu) with the *amount* of energy absorbed at frequency"
You have a vivid imagination.
"This debate is not about the definition of effective temperature, it is about whether the albedo effect is consistent with Kirchhoff's law."
Your arrogance will get the better of you one day. You made the claim that changing the albedo can change equilibrium temperature based on and old wives tale about wearing dark clothes in winter.
Let me quote some of your posts: "regardless of wavelength so for earth a(\nu) \ne e(\nu) in fact nothing is emitted at the frequency it absorbed". This shows that you thought that a(\nu) = e(\nu) implied that emission at each wavelength was equal to absorption. Confusing a(\nu) with a(\nu)Q(\nu).
Again: "the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}", confusing a_\lambda with a_\lambdaQ_\lambda, once again.
regardless of wavelength so for earth a(\nu) \ne e(\nu) in fact nothing is emitted at the frequency it absorbed". This shows that you thought that a(\nu) = e(\nu) implied that emission at each wavelength was equal to absorption
You think?
Think again.
Again: "the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}", confusing a_\lambda with a_\lambdaQ_\lambda, once again.
Again nope. The BB quantity in denominator of the fractions cancel.
Since the earth emitting at different frequencies to its absorption is actually predicted by the equality a(\nu) = e(\nu) (with a(\nu) low for visible, and high for infra-red light), I can't see any other explanation of your comment.
The second comment was about fluorescence, which I don't really care about. Are you saying the earth is fluorescent? And if it is, then Kirchhoff's law doesn't apply, which gets us back to where we started. BB doesn't cancel btw.
Not really abut in a sense it is since it absorbs it's emission is not at the same wave length however if you integrate the amount it absorbs over the entire spectrum and divide that that it would absorb as a black body and do the same for the emissions you will not only find that the amounts are the same but the ratios i.e. the emissivity and absorptivity are the same. I have told you already how to test this with readily available data.
"I don't have time to root around the nasa website for data to check your claim. It is incumbent on you to come up with a decent reference for it."
Now we all know why you'll never be a physicist. Even if I gave you references and calculated it out for you you'll still have to do the due diligence to check it.
And once again: this is not an objection to my argument, nor is it a reference indicating that your version of Kirchhoff's law is the appropriate one. Your comment that I am "making a fool of" myself is laughable, since you have been unable to respond to the very clear, linear, logical statement of my arguments with clear responses.
Is not kirchhoffs law you MUST integrate ove the entire spectrum because the earth does not emit at the same frequency as it absorbs. However at equilibrium the internal energy is not changing so Q_{in}(SW) = Q_{out}(LW) regardless of wavelength so for earth a(\nu) \ne e(\nu) in fact nothing is emitted at the frequency it absorbed. Can you not see the problem with what you are
So you are using a different version of Kirchhoff's law to that stated in the book by Slater that I mentioned. This seems to me to be the hub of the question. As I said, your version of Kirchhoff's law appears to be a derived version which is valid only under one of two assumptions: that absorptivity is more or less independent of wavelength; or that the frequency range of the absorbed radiation is equal to the frequency range of the emitted radiation.
Kirchhoff himself said that at equilibrium absorptivity and emissivity cannot be dependent on wavelength but it a property of the medium. If you come up with a mathematical description you need to actually check if it works. In this case
e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T) leads to a conclusion (using Wiens displacement law) that the earth at equilibrium must radiate at the same frequency it absorbs and there fore must be as hot as the sun. Trouble is the sun cannot heat anything that much at this distance.
Lets see your experimental evidence of that. Tell me have you actually ever been in physics lab apart from a high school one?
If a=e is dependent on wave length being the same there is no other way for us not to draw that conclusion if a = e is NOT dependent on wavelength and incoming can energy be equalised by emission at other frequencies i.e. not wavelength dependent.
Np just unadulterated Kirchhoff's. If you think you have a good math description of a physical process you have to test it with experiment. In this case we can use someone else's work and use Wien's displacement law which tells us what the peak emission wavelength is at a given temperature. This tells us that for the earth to emit the same spectrum it absorbs from the sun it must be as hot as the sun for e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T) and Q_{in}=Q_{out} to hold.
oops I thought the first one got lost. anyway. Now you need to get yourself a radiometer and do some experiment's for instance a non-contact thermometer and test it on different surfaces against a contact thermometer calibrated against each other against a cavity radiator. Then you will begin to become a physicist. Until you do that you won't even have played as it were.
You are confusing the peak of e(\nu,T) with the peak of e(\nu,T)E_{BB}(\nu,T). The peak emission wavelength of the earth is NOT the same as that of the sun, with this mathematical description.
"The peak emission wavelength of the earth is NOT the same as that of the sun, with this mathematical description."
the stuff that you've been posting here I'm surprised you even noticed. Do you even know what Wien's displacement law is? The value of the peak's position is not at all dependent on emissivity.
The quantities a(\nu,T) and e(\nu,T) are *fractions*, not units of energy. You are the one that is getting confused - you have persistently mixed up the energy absorbed at wavelength \nu with the *fraction* of the energy absorbed at wavelength \nu, and so on. What made you think the peak wavelength would be the same as for the sun?
And as for your question, what does it matter whether I know what Wien's displacement law is? My mathematical deduction from Kirchhoff's law is valid.
The quantities a(\nu,T) and e(\nu,T) are *fractions*, not units of energy.
I know that take a look at the integrals and definitions of a and e and you will clearly see that they are fractions i have never thought of them as anything else.
"what does it matter whether I know what Wien's displacement law is?"
It hilites inadequate knowledge and experience of the physical realities behind the phenomena that you are trying to prove by mathematical deduction. David Hilbert made the same mistake
What, all that knowledge of physical properties that allows you to confuse the equality a(\nu,T) = e(\nu,T) with the statement that the energy absorbed at wavelength \nu is equal to that emitted at wavelength \nu? The old "well you're not a physicist so what would you know" fallback, eh? Conveniently avoiding the key question.
You haven't come up with a substantive objection to my argument, only confusion and appeals to authority.
Do I need to point out to you that this post is not a "substantive objection to my argument"? I'm still waiting.
It was you that wanted to use Kirchhoff's law to prove that albedo is wrong. You have now reversed position and tell me that it's not true, or it is but only in the way you want it to be, or only in some mystical way that a mathematician couldn't possibly understand with things like equations...
By the way, another fairly reliable source that gives my wavelength-dependent form of Kirchhoff is the following:
"Experimenting theory: the proofs of Kirchhoff's radiation law before and after Planck", A. Schirrmacher, HSPS Vol. 3(2) pp 299-335.
He also says the following: "An equivalent... formulation states that the ratio of emissive power to absorptive power is a universal function of wavelength and temperature only", ie. independent of the body. This is equivalent to e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T).
Have you ever noticed that you can leave your fluorescent tubes on for hours even days or years even and they don't keep getting hotter until they melt?
They just warm up to the equilibrium temperature at which point the total emission = total absorption and it's obvious that the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}.
Yes, once again, you are mixing up the energy absorbed at the wavelength \nu with the variable a(\nu,T) which is the *fraction* of energy absorbed at wavelength \nu. This is really quite easy, we were using capital letters for energy emitted/absorbed and small letters for (dimensionless) fractions. I haven't changed anything.
It is the physical reality is Kirchhoffs holds for the fluorescent tube but the emissivity is not equal to absorptivity on a wave length to wave length basis the absorptivity at UV wavelengths is high but it's emissivity at UV wavelengths is low.
Just to give a rough indicator. The sun is at about 7,000K, so presumably its peak power intensity is at about 400nm wavelength (I can't be bothered to work it out), ie. just in the infrared. The earth, however, is at about 300K so it's peak power emissions are at about 1 micrometre, ie. infrared. If it's reflecting a third of visible light, then emitting a third of its visible black body radiation won't make a difference - there aren't any.
On the other hand, if it's emitting two thirds of its infrared radiation, especially at longer wavelengths, then absorbing two thirds of the sun's output at corresponding wavelengths won't make much difference either - the sun's energy is primarily in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum.
"equilibrium temperature at which point the total emission = total absorption and it's obvious that the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}. "
NOTHING in my explanation implies that the emitted and absorbed radiation at each wavelength has to be equal. We have
Incidentally, to prove that these statements are equivalent: the emissive power is 4\pi r^2 E_{BB}(\nu,T)e(\nu,T), where r is the radius of the earth. The absorptive power is Q(\nu)a(\nu,T), where Q(\nu) is the energy of the solar radiation at wavelength \nu striking the earth. The ratio of these is 4\pi r^2 E_{BB}(\nu,T)e(\nu,T)/ (Q(\nu)a(\nu,T)), which is independent of the earth's surface so the same as for a black body, ie. = 4\pi r^2 E_{BB}(\nu,T) / Q(\nu). Thus e(\nu,T) = a(\nu,T).
What are you talking about? Miskolc's further PROVES that AGW is real and serious and happening now! Miskolc is not a denier. His conclusions SUPPORT the IPCC!
mphello 7 months ago
I have not long ago finished proof reading a new paper by Ferenc Miskolczi it should be out in Energy and Environment towards the end of the year.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium and Campbell the editor of Nature doesn't?
Why do you think he was excluded from the investigation into the UEA emails?
These emails actually give away the fact that a small group of scientists who are not worthy of the name conspired to interfere with the peer review system.
Now can you stop you irrelevant attacks and refute the paper?
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 5
I see right through what this guy is doing - he presupposed his conclusion!
At 3:20 he introduces "Eu = Su / 2" based on empirical data, and then ASSUMES it will always be true even if atmospheric composition changes.
nightvid08 1 year ago
@nightvid08 "based on empirical data, and then ASSUMES it will always be true even if atmospheric composition changes."
How is atmospheric composition changes going to affect hydrostatic equilibrium that actually relates the potential energy with kinetic energy?
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@nightvid08 you think it's dependent on composition then give us the correct equations showing it.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
"To disprove Miskolczi's New Law someone will need to Falsify three works: i.e.
1) Miskolczi's Data 2004.
2) Miskolczi's Theory 2007, &
3) Kiehl and Ramanathan 2006".
When you've done that please publish and put a link here. Thanks.
MountThor 1 year ago
Barton Paul Levenson completely destroys Miskolczi's poor "science": Google him since I can't post a link.
joshcryer 1 year ago
@joshcryer the second rate science fiction writer?
Yeah right no one has yet debunked it in the peer reviewed literature Levenson makes some very basic errors that he would never be able to get through like assuming the atmospheric pressure can do work on the rigid surface.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Zagoni isn't even worthy of the peer review.
joshcryer 1 year ago
@joshcryer neither are you so that puts you on equal footing. It's Miskolczi's papers that have passed peer review and have stood for 6 and 3 years without effective refutation.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium The "journals" he was printed in are third rate and not recognized by the peer review at large. His papers would not make it in to any credible journal.
joshcryer 1 year ago
@joshcryer I recognise the cry of those unable to refute the papers well. Feel free to continue in your pipe dream.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium If his theories were able to stand up to scrutiny he'd be published in the major papers already.
joshcryer 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium For an example, the editor for Energy and Environment, Boehmer-Christiansen, has confessed that she is allowing her political agenda to affect her editorializing.
joshcryer 1 year ago
Face it people, it took a Hungarian to restore sanity to the Global Warming debate!
Dr, Miskolczi is right.
He will be mentioned together with the names of John Neuman, Eugene Wiegner, Leo Szilard and Edward Teller.
Yet another gift to humanity from Hungary! 1 second ago
judomagyar 1 year ago
Face it people, it took Hungarian to restore sanity to the Global Warming debate!
Dr, Miskolczi is right.
He will be mentioned together with the names of John Neuman, Eugene Wiegner, Leo Szilard and Edward Teller.
Yet another gift to humanity from Hungary!
judomagyar 1 year ago
RealClimate? They are a part of the Hockey-stick team.
2500 Scientists? Greenpeace and WWF activists you mean.
wikeroy 1 year ago
Sorry your data is old, Per, Jim White, Director of CU Institute of Arctic Ice & Alpine Research. A mere 12.500 years ago the Earth's atmosphere heated up 20 degrees F in a 50 year time period. Dr. White studies Greenhouse Gases trapped inside Ice Cores. Global Warming occurs with or without human input. Greenhouse Gases are pushing 390.
Yesterday at 9:14am I don't believe this but does it have anything to do with your study? Please friend facebook Jim Cunningham, so we can clear this up.
cba1014 2 years ago
Sir, I believe in you and trust your study. I am not an expert so I would like to know what you think of this comment in response to your post.
Says your info old Per, Jim White, Director of CU Institute of Arctic Ice & Alpine Research. A mere 12.500 years ago the Earth's atmosphere heated up 20 degrees F in a 50 year time period. Dr. White studies Greenhouse Gases trapped inside Ice Cores. Global Warming occurs with or without human input. Greenhouse Gases are pushing 390.
Yesterday at 9:14am
cba1014 2 years ago
"part winner of a Nobel Prize". Please. There were 2500 IPCC reviewers. Is someone who reviewed a paper by Einstein is a part winner of a Nobel prize? Kiehl and Ramanathan don't derive g_a as a constant but as a number that depends on the scale of the greenhouse effect. For the claim that the greenhouse effect is a constant to make any kind of sense, you have to explain how Venus has such a hot surface. This is not a theoretical result, it arises from curve fitting. Correlation is not causation.
philipmach 2 years ago
Only about 60 actually participated. Many of the much touted "2500" had no idea they were included and some asked for their names to be removed. IPCC refused. One had to threaten suit to have his name removed.
jwhat01 1 year ago
@jwhat01 This would be Paul Reiter. He alleges that the IPCC ignores evidence then goes on to claim that many other scientists asked for their names to be removed with no effect. His evidence? Nothing. Not a single name. Knowing many scientists as I do it is NOT credible that many scientists have asked for their names to be removed from IPCC reports and have kept quiet when their request was not honoured. Scientists care a lot about their reputation. Most of them anyway. Maybe not Reiter.
philipmach 1 year ago
@jwhat01 One more thing: you are confusing reviewers with authors.
philipmach 1 year ago
Im not confusing anything
jwhat01 1 year ago
You most certainly are confused. I'm not trying to make a fool of you. Check the facts. The number of 2500 that I quoted was reviewers. The only person I know who made a big deal of having his name removed was an author. It certainly is not true that there were only 60 reviewers. In fact a good number of deniers happily cite the fact that they are a reviewer as if that was some sort of qualification (it's not: volunteering to review is a fairly open process).
philipmach 1 year ago
Im not confused, and you are not making a fool out of anyone.
jwhat01 1 year ago
Quite correct, you are doing well enough on your own.
philipmach 1 year ago
Just so you know, there arent 2500 "climate scientists". Your 2500 reviewers list includes all kinds of hangers on like zoologists, economists, politicians and activists. They may as well have added you to the list. There are only about 60 scientists who actually contributed to the IPCC reports. And the politically charged, non-scientific summary statement is made without regard to their opinions, and makes claims that the authors work does not. As you said before...check your "facts."
jwhat01 1 year ago
You obviously did not read my original comment very closely. I made no claim of that the reviewers are all climate scientists. In fact I ridiculed the claim that an IPCC reviewer is a "part winner of a Nobel Prize". It seems you are agreeing with me so there's no cause for further argument.
philipmach 1 year ago
You made and stated poor assumptions about my understanding of things I never commented on. If YOU read carefully you will see that. You are/were the only one "arguing."
As an aside, with all the lies and sloppy work of the IPCC being exposed each week, I would not put anything past their leadership and colleagues in their quest for riches, power, prestige and control.
Having seen their admitted fraud, I will not believe another thing they say. A useless organization at this point.
jwhat01 1 year ago
xxx.lanl . gov/abs/0707.1161
GCULax16 2 years ago
@ arryhuk
"Mr Miskolcsi's theorm is like fairies in the garden" [sic].
Considering that it is indeed a scientific paper, if it truely was as much bunk as you say it is than it should be easily debunked empirically. Science is not ignored because a different scientist feels that it's just a bunch of hoobaloo. That's not the way science is done. Everything is scrutinized and falsified if it can be. So your argument is crap.
pozzolane 2 years ago
Lovely theory ruined by the cold hard facts of observation.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
Its an energy balance theorem numbnuts, not your local daily forcast.
coffeenuts44 2 years ago
Did I use or imply either the word daily or forecast in my post, brainiac? He says that only a variation in the heat input can effect global temps. You don't even have to run the numbers to see that even in theory that's bs. And as I said, the observations comparing solar output and global temp put the kabosh on this and all other pure solar forcing theorems.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
And what do you think Figure 20 3:10 says? Apparently you have a different perception on "observations" than reality.
coffeenuts44 2 years ago
One set of data one moment in time. This is like a naturalist making population predictions from the elephants spotted in a single day. Worse, even as we have centuries worth of climate data. This guy is almost bad as LaRouche, who thought he could model all economics on a single diff. eq..
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
"This guy is almost bad as LaRouche, who thought he could model all economics on a single diff. eq.."
Like the guy who did that RealClimate wiki entry you don't understand it.
It was Milne who di that in 1922 Miskolczi shows what is wrong with that approach
gerjanp 2 years ago
Comment removed
magnusea 2 years ago
What a load of bollocks.
arryhuk 2 years ago
Care to enplane why?
EasyEs 2 years ago
Sorry I do not know how to enplane!!
In fact I do not know what 'enplan(e)ing' is!
arryhuk 2 years ago
Clear typo..
I'll try again.. would you mind explaining why you think this video is "bollocks".
EasyEs 2 years ago
Better than me explaining,just google the author and go to RealClimate,there are two very good evaluations of the paper in question,only difference is they explain and say bollocks scientifically,enjoy.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"google the author and go to RealClimate"
yes and read about a promise that robespierre's students would write a refutation last march.
we are still waiting
go buy your skates harry.
gerjanp 2 years ago
I would say that after reading it isn't clear who is right here. I am not sure.. I am worried that the authors of real climate seem in most of their articles to ignore trends such as the atmosphere becoming less humid, even though their models assume the opposite and it is one of the biggest feedback..
EasyEs 2 years ago
Sorry Real Climate is wrong in a big way.
"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." Real Climate
No look at the data for relative humidity of the upper troposphere...
Clear declining trend..
Now the mechanism may not be above but something is pushing out water..
EasyEs 2 years ago
Are you trying to make out that you understood it?
gerjanp 2 years ago
Of course not,not even top line climatologists understand it,it's a convoluted strawman argument,basically bollocks,but it tittilates the deniers.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"not even top line climatologists understand it"
That would suggest a problem with their ability I should think. If you can't understand and they can't understand it then you really don't know if if it's bollocks or not.
gerjanp 2 years ago
I can see where you're coming from gerjanp,but I really don't think it is a problem with the ability of the climatologists,I think our Mr Miskolczi's even got himself confused!!!
And of course that happens sometimes,especially when your talking bollocks.
No wonder science journals would not touch it,but no doubt he will be a legend in his own lunchtime.
However,look on the bright side,it got a lot of the deniersaurs mildly excited for a while.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"I think our Mr Miskolczi's even got himself confused!!!"
Again how can you say that if you don't understand the paper?
"No wonder science journals would not touch i"
The cheesecake journals didn't publish, but a peer reviewed professional meteorological journal did publish it.
It hasn't been refuted in a peer reviewed journal as yet.
gerjanp 2 years ago
My word gerjanp,you are a persistent fellow(?)
It is a none event,nobody can understand it because according to top climatologists it does not make sense,it is a convoluted strawman.
Nobody has refuted it because nobody can make sense of it,because it makes no sense.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"It is a none event,nobody can understand"
What makes you think that? Miklos seems to understand it well enough.
You don't even understand the paper, and you say it's bollocks this makes you a real fruitcake :- a persistent one with a persistent delusion. You can't even point out what or who it misrepresents so you can't even say what makes it a strawman. Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
To me it's obvious you don't.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Yeh,maybe strawman was slightly inappropriate but let's be fair it is confusing and hard to categorise!!and I really do think Mr Milkolczi's has got his knickers in a twist.
Like I say it is a load of convoluted bollocks,but no doubt it makes you happy gerjanp and that must be nice for you.
arryhuk 2 years ago
What makes me happy arry is seeing you making such a fool of yourself by saying something you don't even begin to understand is bollocks.
If you want to make an argument that something is boolocks you are going to have to explain why it is and I'm afraid that the fact the you don't understand it doesn't cut it.
gerjanp 2 years ago
No,I don't feel like a fool at all gerjanp,far from it.
And in not understanding Mr Mikolczi's 'theory' I am in good company.
However,for deniersaurs like yourself ,being led by a load of bollocks is par for the course.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"No,I don't feel like a fool at all"
LOL I boy have I news for you fools are rarely aware of their folly or they wouldn't be fools.
"nd in not understanding Mr Mikolczi's 'theory' I am in good company."
I'm sure you are but most of them I dare say wouldn't be saying a scientific paper is bollocks because they don't understand it.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Yeh I suppose I am just guessing based on what I have read, I still think it's bollocks though.
No I don't think the experts would be saying bollocks because they don't understand it,they would be saying bollocks because it does not make sense.
I don't think you understand it gerjanp,if you think you do there are plenty of blogsites where you can debate with the best experts.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"it does not make sense."
Who says it doesn't make sense?
I have no difficulty understanding it so it makes sense to me MIklos understand is so it makes sense to him, so where is the problem?
gerjanp 2 years ago
That's brilliant gerjanp,you understand it,you are the first I have come across!!
And on you tube,amazing.
Right,you will have to explain it to me,ok.
You must go onto the major blogsites,you will be a revelation.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"you are the first I have come across!!"
What???
You have been blowing off like the fool you are and you haven't even watched the video!!!!
Miklos does a pretty good job of explaining it and you obviously haven't understood it .
Then I would suggest the problem lies entirely with you.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Eu is a flux of energy from the atmosphere into space - but he claims it "represents" the total kinetic energy of the atmosphere. Su is the flux of energy from the ground (at least, if going through his rather odd list of assumptions we take the point Su = Sg in his diagram figure 1), but he claims it "represents" the total gravitational potential energy, because the surface temperature is related to the total gravitational potential through the surface pressure and density.
arryhuk 2 years ago
He does not explicitly state any linear relationship or other analysis that justifies the Eu = Su/2 claim. Eu depends on the absorptive properties of the atmosphere and the vertical temperature profile, which doesn't seem to be derived or discussed here at all.
arryhuk 2 years ago
It does happen that for Earth, Eu is roughly half of the surface radiative flux, so Miskolczi's relationship roughly holds for our planet. But it sounds like he "guessed" that it was some sort of universal law based on looking at the parameters for Earth, rather than actually deriving it from the physics of the situation. At least I don't see any physical basis for the claim in this paper, and it's certainly not obvious from the meanings given to the terms here.
arryhuk 2 years ago
You can compute total internal kinetic energy from the molecular formula for a gas - the average of 1/2 mv^2 = 3/2 kT. That means total kinetic energy = 3/2 n R T (n = number of moles of gas), or total kinetic energy = 3/2 P V (for a small region at constant pressure and temperature - you would need to integrate over the range of temperatures in the real atmosphere to get the proper number).
arryhuk 2 years ago
But what bearing does this have on outgoing thermal radiation (E_U) from the atmosphere? If the atmosphere absorbs most infrared radiation then there's going to be some rough top-level layer of the atmosphere (the photosphere) from which most of the outgoing thermal energy is coming; if temperature in this region is T_A then E_U would be given by the Stefan-Boltzmann relation, i.e. proportional to T_A^4
arryhuk 2 years ago
If the atmospheric temperature was roughly constant, that would give you an E_U value varying as (total kinetic energy)^4, rather than linearly, but then it also depends on the total mass of the atmosphere (the 'n' value above). In any case, the author's claim that E_U literally "represents" the total kinetic energy seems very far from reality
arryhuk 2 years ago
I've exchanged some email with the author now, and it seems pretty clear he does not have an actual derivation of this relationship from physical principles. Rather he seems to have done some simulations relevant for Earth's atmosphere, noticed that this relationship roughly held, and then claimed this analogy to the virial relationship that has no actual basis in physics. As far as I can tell, anyway....
arryhuk 2 years ago
Re: What do people think of this new paper?
by
apsmith on Wed Mar 12, 2008
I actually sent the author an email the other day asking that very question - how does he go from KE = PE/2 to Eu = Su/2? His response so far was not very clear, and included the word "guess" which left me a little concerned.
By adding in this relationship, Eu = Su/2, he overconstrains the problem, and that means you can get out of it just about any result you could wish, at least if you did a full analysis.
arryhuk 2 years ago
I don't think much of Arthur full stop.
LOL he makes an issue out of the word "guess" which is totally unrelated (since it has to do with training neural nets on satellite instruments) he just repeats something addressed ages ago on climate audit forum.
BTW Eu = Su/2 is verified by satellite data as found on the Kiehl & Trenberth cartoon (and paper) in the IPPC FAQ.
Let me know when you are done making jokes
gerjanp 2 years ago
In addition to all of the above [misapplication of Kirkhoffs Law, an unintelligible invocation of the virial theorem, and an incorrect and apparently inspirationally derived psuedo-energy equation (his eqn 7)], it appears that the linch-pin solution presented in Appendix B is not what it is claimed to be. It does not satisfy the required boundary conditions, nor does it have the properties required to produce Figure 3.
arryhuk 2 years ago
These results appear to be the result of, let us say, an unconstrained approach to the math. But someone else might want to look into this, too.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"Re: What do people think of this new paper?by apsmith on Wed Mar
12, 2008 "
I was there Harry. You keep posting stuff that you don't understand you haven't a clue what is wrong with Smith's analysis.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Yes you are right,Mikolczi is talking bollocks gerjanp.
Good job his weird and crazy notions were not taken seriously,world leaders may have chosen to abandon the Copenhagen climate talks this December!!
Can you imagine the scenario:
"Hi Barack,this is Gordon,listen it is all called off for December,apparently this guy Miskolczih has proven it all wrong,no problem after all,take the kids skiing instead.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"Yes you are right,Mikolczi is talking bollocks gerjanp."
arry you have gone completely crackers.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Not at all gerjanp,any intelligent person would come to that conclusion.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"any intelligent person would come to that conclusion."
how would you know??
gerjanp 2 years ago 2
Because that is the conclusion I came to,it's not that difficult to work out gerjanp,unlike Mr Miskolczi's crackpot theorem.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"Mr Miskolczi's crackpot theorem."
That would be Dr Miskolczi to you nad the theorem has been published 2 years ago and no one has been able to refute it yet.
What is more you can't even state what it is but you can say its a "crackpot theory". That would have to be the best example of an empty vessel making loud noises that I've seen for a while.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Nobody is bothered about refuting it gerjanp,Mr Miskolczi cracpot theorem is a non event.
All serious researchers give it as much creedence as fairies down the garden.
But it obviously means a lot to you,otherwise you would not be chomping on the bit to try and make a point.
Well if you want to follow bollocks,feel free,it's obviously a last refuge for a lost
denier like yourself.
arryhuk 2 years ago
Harry serious researchers continue to work with Dr Miskolczi. this is something hay I expect that you don't know.
The clowns at RealClimate promised a refutation last March and have been unable to deliver.
I'm sure they can make up their own feeble excuses and don't need the help of someone who cannot not even state what it is that he thinks is bollocks to help them.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Deary me gerjanp,you are persistent,seems like you are trying to earn yourself some undeserved kudos.
From what I can gather nobody can refute Mr Miskolczi's theorem because it does not make sense,it is unconventional,it's a dead parrot,so they ignore it.
I guess it is like formulating a new language that no one else speaks or can interpret but it is claimed to be superior to all other languages,but the claim is made in the language that no one else speaks or can interpret.
arryhuk 2 years ago
harry it might be like a foreign language to you because you don't have a background in radiation physics and remote sensing.
The reviewers at Idojaras, one of them an astrophysicist, had no difficulty wtih it Dr Zagoni who does this video explains it reasonably well. Dr Noor van Andel checked the conclusion with a different data set and got the same result had no difficulty either.
It seems only warming alarmists have serious troubles with it.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Oh dear gerjanp,you sink lower and lower,who the hell are Idojaras?
One of them a astrophysicist!!,who?
Mr Noor van Andel,who is he???
"It seems only warming alarmists have serious troubles with it"
No gerjanp 99% of real scientists don't have serious problems with Mr Miskolczi's theory,more like a huge laugh.
What a load of absolute shite,I used to have some respect for you gerjanp,not any more.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"Oh dear gerjanp,you sink lower and lower,who the hell are Idojaras?"
It's a professional meteorological journal.
"One of them a astrophysicist!!,who?"
LOL reviewers are generally anonymous.
Your arguments for your own ignorance really doesn't cut it Harry.
Harry I never had any respect for you and you have fallen lower if that is indeed possible.
You are a prize idiot saying "I can't understand it therefore no-one else can"
A perfect example of adherence to fundamentalist religion/
gerjanp 2 years ago
Oh ldojaras,a proper journal!!,yeh right.
So you don't know who the astro physicist is?,so he does not exist then.
I think you are a lost cause gerjanp,posting on the outskirts of u tube with a defunct cause and message.
I can rest assured that you will not reply because I have fallen lower than possible in your estimation.
Even though you resort to insults.
So you shouldn't reply right?
arryhuk 2 years ago
"Even though you resort to insults."
No insult there just informing you what I think of you and always have thought of you, "So you shouldn't reply right?"
If I wasn't house bound with a nasty cold I would be ignoring you. I'm just responding between sleeps and trying to get a high score in a bejewelled tournament.
gerjanp 2 years ago
So I haven't fallen lower than possible in your estimation due to your current medical condition?
So you are blaming a cold virus for posting?
no problems with that,I think a cold virus has more validity than Mr Miskolczi's theory.
arryhuk 2 years ago
"So you are blaming a cold virus for posting?"
NO you are misinterpreting I'm blaming the virus for doing more that just asking you if you have bought your skates yet (and not getting a higher score in Bejewelled)
However I should draw your attention to your own double standard (duplicity).
You complained about an insult yet you are quite happy to consistently insult *Dr*. Miskolzci with *Mr*
gerjanp 2 years ago
gerjanp, I don't know about this promised refutation, but there's a pretty good rebuttal on the Real Climate Wiki.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
Try Niche Modeling search Miskolczi. There are direct responses from Miskolczi to the authors posted directly or in boards following the articles. You have to understand the assumptions and consequences of the model proposed.
coffeenuts44 2 years ago
"Try Niche Modeling search Miskolczi"
yes Dr David Stockwell does a fair analysis of the paper.
gerjanp 2 years ago
RealClimate---you mean the blog the defends the flawed science of the Hockey Stick?
acx1n9s 2 years ago 12
You people that keep bringing up RealClimate need to take a look at the credibility of the science of Michael Mann
acx1n9s 2 years ago
I assume everyone has downloaded their copy of Global Climate Change Impacts report?
JuanVoyce 2 years ago
Just to let you guys know, I'll be going offline until next week. If I don't respond, then that's why - before you jump to other conclusions. When I come back the comment count might have gone beyond 500, in which case I won't try to carry on the debate (since viewing previous posts would be impossible). This would be a shame because I've enjoyed it.
plevyman 2 years ago
Interesting comment quoted in that paper (which you can find online, by the way) by Ernst Pringsheim, who gave a proof in 2003: "The meaning of Kirchhoffs law, however, lies in the fact that in the only physically interesting case, which is that of mixed radiation, and which consists of oscillations of infinitely many different frequencies, Kirchhoffs law is satisfied for each single frequency."
plevyman 2 years ago
Sorry, gave a proof in 1903. Only a century out :D
plevyman 2 years ago
"Sorry, gave a proof in 1903. Only a century out :D"
You should read the papers you cite instead of just citing them because if you had read A. Schirrmacher, HSPS Vol. 3(2) you would know that David Hilbert complained 9 years later that there still was no adequate proof of Kirchhoff's law, but then he was a mathematician so what would he know:-P
gerjanp 2 years ago
Yes, I read it, so what? Hilbert attempted to prove it from basic axioms, got into a fair few conflicts with physicists, who were trying to prove it except with more "physical" proofs (involving verification at each step, which isn't necessary in maths) and he eventually came round to a more physical way of seeing the problem. It was eventually solved by Einstein in a way that I don't understand. But you are the one that wanted to use Kirchhoff's law to disprove the albedo effect, as I said.
plevyman 2 years ago
"Hilbert attempted to prove it from basic axioms, got into a fair few conflicts with physicists,"
but he eventually learnt his lesson it doesn't look like you are going to.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Haha, you do know how pathetic that is right? It was YOU that tried to use Kirchhoff's law to prove, mathematically, that albedo is impossible. You even gave us the equation (big mistake, it would have taken me longer to get there otherwise) or at least you gave us something like it. I have used the correct form of Kirchhoff's law, as used by Planck and others, and your only objection to my reasoning is that I don't know enough physics. Seriously, come up with an argument or drop it.
plevyman 2 years ago
"Haha, you do know how pathetic that is right?"
Yes it is.
You have been arguing for day now and You have not yet even begun to address my initial point that changing albedo cannot affect the equilibrium temperature of an object within the range 0 \leq albedo<1.
You have been too bloody arrogant to even ask what I mean by "you haven't even played" that is why I don't think you'll ever learn.
gerjanp 2 years ago
I've addressed it: you either haven't understood or are just being stubborn. The equation e(\nu,T) = a(\nu,T) (the form of Kirchhoff's law used by Planck and others) is not only consistent with the albedo effect, it IMPLIES the albedo effect for wavelength-dependent absorptivity.
You have so few objections to my points, completely lost without your "a = e" equation, that you are resorting to vague 'look at me I'm a physicist'-style comments that don't answer any of my points.
plevyman 2 years ago
"I've addressed it"
No you haven't you haven't even worked out yet that from the very start we have not been talking about the same thing.
It's your fault though; you shouldn't trust wikipedia
gerjanp 2 years ago
Trust wikipedia? Don't be silly. I've given you a version of Kirchhoff's law which is not found on wikipedia, but IS found in scholarly articles on the subject. You have simply denied that this one is valid without any justification. I've given you a mathematical deduction from that form of Kirchhoff's law which shows indeed that the albedo effect is real - it's incumbent on you to find a flaw in my argument. You haven't done so.
plevyman 2 years ago
"Trust wikipedia? Don't be silly. "
Absolutely and the rest of your post shows that you haven't a clue as to what I'm referring to.
You still haven't played and you are still too arrogant to ask what I mean. You have to tell, you think you are right, you think that you cannot possibly be wrong when arguing from a no physics background with a physicist with 30+ years experience.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Haha, still banging that old physicist drum. I don't really give a shit about your knowing little jokes - I'm not here to massage your ego. I presume you are talking about quantum theory, but like I say I don't care.
plevyman 2 years ago
"I don't really give a shit about your knowing little jokes - I'm not here to massage your ego. "
I've noticed. You are here ot make a fool of yourself.
"I presume you are talking about quantum theory"
Very presumptive of you. You really aught to stop and reflect whether you really do know what others are thinking or talking about in a context that you don't even begin to understand.
You are wrong again.
gerjanp 2 years ago
"completely lost without your "a = e" equation"
Like it or not that IS kirchhoff's law.
gerjanp 2 years ago
I've given you 3 or 4 scholarly references that state Kirchhoff's law with a wavelength dependence. You haven't provided one reference to back up your claim that a = e is the right equation.
Just to point out: the equation a = e is the version of Kirchhoff's law found on wikipedia. ;-)
plevyman 2 years ago
" You haven't provided one reference to back up your claim that a = e is the right equation."
I showed it very early on and have since provided examples of cases where your authority appeals fail.
Yet you persist.
It only takes one counter example to show that e_{\nu} = a_{\nu} is not universally true I have given you two at least.
Yet you still persist with your erroneous appeals to authority.
gerjanp 2 years ago
I asked you for a reference, not your anecdotal experience.
I am not appealing to my own authority, I am giving you pretty reputable sources from physics, and some incontrovertible maths. Your reference to my "authority appeals" is bizarre, to say the least.
plevyman 2 years ago
plevy
who are the reputable sources? please list them so it can be seen how reputable they are.
acx1n9s 2 years ago
I gave you the historical paper by Schirrnacher which included a direct quote from Pringsheim; the book by Slater; the fact that Gerlich-Tscheuschner gives the *exact same* description of Kirchhoff's law. If you have an alternative source, then give me it. I've asked several times now.
plevyman 2 years ago
Yes I saw all of those and I have read most of them long before I ever heard of you. It doesn't matter how many authoritative tomes you produce saying the same thing all it takes is one counter example to blow them all to hell.
and e_{\lambda} = a{\lambda} does not hold for fluorescent objects, and I'm sure you have several examples of fluorescent objects in your house and if not you are wasting energy you naughty boy.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Haha, so you are now saying that the one counter-example you have actually "blows... to hell" the version of Kirchhoff's law which was the subject of such long attempts to find a proof.
Again, mentioning fluorescent objects. But not a decent source for your version of Kirchhoff's law.
plevyman 2 years ago
"one counter-example"
In science that is all it takes on you tube
watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
and
watch?v=d1ZtRN-iGdQ
gerjanp 2 years ago
gerjanp
I've been reading at WUWT in the comments that there has been early snow in New Zealand again
acx1n9s 2 years ago
"I've been reading at WUWT in the comments that there has been early snow in New Zealand again"
We had some early snow in the Alps in May already, and I'm going camping in SA next week the hot springs at Witjira are sounding good at the moment it's a long drive from Adelaide where I'm meeting a friend.
gerjanp 2 years ago
plevy---these are things you actuaslly know for yourself? or you read it at Wikipedia? or some blog like RealClimate?
acx1n9s 2 years ago
here are 2 videos for you that you may not have bothered to watch, but they show data for negative feedback. Please take the time to watch them before debating here further.
YouTube titles
Why the IPCC models are wrong - Part 1
Why the IPCC models are wrong - Part 2
acx1n9s 2 years ago
Didn't see that the post was from you, thought it was from gerjanp. The sources I've given certainly appear to be reliable, and Kirchhoff's law is supposed to be a fundamental law, not one that is open to a lot of interpretation.
plevyman 2 years ago
"I am giving you pretty reputable sources from physics, and some incontrovertible maths. "
Still too arrogant to ask. must say what is what.
Still thinking he knows things he can't possibly know.
Still making a fool of himself.
Still hasn't played.
Yet all he needs to know where he has gone wrong is in the first 35 seconds of this video.
You are not here to feed my ego but you are here to amuse me.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Is this like that episode of Star Trek where those gods made Kirk kiss Ohura for their amusement?
YouTube title :
TV's first interracial kiss
YouTube title :
Shatner Shares TV's First Interracial Kiss
YouTube title :
Kirk & Uhura - The Second Kiss
acx1n9s 2 years ago
Gerjanp - you say you are a physicist, but your behaviour is self-aggrandising and immature in a way no academic I've ever known would behave. You have also made many mistakes, confusing the coefficient a(\nu) with the *amount* of energy absorbed at frequency \nu on several occasions and posing bizarre questions about experimental evidence.
This debate is not about the definition of effective temperature, it is about whether the albedo effect is consistent with Kirchhoff's law.
plevyman 2 years ago
"confusing the coefficient a(\nu) with the *amount* of energy absorbed at frequency"
You have a vivid imagination.
"This debate is not about the definition of effective temperature, it is about whether the albedo effect is consistent with Kirchhoff's law."
Your arrogance will get the better of you one day. You made the claim that changing the albedo can change equilibrium temperature based on and old wives tale about wearing dark clothes in winter.
Now will try growing up a little?
gerjanp 2 years ago
Let me quote some of your posts: "regardless of wavelength so for earth a(\nu) \ne e(\nu) in fact nothing is emitted at the frequency it absorbed". This shows that you thought that a(\nu) = e(\nu) implied that emission at each wavelength was equal to absorption. Confusing a(\nu) with a(\nu)Q(\nu).
Again: "the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}", confusing a_\lambda with a_\lambdaQ_\lambda, once again.
plevyman 2 years ago
regardless of wavelength so for earth a(\nu) \ne e(\nu) in fact nothing is emitted at the frequency it absorbed". This shows that you thought that a(\nu) = e(\nu) implied that emission at each wavelength was equal to absorption
You think?
Think again.
Again: "the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}", confusing a_\lambda with a_\lambdaQ_\lambda, once again.
Again nope. The BB quantity in denominator of the fractions cancel.
gerjanp 2 years ago
"You think? Think again."
Since the earth emitting at different frequencies to its absorption is actually predicted by the equality a(\nu) = e(\nu) (with a(\nu) low for visible, and high for infra-red light), I can't see any other explanation of your comment.
The second comment was about fluorescence, which I don't really care about. Are you saying the earth is fluorescent? And if it is, then Kirchhoff's law doesn't apply, which gets us back to where we started. BB doesn't cancel btw.
plevyman 2 years ago
"Are you saying the earth is fluorescent? "
Not really abut in a sense it is since it absorbs it's emission is not at the same wave length however if you integrate the amount it absorbs over the entire spectrum and divide that that it would absorb as a black body and do the same for the emissions you will not only find that the amounts are the same but the ratios i.e. the emissivity and absorptivity are the same. I have told you already how to test this with readily available data.
gerjanp 2 years ago
You can get the data for all planets here
nssdc. gsfc. nasa. gov/ planetary/ planets. html
remove the spaces
gerjanp 2 years ago
I don't have time to root around the nasa website for data to check your claim. It is incumbent on you to come up with a decent reference for it.
plevyman 2 years ago
"I don't have time to root around the nasa website for data to check your claim. It is incumbent on you to come up with a decent reference for it."
Now we all know why you'll never be a physicist. Even if I gave you references and calculated it out for you you'll still have to do the due diligence to check it.
gerjanp 2 years ago
incumbent?
nothing is incumbent on this side of the debate. the earth is cooling while levels of manmade co2 are rising rapidly
your hypothesis doesnt work.
Your side is wrong
acx1n9s 2 years ago
yup - that's the main point plain and simple. Good stuff
GreenRiver72 2 years ago
plevy,
I think you do not know who gerjanp is.
I have been meaning to ask you---what did you think of the equation gerjanp asked you about a few days ago?
acx1n9s 2 years ago
"I think you do not know who gerjanp is."
Can't hold that against him. I don't know who he is either.
gerjanp 2 years ago
well, we'll never know---he disappeared
acx1n9s 2 years ago
those 2 guys really did go away. i wish all this global warming stuff would go away too.
acx1n9s 2 years ago
" i wish all this global warming stuff would go away too."
I don't know about that, I think we can stand a little more warmth. Somehow I don't think that we are going to get it.
gerjanp 2 years ago
And, for the umpteenth time, still no reference to your version of Kirchhoff's law.
plevyman 2 years ago
And once again: this is not an objection to my argument, nor is it a reference indicating that your version of Kirchhoff's law is the appropriate one. Your comment that I am "making a fool of" myself is laughable, since you have been unable to respond to the very clear, linear, logical statement of my arguments with clear responses.
plevyman 2 years ago
e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T)
Is not kirchhoffs law you MUST integrate ove the entire spectrum because the earth does not emit at the same frequency as it absorbs. However at equilibrium the internal energy is not changing so Q_{in}(SW) = Q_{out}(LW) regardless of wavelength so for earth a(\nu) \ne e(\nu) in fact nothing is emitted at the frequency it absorbed. Can you not see the problem with what you are
doing?
gerjanp 2 years ago
So you are using a different version of Kirchhoff's law to that stated in the book by Slater that I mentioned. This seems to me to be the hub of the question. As I said, your version of Kirchhoff's law appears to be a derived version which is valid only under one of two assumptions: that absorptivity is more or less independent of wavelength; or that the frequency range of the absorbed radiation is equal to the frequency range of the emitted radiation.
plevyman 2 years ago
Kirchhoff himself said that at equilibrium absorptivity and emissivity cannot be dependent on wavelength but it a property of the medium. If you come up with a mathematical description you need to actually check if it works. In this case
e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T) leads to a conclusion (using Wiens displacement law) that the earth at equilibrium must radiate at the same frequency it absorbs and there fore must be as hot as the sun. Trouble is the sun cannot heat anything that much at this distance.
gerjanp 2 years ago
It doesn't lead to that conclusion, not at all.
plevyman 2 years ago
"It doesn't lead to that conclusion, not at all."
Lets see your experimental proof of that.
gerjanp 2 years ago
"It doesn't lead to that conclusion, not at all."
Lets see your experimental evidence of that. Tell me have you actually ever been in physics lab apart from a high school one?
If a=e is dependent on wave length being the same there is no other way for us not to draw that conclusion if a = e is NOT dependent on wavelength and incoming can energy be equalised by emission at other frequencies i.e. not wavelength dependent.
gerjanp 2 years ago
"different version of Kirchhoff's law"
Np just unadulterated Kirchhoff's. If you think you have a good math description of a physical process you have to test it with experiment. In this case we can use someone else's work and use Wien's displacement law which tells us what the peak emission wavelength is at a given temperature. This tells us that for the earth to emit the same spectrum it absorbs from the sun it must be as hot as the sun for e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T) and Q_{in}=Q_{out} to hold.
gerjanp 2 years ago
oops I thought the first one got lost. anyway. Now you need to get yourself a radiometer and do some experiment's for instance a non-contact thermometer and test it on different surfaces against a contact thermometer calibrated against each other against a cavity radiator. Then you will begin to become a physicist. Until you do that you won't even have played as it were.
gerjanp 2 years ago
You are confusing the peak of e(\nu,T) with the peak of e(\nu,T)E_{BB}(\nu,T). The peak emission wavelength of the earth is NOT the same as that of the sun, with this mathematical description.
plevyman 2 years ago
"The peak emission wavelength of the earth is NOT the same as that of the sun, with this mathematical description."
the stuff that you've been posting here I'm surprised you even noticed. Do you even know what Wien's displacement law is? The value of the peak's position is not at all dependent on emissivity.
gerjanp 2 years ago
The quantities a(\nu,T) and e(\nu,T) are *fractions*, not units of energy. You are the one that is getting confused - you have persistently mixed up the energy absorbed at wavelength \nu with the *fraction* of the energy absorbed at wavelength \nu, and so on. What made you think the peak wavelength would be the same as for the sun?
And as for your question, what does it matter whether I know what Wien's displacement law is? My mathematical deduction from Kirchhoff's law is valid.
plevyman 2 years ago
The quantities a(\nu,T) and e(\nu,T) are *fractions*, not units of energy.
I know that take a look at the integrals and definitions of a and e and you will clearly see that they are fractions i have never thought of them as anything else.
"what does it matter whether I know what Wien's displacement law is?"
It hilites inadequate knowledge and experience of the physical realities behind the phenomena that you are trying to prove by mathematical deduction. David Hilbert made the same mistake
gerjanp 2 years ago
What, all that knowledge of physical properties that allows you to confuse the equality a(\nu,T) = e(\nu,T) with the statement that the energy absorbed at wavelength \nu is equal to that emitted at wavelength \nu? The old "well you're not a physicist so what would you know" fallback, eh? Conveniently avoiding the key question.
You haven't come up with a substantive objection to my argument, only confusion and appeals to authority.
plevyman 2 years ago
"You haven't come up with a substantive objection to my argument, only confusion and appeals to authority."
You are the one making all sorts appeals to inappropriate authority and let me remind you that you have not even played yet.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Do I need to point out to you that this post is not a "substantive objection to my argument"? I'm still waiting.
It was you that wanted to use Kirchhoff's law to prove that albedo is wrong. You have now reversed position and tell me that it's not true, or it is but only in the way you want it to be, or only in some mystical way that a mathematician couldn't possibly understand with things like equations...
plevyman 2 years ago
By the way, another fairly reliable source that gives my wavelength-dependent form of Kirchhoff is the following:
"Experimenting theory: the proofs of Kirchhoff's radiation law before and after Planck", A. Schirrmacher, HSPS Vol. 3(2) pp 299-335.
He also says the following: "An equivalent... formulation states that the ratio of emissive power to absorptive power is a universal function of wavelength and temperature only", ie. independent of the body. This is equivalent to e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T).
plevyman 2 years ago
" This is equivalent to e(\nu,T)=a(\nu,T)."
Have you ever noticed that you can leave your fluorescent tubes on for hours even days or years even and they don't keep getting hotter until they melt?
They just warm up to the equilibrium temperature at which point the total emission = total absorption and it's obvious that the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Yes, once again, you are mixing up the energy absorbed at the wavelength \nu with the variable a(\nu,T) which is the *fraction* of energy absorbed at wavelength \nu. This is really quite easy, we were using capital letters for energy emitted/absorbed and small letters for (dimensionless) fractions. I haven't changed anything.
plevyman 2 years ago
"This is really quite easy"
It is the physical reality is Kirchhoffs holds for the fluorescent tube but the emissivity is not equal to absorptivity on a wave length to wave length basis the absorptivity at UV wavelengths is high but it's emissivity at UV wavelengths is low.
gerjanp 2 years ago
You mean absorptivity, or absorption?
Just to give a rough indicator. The sun is at about 7,000K, so presumably its peak power intensity is at about 400nm wavelength (I can't be bothered to work it out), ie. just in the infrared. The earth, however, is at about 300K so it's peak power emissions are at about 1 micrometre, ie. infrared. If it's reflecting a third of visible light, then emitting a third of its visible black body radiation won't make a difference - there aren't any.
plevyman 2 years ago
Sorry, I meant the sun's peak power intensity is in *ultraviolet*...
plevyman 2 years ago
On the other hand, if it's emitting two thirds of its infrared radiation, especially at longer wavelengths, then absorbing two thirds of the sun's output at corresponding wavelengths won't make much difference either - the sun's energy is primarily in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum.
plevyman 2 years ago
"Yes, once again, you are mixing up the energy absorbed at the wavelength"
I'm not mixing anything up you have been from the very start, the very start and you have not yet played the game.
This does not raise any questions in your mind at all does it?
gerjanp 2 years ago
Let me run your statement by you again:
"equilibrium temperature at which point the total emission = total absorption and it's obvious that the radiation is not at the same (UV) wavelengths absorbed by the material so a_{\lambda} \ne e_{lambda}. "
NOTHING in my explanation implies that the emitted and absorbed radiation at each wavelength has to be equal. We have
a(\nu,T) = e(\nu,T),
but NOT
a(\nu,T)Q(\nu) = e(\nu,T)E_{BB}(\nu,T).
That is the point!
plevyman 2 years ago
"That is the point!"
That misses the point of Kirchhoff's law entirely which must be universal and
a(\nu,T) = e(\nu,T)
does NOT hold for fluorescent materials but Kirchhoffs law does.
gerjanp 2 years ago
Incidentally, to prove that these statements are equivalent: the emissive power is 4\pi r^2 E_{BB}(\nu,T)e(\nu,T), where r is the radius of the earth. The absorptive power is Q(\nu)a(\nu,T), where Q(\nu) is the energy of the solar radiation at wavelength \nu striking the earth. The ratio of these is 4\pi r^2 E_{BB}(\nu,T)e(\nu,T)/ (Q(\nu)a(\nu,T)), which is independent of the earth's surface so the same as for a black body, ie. = 4\pi r^2 E_{BB}(\nu,T) / Q(\nu). Thus e(\nu,T) = a(\nu,T).
plevyman 2 years ago
Again---though the level of manmade co2 is rising rapidly, faster even than it was predicted it would, the earth is in a cooling trend.
The hypothesis of manmade global warming is falsified.
acx1n9s 2 years ago