While climate change junkies quibble over which theory is the most fun to bash or support, I keep thinking no one has proposed a method that can even come close to ending the controversies. This has lead me to what is either outside the box creative problems solving or the nut house. Maybe a little of both. Relativistic Heat Conduction, RHC, is the part most people think is nuts.
One of the controversies of RHC is the speed of second sound. The limit on the rate of Phonon flow in a media. The Phonon is a hybrid, thermal quantum stuck between being a photon or an electron only a little on the slow side. So RHC modified their heat equations to include a C squared term, just like the big boy relativity equation with the little c squared term where the little c is the speed of light.
Photons and phonons are different in that photons are accepted as being real, though theoretically difficult to describe and photons are just plain theoretical, but their existence would simplify things.
Real or not, a quantum of thermal energy is something that can be useful. The speed limit for that quantum in a media would be nice to know. The momentum of that theoretical quantum limited by some characteristic of its media would also be nice to know. With some standard for the phonon flow characteristics, derived from basic thermodynamics, we have something that could be directly compared to the real photons.
Real photons leaving the Earth would love to travel at the speed of light, but they can't, even if they are not absorbed by gas, liquid or solid molecules. When they are absorbed, that is a rather dramatic change in velocity. Since a photon has no mass, only momentum in its particle disguise, there is an assumption that absorption energy lost to the molecule is very small with respect to the energy of the photon. With high energy photons, reflection is assumed to be perfectly elastic. It is after all, very small with respect to the energy we can measure.
Low energy photons, are more likely absorbed than reflected. Since energy and mass are related, the massless low energy photon has less masslessness than a high energy photon. The low energy photon's velocity from the surface to space is reduced by a fraction of a second because of the refraction, absorption, emission and collisional transfer of its changing energy and degree of masslessness.
At some point, the theoretical masslessness of the real photon is likely to approach the finite speed of second sound limit of the theoretical quantum called the phonon.
Now here is the fun part, the finite speed of second sound is controlled by the density of the media which is influenced by gravity that has its own theoretical quantum called a graviton. Now wouldn't it be a pip if the low energy photon, phonon and graviton all converge on an energy and degree of masslessness that was finite?
That might even explain some of the other weirdness in the universe. Like solar wind particles getting a boost from a theoretical nearly massless quantum of energy which would produce a higher velocity with one relative impact and a lower but still high enough for escape velocity from another relative impact.
All of this is of course just musings. I do though think it would be fun to build a model based on the Kimoto equation and RHC to see where it might lead. After all, we have a crap load of data, why not have fun with it :)
Showing posts with label cosmic puzzles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cosmic puzzles. Show all posts
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Venus Greenhouse Effect with Geothermal Boost
It is a lazy Sunday. Since I get a little flack over thermal conductivity needing to be considered in Earth atmospheric physics, I thought I might revisit Venus, the granddaddy of greenhouse effects.
Size wise, Venus and Earth are close, atmosphere wise they are two different worlds. Earth has a total solar irradiance of about 1367Wm-2 and Venus about 2614Wm-2 per NASA Planetary Fact Sheet.
Neglecting the difference in rates of rotation, since both are spheres, the average surface irradiance would be 1/4 or 341 Wm-2 for Earth and 653Wm-2 for Venus. Without any reflection or greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of both would be on average about 278K for Earth and about 327 for Venus, using S-B for a perfect black body. If both had the perfect greenhouse effect, I contend that the bond albedo would be 1, or no energy escapes the atmosphere. Since both planets receive sunlight on only one side, perfect insulation would mean that would lose no heat and that the most heat either could gain would be the average solar irradiance. Earth's maximum average temperature would be 556 K and Venus would be 654 K degrees. This, by the way is being a bit generous.
The maximum average irradiance of the sunlit side of the planets would be 682Wm-2 for Earth and 1306Wm-2 for Venus. Their maximum average S-B black body temperatures would be 331K for Earth and 389K for Venus with no atmospheric effect and double, i.e. perfect insulation, or 662K for Earth and 779K for Venus.
Using what I think are the more realistic estimates, since Earth radiates to space about 240Wm-2, it has a black body temperature of about 255K, so 556-255=301K for its maximum GHE, Venus radiates 65Wm-2 for a black body temperature of 184K degrees. 654-184=470K for its maximum GHE. For you doubting Thomases, the absolute maximum would be 779-184=595K degrees for Venus.
The average surface temperature of Venus is about 737K degrees, both estimates are significantly less than the actual average surface temperature. For this reason, I say Venus' surface temperature is enhanced by geothermal energy from its slow cooling core. The amount of enhancement would be between 142K for the impossible case and 267K for the barely possible case.
James Hansen is the authority on Venus. The only possible challenge I have to his Venus Greenhouse theory is the limit of radiant impact of CO2. Given the available solar energy, I contend that the maximum GHE impact on Venus is 470K degrees that could be felt near its surface. Since geothermal energy is likely adding to Venus' surface temperature, I suspect that the concentration, pressure and temperature at the surface cause it to be highly thermally conductive.
This leads me toward two thoughts, there is a limit to CO2 forcing that may be determined from Venus which is significant less than Hansen estimates and that the impact of CO2 enhancement of atmospheric thermal conductivity on Earth is not negligible.
Now, there is something else interesting about Venus. If it truly is experiencing the maximum GHE, it still radiates 65Wm-2 for a black body temperature of 184K degrees. 184K is -89 C degrees, which happens to be the approximate temperature minimum of the Antarctic and the Tropopause. This is where people believe that I have entered the Crackpot Zone. See, I also think that Earth has that limit to its maximum Greenhouse effect.
Since Earth emits about 240Wm-2 at approximately 255K as a black body, the lowest it could emit if I am on the right track is 65 Wm-2. Unfortunately, determining exactly why that limit exists for both Venus and Earth is not all that easy. On Earth I would expect the geomagnetic field plays a role. Venus doesn't appear to have a geomagnetic field of any magnitude. Both are influenced by the Sun's magnetic field and solar winds. Venus has no defense from the solar winds and the Earth's magnetic field somewhat offsets the solar field.
In any case, with a 65Wm-2 limit, albedo would have to increase to maintain the TOA energy balance. Unlikely Venus, Earth still has water in significant quantity. Where that water can have the most impact is in the atmosphere. So water will limit Earth's GHE, not CO2. Since water vapor cannot exist in any significant quantity above the tropopause, the impact of CO2 above the tropopause would be near negligible in the quantities that can be produced on Earth. Unlike Venus, Earth's Greenhouse Effect limit is the tropopause and its odd limit of approximately 65Wm-2.
So just anyone thinks I am running down a rabbet hole, I may be, and it appears to be solar in origin.
Size wise, Venus and Earth are close, atmosphere wise they are two different worlds. Earth has a total solar irradiance of about 1367Wm-2 and Venus about 2614Wm-2 per NASA Planetary Fact Sheet.
Neglecting the difference in rates of rotation, since both are spheres, the average surface irradiance would be 1/4 or 341 Wm-2 for Earth and 653Wm-2 for Venus. Without any reflection or greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of both would be on average about 278K for Earth and about 327 for Venus, using S-B for a perfect black body. If both had the perfect greenhouse effect, I contend that the bond albedo would be 1, or no energy escapes the atmosphere. Since both planets receive sunlight on only one side, perfect insulation would mean that would lose no heat and that the most heat either could gain would be the average solar irradiance. Earth's maximum average temperature would be 556 K and Venus would be 654 K degrees. This, by the way is being a bit generous.
The maximum average irradiance of the sunlit side of the planets would be 682Wm-2 for Earth and 1306Wm-2 for Venus. Their maximum average S-B black body temperatures would be 331K for Earth and 389K for Venus with no atmospheric effect and double, i.e. perfect insulation, or 662K for Earth and 779K for Venus.
Using what I think are the more realistic estimates, since Earth radiates to space about 240Wm-2, it has a black body temperature of about 255K, so 556-255=301K for its maximum GHE, Venus radiates 65Wm-2 for a black body temperature of 184K degrees. 654-184=470K for its maximum GHE. For you doubting Thomases, the absolute maximum would be 779-184=595K degrees for Venus.
The average surface temperature of Venus is about 737K degrees, both estimates are significantly less than the actual average surface temperature. For this reason, I say Venus' surface temperature is enhanced by geothermal energy from its slow cooling core. The amount of enhancement would be between 142K for the impossible case and 267K for the barely possible case.
James Hansen is the authority on Venus. The only possible challenge I have to his Venus Greenhouse theory is the limit of radiant impact of CO2. Given the available solar energy, I contend that the maximum GHE impact on Venus is 470K degrees that could be felt near its surface. Since geothermal energy is likely adding to Venus' surface temperature, I suspect that the concentration, pressure and temperature at the surface cause it to be highly thermally conductive.
This leads me toward two thoughts, there is a limit to CO2 forcing that may be determined from Venus which is significant less than Hansen estimates and that the impact of CO2 enhancement of atmospheric thermal conductivity on Earth is not negligible.
Now, there is something else interesting about Venus. If it truly is experiencing the maximum GHE, it still radiates 65Wm-2 for a black body temperature of 184K degrees. 184K is -89 C degrees, which happens to be the approximate temperature minimum of the Antarctic and the Tropopause. This is where people believe that I have entered the Crackpot Zone. See, I also think that Earth has that limit to its maximum Greenhouse effect.
Since Earth emits about 240Wm-2 at approximately 255K as a black body, the lowest it could emit if I am on the right track is 65 Wm-2. Unfortunately, determining exactly why that limit exists for both Venus and Earth is not all that easy. On Earth I would expect the geomagnetic field plays a role. Venus doesn't appear to have a geomagnetic field of any magnitude. Both are influenced by the Sun's magnetic field and solar winds. Venus has no defense from the solar winds and the Earth's magnetic field somewhat offsets the solar field.
In any case, with a 65Wm-2 limit, albedo would have to increase to maintain the TOA energy balance. Unlikely Venus, Earth still has water in significant quantity. Where that water can have the most impact is in the atmosphere. So water will limit Earth's GHE, not CO2. Since water vapor cannot exist in any significant quantity above the tropopause, the impact of CO2 above the tropopause would be near negligible in the quantities that can be produced on Earth. Unlike Venus, Earth's Greenhouse Effect limit is the tropopause and its odd limit of approximately 65Wm-2.
So just anyone thinks I am running down a rabbet hole, I may be, and it appears to be solar in origin.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Now the Complicated Part
The change in CO2 concentration is pretty easy to see. The obvious always gets the blame. To solve puzzles you have to decide if the answer is a simple joke hidden in a complex picture or if the picture is really complex. The Earth climate system is pretty complex.
In Let's Concentrate on Concentrations I tried to show that there is a small changing in concentration of CO2 that has a rapid initial radiant impact that decreases with time and a slow conductive impact that increases with time. The solar output has daily rapid changes due to rotation, annual changes due to orbit and obliquity of the axial tilt of the Earth, processional changes due to wobble around the axial tilt and finally, changes in geomagnetic intensity that vary with the solar cycle and internal dynamics of the molten core. There are layers upon layers of small changes with differing rates of change. That is a pretty complex system. Missing from the debate is the relative rotation of the complex layers, where the Bucky ball shaped model is helpful.
Imagine standing on the surface and looking up to the tropopause. The surface has a radius R and the tropopause has a radius of 2R. The surface is turning at velocity S and the tropopause is turning at a rate of S/2 for simplicity. Whatever energy the surface gets from the sun is 1/2 what the tropopause gets because of the difference in radius and area of the tropopause relative to you observation point get twice as much because it is moving half as fast. All else being equal, our climate is based on these two layers accumulating energy at different rates, different times and at different relative positions. No big deal right?
Now let's change the sun by a watt. That has 1/4 Watt impact on the surface and 1 Watt impact on the tropopause. Because of the relative velocities of these two layers, there is a large potential difference between the layers that a small change in solar would indicate at first blush.
With the ink in the aquarium experiment, CO2 has more impact on the change near the surface which approaches saturation more quickly than the tropopause. We have yet another impact that differs due to the different relative properties of the two layers.
Now I have to go fishing, but which do you think might be impacted more by a change in geomagnetism and solar magnetism, the surface or the tropopause?
The tropopause may indeed respond to fluctuations in the geomagnetic field. Plus the upper troposphere total energy relative to the surface, which would include the velocity of the jet streams, produces a complex dynamic relationship influence by natural cycles including the solar wind, magnetic orientation as well and TSI fluctuation. This would tend to reinforce Milonkovic cycle theory.
The correlation of climate with solar, including geomagnetic has bee done to death. So the next step is figuring out the magnitude of the geomagnetic impact and proving the limits of CO2 forcing yet again.
The impact of the change in atmospheric conductivity with CO2 increase appears to be a good clue for the scale of change required. Improved thermal conductivity with increased CO2 is small, but much more linear than radiant impact. Since it mainly effects the ocean surface to atmosphere interface in the southern oceans, millennial scale changes in the thermal conductivity approach a balance with other forcing. This would require multidecadal or century scale reductions in solar forcing to increase snow/ice cover to the point where albedo change can continue a cooling trend allowing more absorption and sequestering of carbon dioxide.
The last little ice age, a century scale event, should be typical of an off major cycle cooling response. Major cycles being linked to the Milankovic cycles which would produce millennial or multi-millennial cooling/warming events.
The best estimate I have to date for solar minimum impact is 0.25 Wm-2 at the surface. That would require 4 to 8 times the length of a solar half cycle, approximately 5 years, to trigger a new little ice age. Now I just have to fine tune that estimate to get a rough estimate of how much geomagnetic change may be required, which is not easy for a variety of reasons. Fun, fun, fun.
Enjoy your holidays!
In Let's Concentrate on Concentrations I tried to show that there is a small changing in concentration of CO2 that has a rapid initial radiant impact that decreases with time and a slow conductive impact that increases with time. The solar output has daily rapid changes due to rotation, annual changes due to orbit and obliquity of the axial tilt of the Earth, processional changes due to wobble around the axial tilt and finally, changes in geomagnetic intensity that vary with the solar cycle and internal dynamics of the molten core. There are layers upon layers of small changes with differing rates of change. That is a pretty complex system. Missing from the debate is the relative rotation of the complex layers, where the Bucky ball shaped model is helpful.
Imagine standing on the surface and looking up to the tropopause. The surface has a radius R and the tropopause has a radius of 2R. The surface is turning at velocity S and the tropopause is turning at a rate of S/2 for simplicity. Whatever energy the surface gets from the sun is 1/2 what the tropopause gets because of the difference in radius and area of the tropopause relative to you observation point get twice as much because it is moving half as fast. All else being equal, our climate is based on these two layers accumulating energy at different rates, different times and at different relative positions. No big deal right?
Now let's change the sun by a watt. That has 1/4 Watt impact on the surface and 1 Watt impact on the tropopause. Because of the relative velocities of these two layers, there is a large potential difference between the layers that a small change in solar would indicate at first blush.
With the ink in the aquarium experiment, CO2 has more impact on the change near the surface which approaches saturation more quickly than the tropopause. We have yet another impact that differs due to the different relative properties of the two layers.
Now I have to go fishing, but which do you think might be impacted more by a change in geomagnetism and solar magnetism, the surface or the tropopause?
The tropopause may indeed respond to fluctuations in the geomagnetic field. Plus the upper troposphere total energy relative to the surface, which would include the velocity of the jet streams, produces a complex dynamic relationship influence by natural cycles including the solar wind, magnetic orientation as well and TSI fluctuation. This would tend to reinforce Milonkovic cycle theory.
The correlation of climate with solar, including geomagnetic has bee done to death. So the next step is figuring out the magnitude of the geomagnetic impact and proving the limits of CO2 forcing yet again.
The impact of the change in atmospheric conductivity with CO2 increase appears to be a good clue for the scale of change required. Improved thermal conductivity with increased CO2 is small, but much more linear than radiant impact. Since it mainly effects the ocean surface to atmosphere interface in the southern oceans, millennial scale changes in the thermal conductivity approach a balance with other forcing. This would require multidecadal or century scale reductions in solar forcing to increase snow/ice cover to the point where albedo change can continue a cooling trend allowing more absorption and sequestering of carbon dioxide.
The last little ice age, a century scale event, should be typical of an off major cycle cooling response. Major cycles being linked to the Milankovic cycles which would produce millennial or multi-millennial cooling/warming events.
The best estimate I have to date for solar minimum impact is 0.25 Wm-2 at the surface. That would require 4 to 8 times the length of a solar half cycle, approximately 5 years, to trigger a new little ice age. Now I just have to fine tune that estimate to get a rough estimate of how much geomagnetic change may be required, which is not easy for a variety of reasons. Fun, fun, fun.
Enjoy your holidays!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Defining a Chaotic System?
There is a lot of talk about the need for multidisciplinary approach to Climate. To me that is an obvious requirement, starting with just the definition of what the "Climate System" entails. Playing with the opposing forces and multi-disc models, I am finding there are quite a few energy boundary layers that cannot be dismissed as negligible.
To me, the Earth system begins with the dynamic energy in the core itself. The internal dynamo generates heat, a magnetic field and as a fluid, has some impact rotation/tilt of the planet itself.
Between the core are thermal/radiant boundaries, the 4C sea water density boundary, the surface/atmosphere boundary, the Atmospheric boundary layer which consider the latent boundary to be a part, the thermal/radiant boundary layer, the tropopause boundary and so on until the thermal/non-thermal radiant boundary layer and space, in just the vertical. This should be the system envelope.
With opposing forces, the impact of any of these layers can be twice their singular value. For example, Arrhenius' greenhouse relationship appears to be an ideal relationship that would produce twice the impact. Based on the climatic conditions at the time of his paper and the region he lived, that is what he would have discovered attempting to explain the glacial/interglacial climate transitions, the ideal relationship. In the real world, only half of his expectations are realized globally, with regions near ideal conditions approaching his expectations.
This is one of the largest mistakes being made in climate science, comparing the real world to a ideal world. People lose sight of the subtle expecting the exceptional.
To me, the Earth system begins with the dynamic energy in the core itself. The internal dynamo generates heat, a magnetic field and as a fluid, has some impact rotation/tilt of the planet itself.
Between the core are thermal/radiant boundaries, the 4C sea water density boundary, the surface/atmosphere boundary, the Atmospheric boundary layer which consider the latent boundary to be a part, the thermal/radiant boundary layer, the tropopause boundary and so on until the thermal/non-thermal radiant boundary layer and space, in just the vertical. This should be the system envelope.
With opposing forces, the impact of any of these layers can be twice their singular value. For example, Arrhenius' greenhouse relationship appears to be an ideal relationship that would produce twice the impact. Based on the climatic conditions at the time of his paper and the region he lived, that is what he would have discovered attempting to explain the glacial/interglacial climate transitions, the ideal relationship. In the real world, only half of his expectations are realized globally, with regions near ideal conditions approaching his expectations.
This is one of the largest mistakes being made in climate science, comparing the real world to a ideal world. People lose sight of the subtle expecting the exceptional.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
The Amazing Case of Back Radiations
The Science of Doom is one of the better climate science blogs. The post are a good compromise between readable and technical. You should pay them a few hundred visits. One of their posts, "The Amazing Case of Back Radiation" (part I and II) is an attempt to reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with climate science. There is no need to reinvent the physics of the second law. One thing missing is that there is more to radiation than thermodynamics.
While pondering my 100K conundrum, it is becoming obvious that magnetic and electrical fields need to be considered at temperatures below 200K, with 184K range fairly interesting. Thermal and non-thermal radiant effect cross over in this region causing all sorts of weird and wondrous things to be possible.
One problem with The Science of Doom is they tend to defend instead of investigate. Science is about learning and teaching, they seem to be stuck in teaching mode, or defending ideology. That is a job for preachers and politicians, not scientists.
Just imagine what Max Planck would do with all the modern telemetry. You think he would defend his theories or cream his jeans (or tweed, or whatever he wore) and run around like a kid in a candy store? He would be going ape shit!
So I have absolutely no respect for teachers unwilling to learn. This world is our scientific oyster, let's shuck that baby!
BTW, While it is hard to determine what relationship is most significant, the Crookes Radiometer operates on a principal that can be analogous. The Tropopause and 2nd Law From and Energy Perspective is consistent with the interaction of thermal and non thermal flux impact in the Tropopause and Antarctic. On a planetary scale, the energy is significant, whether DWLR versus magnetic could be used commercially is questionable, but Piezoelectric radiant conversion may be viable. Just musing on implications.
While pondering my 100K conundrum, it is becoming obvious that magnetic and electrical fields need to be considered at temperatures below 200K, with 184K range fairly interesting. Thermal and non-thermal radiant effect cross over in this region causing all sorts of weird and wondrous things to be possible.
One problem with The Science of Doom is they tend to defend instead of investigate. Science is about learning and teaching, they seem to be stuck in teaching mode, or defending ideology. That is a job for preachers and politicians, not scientists.
Just imagine what Max Planck would do with all the modern telemetry. You think he would defend his theories or cream his jeans (or tweed, or whatever he wore) and run around like a kid in a candy store? He would be going ape shit!
So I have absolutely no respect for teachers unwilling to learn. This world is our scientific oyster, let's shuck that baby!
BTW, While it is hard to determine what relationship is most significant, the Crookes Radiometer operates on a principal that can be analogous. The Tropopause and 2nd Law From and Energy Perspective is consistent with the interaction of thermal and non thermal flux impact in the Tropopause and Antarctic. On a planetary scale, the energy is significant, whether DWLR versus magnetic could be used commercially is questionable, but Piezoelectric radiant conversion may be viable. Just musing on implications.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The 100K Conumdrum
The Tropopause has peaked my curiosity for quite a while. I have thought of a few ways that the Tropopause could regulate surface temperature. The 100K boundary was not one of them.
With the three disk model, I am able to get a feel for the energy relationship between the surface and Tropopause. As I expected, the Tropopause appears to behave as a regulating energy conduit were energy is transferred rather quickly from higher to lower regions with the poles being the lower energy regions most of the time. The northern pole is unstable and since it is most isolated from the more stable southern pole, its surface has greater temperature fluctuation. That is a combined impact of variations between the tropopause and the surface that can be in or out of sequence vertically and horizontally. Land mass, the warm Gulf Stream current, and the change northern Pacific surface temperatures create a chaotic mix of temperature and pressure gradients.
The changes in snow/ice coverage which change the start and length of growing seasons produces inconstant changes in albedo and CO2 storage/release. The vast changes in land use just added to these dramatic changes which may completely or partially mask information that should be available in paleoclimate reconstructions.
The chaotic changes at the northern pole is interesting, but plays holy hell on attempting to isolate the true cause of the 100K boundary.
In the Antarctic region, evidence on the 100K boundary is most noticeable. With an average surface temperature of 224K @ 142Wm-2, the approximate flux value of the truly radiant portion of the atmospheric effect, the Antarctic is receiving the maximum benefit of the energy from the tropics on average. With the 100K @ 5.67Wm-2 I sort of expected the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to start falling apart. I may have, since the real boundary may be ~65Wm-2 or 184K degrees. The magnetic signature in the Antarctic thermal flux readings may be real or may be interference with the test instrumentation.
In the tropics and sub-tropics, deep convection pushes the 100K limit in the Tropopause. These rapid drops in temperature to near 100K are too short and too localized to be measured by the satellite data. Some balloon measurements to -95K have been recorded, but they also have issues with data quality. Based solely on the three disk radiant model, below approximately 224K @ 142Wm-2, the tropopause would be gaining energy from the lower stratosphere, which would not appear to have the thermal capacity to stabilize these events. That leaves magnetic or electrical energy from the Earth's core or solar electric as sources of the thermal energy. Energy is energy, so this is quite possible. Trying to figure out if, which and how much, though is not all that simple.
Based on the same three disk radiant ratio, 2:1, 71Wm-2 would be the average radiant layer between the Tropopause and the top of the atmosphere. This is close to the ~63Wm-2 but not enough to assume the same relationship holds when magnetic flux may be involved.
Interestingly, my minimum emissivity estimate of 0.99652825^(390-63) equals 0.32 or very close to the transmittance from the surface at 390Wm-2 average to the 100K boundary flux. Which could be absolutely nothing or an indication that temperature may not be the correct term below 100K. So it is time to research some of those goofy space radio spectra to see where to go from here.
Note: peak emission wavelength at 100K 28.977685 micron. Approximately 196K has peak wavelength of 14.7 micron, CO2 main absorption.
Non thermal versus Thermal http://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/undergrad/materials/AJP_pratap&mcintosh.pdf
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/HET608-M03A02.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jeans_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakuma%E2%80%93Hattori_equation
On the other front:
Since I am stuck for the moment: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
This is an older post on Real Climate about the Arrhenius-Angstrom issue. Angstrom basically said that near the surface, CO2 is virtually saturated, i.e. a doubling of halving of CO2 would have little impact on surface temperature. Pierrehumbert and the author Spencer Weart note that convection moves surface temperature up in the atmosphere where CO2, with less competition with itself and water vapor could enhance the greenhouse effect. While that is true, the impact of the enhancement cannot easily be transferred to the surface due to the near saturation of CO2 noted by Angstrom. So Angstrom was right.
Weart and Pierrehumbert miss two of the main issues highlighted by Angstrom. The first that near saturation at the surface limits the radiant impact of CO2 at the surface. The second is more subtle, that the temperature of the CO2 limits the energy it can transfer to the layers of the atmosphere below its level of radiation.
Another issue not considered is the impact of CO2 on conduction of the atmospheric gases. Based on the conundrum above, there is also the possibility of the impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the properties of CO2 at low temperatures, approximate 100K degrees.
It should be simple to adjust models to compensate for the effects of near saturation and emission temperature. There does not appear to be much adjustment made for the conductive impact and no adjustment made for the magnetic impact. The Antarctic performance appears to imply that neither conductive nor magnetic influences should be considered negligible.
Update: When I get stuck I do tend to wander much more than normal which is totally abby normal for anyone to make sense out of, so bear with me.
The 100K boundary is ~5.67Wm-2 which is in the neighborhood of where I expected things to get fun. Things are getting strange at a flux of ~ 65Wm-2 or a temperature of roughly 184K degrees. Just about any scientist knows about the magnetic properties of oxygen and there is quite a bit of research on electric and magnetic interaction with O2 at low temperatures. That would mean that if this ~65 Wm-2 thing is a real phenomenon, there must be a pretty unusual mechanism. Thermal and non thermal flux cross over in this range, but astronomers are pretty good at telling the difference looking at distant objects. So things are getting back into sci-fi mode.
My probable best hypothesis is the Tropopause sink with a magnetic flux impact on the radiant transfer. That may make me totally certifiably a nut job, but it seems like a possibility given the odd circumstances. The ~65 is a rough match of the temperature/flux differences I would estimate for Venus and Mars. There are temperature inversions of -44C with surface temperatures of -74C in the Antarctic, which would be balanced by ~ 65Wm-2. The flux readings for the Antarctic are off by ~65Wm-2 in some areas which appear to show the southern magnetic flux field. Just no mechanism to support such a hair brained hypothesis. The center wavelength of 28.98, is just enough off from things to be a problem, but what if Ozone and CO2 in some form can hook up? The Ozone hole is not really a hole, just a significant reduction in concentration. The Arctic has its own hole forming at a different temperature and magnetic orientation. It may be crazy enough to pursue.
With the three disk model, I am able to get a feel for the energy relationship between the surface and Tropopause. As I expected, the Tropopause appears to behave as a regulating energy conduit were energy is transferred rather quickly from higher to lower regions with the poles being the lower energy regions most of the time. The northern pole is unstable and since it is most isolated from the more stable southern pole, its surface has greater temperature fluctuation. That is a combined impact of variations between the tropopause and the surface that can be in or out of sequence vertically and horizontally. Land mass, the warm Gulf Stream current, and the change northern Pacific surface temperatures create a chaotic mix of temperature and pressure gradients.
The changes in snow/ice coverage which change the start and length of growing seasons produces inconstant changes in albedo and CO2 storage/release. The vast changes in land use just added to these dramatic changes which may completely or partially mask information that should be available in paleoclimate reconstructions.
The chaotic changes at the northern pole is interesting, but plays holy hell on attempting to isolate the true cause of the 100K boundary.
In the Antarctic region, evidence on the 100K boundary is most noticeable. With an average surface temperature of 224K @ 142Wm-2, the approximate flux value of the truly radiant portion of the atmospheric effect, the Antarctic is receiving the maximum benefit of the energy from the tropics on average. With the 100K @ 5.67Wm-2 I sort of expected the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to start falling apart. I may have, since the real boundary may be ~65Wm-2 or 184K degrees. The magnetic signature in the Antarctic thermal flux readings may be real or may be interference with the test instrumentation.
In the tropics and sub-tropics, deep convection pushes the 100K limit in the Tropopause. These rapid drops in temperature to near 100K are too short and too localized to be measured by the satellite data. Some balloon measurements to -95K have been recorded, but they also have issues with data quality. Based solely on the three disk radiant model, below approximately 224K @ 142Wm-2, the tropopause would be gaining energy from the lower stratosphere, which would not appear to have the thermal capacity to stabilize these events. That leaves magnetic or electrical energy from the Earth's core or solar electric as sources of the thermal energy. Energy is energy, so this is quite possible. Trying to figure out if, which and how much, though is not all that simple.
Based on the same three disk radiant ratio, 2:1, 71Wm-2 would be the average radiant layer between the Tropopause and the top of the atmosphere. This is close to the ~63Wm-2 but not enough to assume the same relationship holds when magnetic flux may be involved.
Interestingly, my minimum emissivity estimate of 0.99652825^(390-63) equals 0.32 or very close to the transmittance from the surface at 390Wm-2 average to the 100K boundary flux. Which could be absolutely nothing or an indication that temperature may not be the correct term below 100K. So it is time to research some of those goofy space radio spectra to see where to go from here.
Note: peak emission wavelength at 100K 28.977685 micron. Approximately 196K has peak wavelength of 14.7 micron, CO2 main absorption.
Non thermal versus Thermal http://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/undergrad/materials/AJP_pratap&mcintosh.pdf
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/HET608-M03A02.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jeans_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakuma%E2%80%93Hattori_equation
On the other front:
Since I am stuck for the moment: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
This is an older post on Real Climate about the Arrhenius-Angstrom issue. Angstrom basically said that near the surface, CO2 is virtually saturated, i.e. a doubling of halving of CO2 would have little impact on surface temperature. Pierrehumbert and the author Spencer Weart note that convection moves surface temperature up in the atmosphere where CO2, with less competition with itself and water vapor could enhance the greenhouse effect. While that is true, the impact of the enhancement cannot easily be transferred to the surface due to the near saturation of CO2 noted by Angstrom. So Angstrom was right.
Weart and Pierrehumbert miss two of the main issues highlighted by Angstrom. The first that near saturation at the surface limits the radiant impact of CO2 at the surface. The second is more subtle, that the temperature of the CO2 limits the energy it can transfer to the layers of the atmosphere below its level of radiation.
Another issue not considered is the impact of CO2 on conduction of the atmospheric gases. Based on the conundrum above, there is also the possibility of the impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the properties of CO2 at low temperatures, approximate 100K degrees.
It should be simple to adjust models to compensate for the effects of near saturation and emission temperature. There does not appear to be much adjustment made for the conductive impact and no adjustment made for the magnetic impact. The Antarctic performance appears to imply that neither conductive nor magnetic influences should be considered negligible.
Update: When I get stuck I do tend to wander much more than normal which is totally abby normal for anyone to make sense out of, so bear with me.
The 100K boundary is ~5.67Wm-2 which is in the neighborhood of where I expected things to get fun. Things are getting strange at a flux of ~ 65Wm-2 or a temperature of roughly 184K degrees. Just about any scientist knows about the magnetic properties of oxygen and there is quite a bit of research on electric and magnetic interaction with O2 at low temperatures. That would mean that if this ~65 Wm-2 thing is a real phenomenon, there must be a pretty unusual mechanism. Thermal and non thermal flux cross over in this range, but astronomers are pretty good at telling the difference looking at distant objects. So things are getting back into sci-fi mode.
My probable best hypothesis is the Tropopause sink with a magnetic flux impact on the radiant transfer. That may make me totally certifiably a nut job, but it seems like a possibility given the odd circumstances. The ~65 is a rough match of the temperature/flux differences I would estimate for Venus and Mars. There are temperature inversions of -44C with surface temperatures of -74C in the Antarctic, which would be balanced by ~ 65Wm-2. The flux readings for the Antarctic are off by ~65Wm-2 in some areas which appear to show the southern magnetic flux field. Just no mechanism to support such a hair brained hypothesis. The center wavelength of 28.98, is just enough off from things to be a problem, but what if Ozone and CO2 in some form can hook up? The Ozone hole is not really a hole, just a significant reduction in concentration. The Arctic has its own hole forming at a different temperature and magnetic orientation. It may be crazy enough to pursue.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Consider Venus - Since I am Taking on the Big Dogs Anyway
A much better explaination for the atmospheric effect of Venus is that its surface to atmosphere boundary is effectively iso-conductive resulting in an iso-thermal atmosphere despite its much slower rotation. The point in Venus' atmosphere where the atmosphere becomes less iso-thermal, would be the point where the ratiant properties of CO2 become significant with respect to its conductive properties.
If a solution is correct, it will be correct for all applications. Think Venus.
For the direct measurement of DWLR fans, you are using values estimated to be accurate to +/- 4Wm-2, which have been proven to have inaccuracies of +/- 20Wm-2 in the polar regions, to determine the impact of ~50% of an assumed 3.7Wm-2, which may impact surface temepratures by 0.8 degrees K which is 0.3 percent of the surface temperature. And y'all think I am nuts! Caucation please!
If a solution is correct, it will be correct for all applications. Think Venus.
For the direct measurement of DWLR fans, you are using values estimated to be accurate to +/- 4Wm-2, which have been proven to have inaccuracies of +/- 20Wm-2 in the polar regions, to determine the impact of ~50% of an assumed 3.7Wm-2, which may impact surface temepratures by 0.8 degrees K which is 0.3 percent of the surface temperature. And y'all think I am nuts! Caucation please!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)