>the "albedo effect" disappears

Because day-time reflection is balanced by night-time retention? Sounds reasonable...

James P,

Yes, in a way..... But what I am simply saying is that there is conservation of energy at TOA, where there is only radiation in/out, so that the SB calculation, over the diurnal cycle (with proper integration to account for Holder's inequality) must balance. I am further proposing that the albedo problem dissapears if radiation pressure on clouds is factored in, in order to obey conservation of momentum over the illuminated half of the planet.

Jan 31, 2012 at 1:24 PM | Roger Longstaff

Roger,

What do you make of Harry Huffman's recent handbagging of N&Z whilst at the same time equally discrediting AGW.

RL

"albedo problem"

I wonder if your TOA insolation means that absorbed or the actual amount of sunshine (illumination). If you are working with conservation of momentum then it would seem to be the latter?

RKS - The last I was aware of was that N&Z had agreed to look at HDH's work seriously, but I was not aware he had "handbagged" them - what was that about, if you can say in a few words? This is a shame, because I thought that their work was pulling in the same direction.

SSAT - You are correct - I was thinking about illumination of the cloudtops that comes down from TOA, when most of the visible gets reflected and it seems that the energy is not accounted for by many - which conservation of momentum indicates to me that it should. Just an idea - but that is why we are here.

RKS - The last I was aware of was that N&Z had agreed to look at HDH's work seriously, but I was not aware he had "handbagged" them - what was that about, if you can say in a few words? This is a shame, because I thought that their work was pulling in the same direction.

Jan 31, 2012 at 8:32 PM | Roger Longstaff

Link to part three of Harry Huffman's response to N&Z on Jan. 26, where he states in strong terms :- So there is good reason to think that Nikolov and Zeller's "Theory", which is really only an arbitrary fitting of planetary data to a (rather extreme) mathematical form of their own devising, is hiding a real, although modest (5-7K), physical effect--a cooling effect--upon the temperature inside clouds and haze alike.

More telling than the hiding of that clear physical effect by the "Unified Climate Theory", however, and indeed more outrageous, is the shape of their NTE function. They tried to give that function some physical support by comparing its shape to that of the Poisson formula for temperature as a function of pressure, but it should be noted (using their own Figure 5) that their NTE function WOULD APPEAR TO BE USELESS for calculating the surface temperature of 5 of the 8 planetary bodies they considered, as all of those 5 bodies (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, and Triton) have practically zero surface pressure, while their surface temperatures vary greatly (in other words, the NTE function is a vertical straight line, at a surface pressure of zero, in their Figure 5). Yet they claim, in their Table 1, perfect prediction of the surface temperatures of 2 of those 5 bodies (Mars and Europa), and near perfect prediction of another (Triton). It is my understanding, in the case of Mars, that its surface temperature varies widely, one would presume precisely because its pressure is so low, thus unstable. Even if their data and calculations are correct in this, this unphysical result explains the extreme form of their NTE function; and the extreme accuracy of their predicted temperatures cannot possibly be true. And sure enough, if one checks their values for the OBSERVED surface temperatures, one finds they claim to know every one of those temperatures to within 0.1K! I do not hesitate to call this delusionary.

So I reject the "Unified Climate Theory", as it now stands, just as I reject the consensus greenhouse effect, as unphysical and incompetent. There is no physical insight in it, that is not already in my Venus/Earth analysis.

Link here :- http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/01/unified-climate-theory-iii.html

"unphysical and incompetent."

Sounds more like a handbagging than polite scientific debate to me.

Bit of a shame really.

Thanks RKS, I was unaware of HDH's onslaught, which I also regret. There is no need at all to use words like "outrageous" and "incompetent".

However, I can see Huffman's point. The original N&Z paper claimed that Eq8 is “a simple yet robust formula for predicting a planet’s mean surface temperature as a function of only two variables – TOA solar irradiance and mean atmospheric surface pressure”. This is clearly problematic for planetoids with near zero surface pressure. However N&Z are developing their work with an expanded part 1, and part 2 yet to be released. Part 1 gives (in my opinion) a good explanation for surface temperatures on the Moon, using just insolation and the correct integration of SB calculations taking into account Holder's inequality, so I expect that in Part 2 they will develop their theories further, calculating surface temperatures for planetoids with and without atmospheres.

I do not think that either HDH or N&Z have either perfect or correct theories yet, but they seem to be working from the same premise - that atmospheric chemistry has litte or no effect on surface temperatures. Also, they are both achieving very interesting (if incomplete) results. This, to me, would be a good reason to work together, but I expect that egos are getting in the way.

I do not think that either HDH or N&Z have either perfect or correct theories yet, but they seem to be working from the same premise - that atmospheric chemistry has litte or no effect on surface temperatures. Also, they are both achieving very interesting (if incomplete) results. This, to me, would be a good reason to work together, but I expect that egos are getting in the way.

Feb 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM | Roger Longstaff

Let's hope wiser councel prevails. There are far too many historical examples of where individual ego's impeded scientific advancement.

Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves that, while we discuss the facinating scientific premise that "atmospheric chemistry has litte or no effect on surface temperatures" the political and economic consequences are staggering! Who could believe that scientific investigation does not matter to everybody in the country, and indeed the world?

Who could believe that scientific investigation does not matter to everybody in the country, and indeed the world?

Feb 1, 2012 at 3:31 PM | Roger Longstaff

If only that the media would convey that message impartially.

And why do I spell egos as ego's when I know it's wrong?

Feb 1, 2012 at 3:31 PM | Roger Longstaff

Roger,

At the risk of over simplifying Harry Huffman's work, How does his assertion that planetary surface temperature is simply the result of distance from the Sun account for the surface temperature of our moon, used by N&Z as a reference local planetary grey body, being lower than the Earth's whilst being at the same distance from the Sun?

Have I misunderstood or has HDH not taken this into account in his data.

RKS, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. If I understand it correctly (which I probably do not) HDH and N&Z have different theories - HDH to account for Venus, using insolation and atmospheric density, and then comparing it with Earth, and N&Z using the correct application of SB thermodynamics to correctly predict the surface temperature of an airless planetoid, with empirical verication from recent lunar data. The problem seems to be to reconcile the two, which N&Z have attempted in their original paper and plan to expand on in "part 2", which we await. HDH has stated his objections to their original analysis.

The remaining problem seems to be how to reconcile the two aspects for planets with atmospheres, and in particular with varying albedos (eg. Earth and Venus) My (perhaps bizarre) attempt is to try to explain the albedo problem by applying special relativity to the classical mechanics so far used - conservation of momentum consequent upon (relected) radiation pressure. In this case, using corrected values for emmisivity (for clouds), as measured at TOA (where we know that there must be energy balance over the diurnal cycle) the correctly integrated SB calculation at TOA should (perhaps?) reconcile the N&Z and HDH theories?

Like you, I wish other scienticts would join in here, if only to explain the error of our ways.

Like you, I wish other scienticts would join in here, if only to explain the error of our ways.

Feb 1, 2012 at 4:59 PM | Roger Longstaff

Until both can get a full set of accepted temperature data for as many planets as possible, to verify their claims, we'll have to find some other way to square the circle.

Have you got any quick links to the latest on this at Tallbloke?

RKS - the TB link that I have been following is:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/planetary-cloud-albedo-level-is-a-function-of-solar-energy-absorption/#more-4632

RKS - the TB link that I have been following is:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/planetary-cloud-albedo-level-is-a-function-of-solar-energy-absorption/#more-4632

Feb 1, 2012 at 6:16 PM | Roger Longstaff

Thanks, seems to getting quite interesting.

I've left a post regarding my question Re. HDH's apparent failure to account for the measured lunar surface temperature.

Thanks RKS - it seems we will have to flit between the two. The silence is deafening!