Re: Diviner result

To: Christopher Monckton
Cc: Andrew Watts, Roger Tattersall, Ned Nikolov

On 4/25/2012 8:19 AM, Christopher Monckton wrote:

NASA gives 270.6 K; and the IPCC's value of 255 K for the characteristic-emission temperature is based on similar considerations. In the light of the Diviner results, this value may be too high, in which event so is the Planck parameter. - M of B

Mr Monckton,

*WHERE* does NASA give a value of 270.6 K? More importantly, why do you think it matters? Scientific truth doesn't depend on who wrote it -- it depends on whether theory agrees with experiment.

As I've shown you twice now, a correct application of standard radiative theory gives not only the correct average for the lunar equatorial temperature as measured by Diviner, but it provides all the values (such as the maximum) and shape (~[cos(longitude)]^(1/4)) of the entire sun-side equatorial temperature, at all sun-side longitudes.

[And again, the nightside temperature cannot be determined by radiative transfer alone, but depends on heat conduction through the lunar regolith. See, for example
"Near-Surface Temperatures on Mercury and the Moon and the Stability of Polar Ice Deposits," A. R. Vasavada et al, Icarus 141 (1999) 179-193
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ge151/references/vasavada_et_al_1999.pdf ]

Thus, standard theory completely -- and easily -- explains the Diviner measurements. Claims that it somehow disproves the canonical calculation of the Earth's greenhouse effect is simply wrong, due an incorrect application of basic science promulgated by Roger Tattersall, Ned Nikolov, and Karl Zeller. They are wrong.

Will you be correcting your WUWT post?

David
 
--
David Appell, PhD, independent science journalist
e: david.appell@gmail.com
w: http://www.davidappell.com
m: St. Helens, OR  USA

 

----- Original Message -----

From: David Appell

Sent: 04/25/12 03:16 PM

To: Christopher Monckton

Subject: Re: Diviner result

On 4/24/2012 3:33 AM, Christopher Monckton wrote:

Now, the method that NASA used in order to derive the 270 K value for the Moon is the same method that is routinely used in climate science to derive the 255 K mean characteristic-emission temperature for the Earth, raising the possibility that 255 K is also too high.

Such a result, whoever did it (I doubt it was NASA), is an incorrect application of the physics of radiation transfer. Unlike on Earth, on the Moon you can't assume equilibrium, so radiative theory must be applied pointwise.

Here's how standard theory gives not just the correct curve, but the correct average too:

On the sunlight side of the moon, the average temperature will be

=B*integral

where, as usual,

B=[S*(1-alpha)/sigma]^1/4 = 382 K

and the integral results from averaging the angular factor (a cosine to the 1/4th power) from -pi/2 to +pi/2, which must be done numerically. So on the sunlight side of the Moon the average temperature is

(2.7/pi)*B

The temperature of the dark side cannot, as you imply, be considered from radiative theory, since it also depends on heat conductance. From the data it is approximately

=95 K.

Averaging these two numbers gives

=212 K

in exact agreement with the data.

David

 

----- Original Message -----

From: David Appell

Sent: 04/24/12 05:55 AM

To: monckton@mail.com

Subject: Diviner result and standard theory

To: Christopher Monckton
Cc: Anthony Watts, Roger Tattersall
Re: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/why-there-cannot-be-a-global-warming-consensus/

Mr. Monckton:

Your 4/23 post on WUWT saying that standard theory cannot explain the Diviner measurement of lunar temperature is incorrect.

In fact, as I show here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html

standard theory not only easily gives the exact measured value for the average lunar equatorial temperature, but it explains that temperature for all longitudes.

Sincerely,
David

      --   David Appell, independent science journalist   e: david.appell@gmail.com   w: http://www.davidappell.com   m: St. Helens, OR  USA       

 

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 
c/o Brooks's, St. James's Street, London SW1A 1LN 
Cell +44 7814 556423: monckton@mail.com  > 

   --   David Appell, independent science journalist   e: david.appell@gmail.com   w: http://www.davidappell.com   m: St. Helens, OR  USA   

 

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 
c/o Brooks's, St. James's Street, London SW1A 1LN 
Cell +44 7814 556423: monckton@mail.com