tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post4156236530153361495..comments2022-09-22T21:23:37.851-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Another Bad Chuck Wiese ErrorDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-53990468178948615932021-09-16T09:32:05.022-07:002021-09-16T09:32:05.022-07:00Hi guys. I'm back home and just got some work,...Hi guys. I'm back home and just got some work, but will get back to this as soon as I can. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-73367015239293275122021-09-13T17:12:00.314-07:002021-09-13T17:12:00.314-07:00Yes, very pleasant fellow. And so illuminating.Yes, very pleasant fellow. And so illuminating.JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731366159156041863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-69450046715676337542021-09-13T14:18:01.359-07:002021-09-13T14:18:01.359-07:00Pleasant fellow.Pleasant fellow.Layzejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346550512734519728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-14546634579594791942021-09-13T13:07:45.438-07:002021-09-13T13:07:45.438-07:00Hi Joe. I emailed Chuck Wiese and Ed Berry a link ...Hi Joe. I emailed Chuck Wiese and Ed Berry a link to our comments, and here's what I got back:<br /><br />=========================<br />There are no errors in my calculations, Appell, and you are so screwed up in your misrepresentations of what I state, there is no hope you will ever recover from your idiocy. You have the comprehension of a ten year old because you aren't interested in science. You distort it rather than use it.<br /><br />You can't seem to get it through that thick skull of yours that I have never called atmospheric CO2 a black body. I have stated that the 15 micron band which composes the Q-branch of its radiation behaves nearly as a black body over that narrow range of wavelength where the absorption coefficients are very high similar to black body radiation. Elsasser's treatment of CO2 uses this premise and it is perfectly valid.<br /><br />The forcing equation you used is precisely the one that I used to compute the CHANGE in radiative forcing as integrated over CO2's wavelengths from increasing atmospheric CO2.<br /><br />Being the scientific moron you keep demonstrating that you are, you claim that I applied this result to black body radiation emission FROM ATMOSPHERIC CO2 which you erroneously call a mistake, because apparently, you think the earth's surface is not a Planck emitter, which it clearly is with a ground emissivity of roughly .9.<br />That is where the calculation follows through with a plug-in to the Stefan Boltzman equation that emits this absorbed radiation from the earth's surface. If it is emitting from the earth's surface as it would be in this special case, this CHANGE in radiative forcing from the Arrhenius relationship is most certainly valid in the Stefan Boltzman equation. <br /><br />The number of times that you continue to make a fool out of yourself with your distorted and wrong assertions seems to know no bounds. You are not worth the time of day for me to go over to your blog that nobody reads to argue science with someone who distorts and argues nonsense.<br /><br />Chuck Wiese<br />Meteorologist <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-6158400525131584382021-09-12T13:21:59.897-07:002021-09-12T13:21:59.897-07:00Hi David,
I find it useful to think of the radiat...Hi David,<br /><br />I find it useful to think of the radiative forcing, not as radiation coming down from the atmosphere, but as radiative flux that is missing from the Earth's outgoing infrared. David Archer's on-line modtran model is useful for exactly this problem. You can find it here: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/<br /><br />Keep the altitude at 70 km, looking down. I usually use the 1976 US standard atmosphere. Set the CO2 concentration to zero and note the outgoing integrated upward IR heat flux. Then plot the heat flux for values, 2, 50, 200, 300 .... 1000 or so. If you plot the outgoing flux as a function of CO2 concentration, you'll see that it looks very similar to Myrhe's formula that you have as Equation 1 (or rather plot the negative of Myrhe's formula alongside the modtran result). You'll have also demonstrated for yourself the band saturation effect that is responsible for the logarithmic dependence on CO2 concentration.<br /><br />For a doubling of CO2, Myrhe's equation gives 3.71 watts/m^2. From your equation (3), one can get that the Planck response (without feedbacks) gives a delta-T = 0.27 K/(w/m^2) * delta-P (I dropped the emissivity and used T = 255 K at the skin layer). That means the delta-T for a doubling of CO2 is about 1 K without feedbacks.<br /><br />This is more-or-less what Wiese is doing but Wiese is going from 341 to 416 ppm CO2 and using 305 K instead of 255 K for the Planck response.JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731366159156041863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-66405544272024866372021-09-11T18:28:39.919-07:002021-09-11T18:28:39.919-07:00Hi Joe. I have a few minutes.... I admit to being ...Hi Joe. I have a few minutes.... I admit to being very confused by Wiese's argument. The only way I was able to reproduce his number of 0.15 C was to use his radiative forcing number of 1.07 W/m2, which is of course radiation coming down from the atmosphere. That's why I thought he was assuming that atmospheric CO2 was a blackbody.<br /><br />But, similarly to you, his calculation seems to me so mixed up that it's almost hopeless -- to me anyway -- to understand what he's doing. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-29822786020424362772021-09-08T12:43:34.628-07:002021-09-08T12:43:34.628-07:00Hi Joe. Thanks for your comment. I went out of tow...Hi Joe. Thanks for your comment. I went out of town and am taking some days off so it's might take me some days to get back to you on this. But I will....David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-23218234828701523812021-09-06T11:13:41.795-07:002021-09-06T11:13:41.795-07:00David, I'm not sure that Wiese is saying that ...David, I'm not sure that Wiese is saying that CO2 is a black-body. What he's trying to do is assume that the Earth's response to the CO2 forcing is close to blackbody, not that CO2 is a blackbody. He is simply calculating the non-feedback Planck response to CO2, but getting it wrong. It's at the atmospheric skin layer that the radiation in equals the radiation out because convective heat and latent heat are negligible. Fourier knew this 200 years ago. At this layer the outgoing infrared has to be ~ 240 w/m^2, which corresponds to a temperature of 255 K. Not the 305 K that he's using (I have no idea where he gets this either). Of course, by calculating the Planck response and getting it wrong, he's also neglecting feedbacks on the system. Even the emissivity is in the wrong place --- it should be in the denominator, not the numerator (but that's the least of the problem).<br /><br />The rest of the argument doesn't make any sense. Yes, solar insolation peaks in June, but as we all know thermal inertia due to the oceans means that temperatures in the northern hemisphere peak in August or so. He's not solving a full energy balance equation on the surface which does include convection and latent heat. Rather, he's assuming only radiation balance for the surface --- which is absurd, especially for a meteorologist. He doesn't even factor in the albedo from what I can see. If only solar insolation in June mattered for Portland, why don't temperatures always peak in June?JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731366159156041863noreply@blogger.com