Dr. Jianshu Cao @ “Men by nature desire to know”:
Late Prof. Richard Schwartz was an astrophysicist, and had his article entitled “An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming” published posthumously by the Geophysical Society of America in GSA Today, 22(1), 44-45 (January 2012). Schwartz demanded in the article “most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect.”
This question does deserve an answer. Let’s answer the question by addressing what Schwartz considered the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming was.
First of all, Schwartz employed the planetary mean temperature for the Venus, the Mars and the Earth to interpret the greenhouse gas warming effect; the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming raised the temperature by 33 °C for the Earth, 6°C for the Mars and 460°C for the Venus.
To explain why this interpretation is incorrect, we need to examine how the 33°C greenhouse effect for the Earth is obtained. 33°C = 15°C – (-18°C). The -18°C is obtained by radiative equilibrium between incoming absorbing radiant flux from the Sun and outgoing emitting radiant flux from the Earth:
(1) p r2 (1-a) S0 = 4 p r2 ε σ T4
here, r, is radius of the Earth, and T earth’s mean surface temperature; α is albedo and S0 is the solar constant representing the incoming solar radiation energy per unit area and unit time with its value being around 1368 W/m2; σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant equal to 5.670373 x 10-8 (W/m2K4), and ε is the emissivity of the earth surface.
In current climate research, ε is either missing in the equation or is assumed to be unit. Inserting the value of α = 0.3 and ε = 1 into and rearranging Eq. (1) leads to:
(2) T = 254.9 (K) @ 255 (K) @ -18°C
However, by adopting ε = 1, one has assumed that the earth surface is a black-body surface, which of course can not be true. If ε is not 1, but 0.9, 0.8, 0.7 and 0.6, T would be -11.5°C, -3.6°C, 5.5°C or 16.5°C respectively. This -18°C is simply a result of technical error.
On the other hand, the Earth’s mean near-surface air temperature, as measured by global weather stations, is around 15°C (@ 288K). Another widely spread technical error is to use this 15°C to subtract the -18°C. To explain why, it is essential to decode highly symbolised notions “surface” and “surface temperature T” of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to extract true physical meanings for the case of earth-atmosphere system.
Yes… from this viewpoint, it should be obvious to the most casual observer! (cough, ahem.)
Actually, if you just look at the basic premis, You can easily understand. The computer programers assumed relationships that were not accurate. The error of using those assumptioms multiplied the errors until the computer models are not capable of predicting GW.
Conservative appeal to authority by using some obtuse mathematical explanation that few can understand, supposedly affording the final answer to climate change/global warming—sort of like God.
CURT
I like the factor of telling that the color of the earth is not a uniform BLACK COLOR,
therefor if calculated by computers and not taken into the equation,
obviously render the results more than NIL,
BECAUSE NOT ONLY THE WEIGHT AND TEXTURE,[ I’m thinking concrete here and steel or other],
but the multiple colors surely produce more or less radio activity, rising up each on their personal percentage, and is messing the scientists calculations,
what a great find you gave us, I bet they never thought about including the color reverberation,
in her also multiple degrees depending on location of where they are[ EX. SAHARA DESERT] [EX. POLAR ARTIC] [ EX. OCEANS] ECETERA, even adding up the living being colors on a wide scale and variations also. AND WOW, EVEN THEY COLORS HAVE VARIATIONS OF TONES within
OF SAME COLORS EACH OF THEM,
WE just gave them, a gigantic task on color computer, to redo from the beginning their calculation
by including all those TRUTHFUL REALITY, I then would be less skeptical of the result,
and while we’re at it why not include the miryad stars reverberations,
ouf, I’M DONE BUT THERE IS MORE WHICH DID NOT CROSS MY MIND, I’m sure. oh LIBERAL1, YES,
GOD IS CONSERVATIVE,
I’M SURE, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT YOURSELF.
bye I just love this FLOPPING ACES
@Liberal1 (objectivity): I’ll take God over wacho liberal zealots any day.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
And AGW zealots appeal to feeling by manipulating data, lying about it, and avoiding peer review of research.
This post will not convert anyone.
The post is written in mathematics. And mathematics is a discipline, it takes time to learn, all the emphasis is on statements that can be verified, and if a theory fails once it is tossed out.
It does not matter how much you “heart” a mathematical theory. If it is wrong, out it goes.
The theory of black bodies is, alas, quite difficult. Temperature is an abstraction for the property of matter of always being in molecular motion. No object has A temperature; rather, what we call temperature is the average of lots of different molecular motions. That makes the mathematics hard, because you must deal with infinite arrays.
Quantum mechanics is involved here. Quantum theory arose precisely because the 19th century theory led to an absurdity–everything would cool down to zero. Only the quantization of energy solved this logical absurdity.
Even grad students have trouble with Stefan-Boltzman. It is hard.
So get over it.
Besides, the Earth is not a black body. Lots of other stuff goes on.
mathman
very interesting,
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A CORRECTION ON MY COMMENT PREVIOUSLY, THIS AFTER I READ YOUR COMMENT,
ABOUT THE COLOR OF ALL THINGS, I should have said they surely influence the percent of radiation activities, INSTEAD
as what I said, they produce the radiation activity
and if their calculation is included in the scientific data.
bye