Does this means that the assumption is no absorption at all of shortwave by the atmosphere?

No. Fo is the incoming radiation at the TOA corrected for albedo. F is the amount of incoming radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. Fo-F is the incoming radiation absorbed by the surface. Reflected radiation has already passed through the atmosphere so wavelengths readily absorbed have already been removed. Absorption of the reflected radiation should be small enough to be safely ignored.

]]>See my response to your same comment in Part Four.

]]>Miskolczi’s measured data of Aa = Ed just confirms what the physics dictates to be the case.

A lot of confusion seems to lie in not realizing that all the energy entering and leaving at the TOA is radiative , and as a result of this the effect of the non radiative fluxes from the surface (from latent heat of water and thermals) on the radiative budget has to be zero, because COE dictates that the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own.

]]>Franko, can you explain further?

a) What form do you need them in? I am basically typing them into wordpress (painful, adding the subscripts and superscripts in html code) from my notes.

b) What does QuickMath do?

]]>A couple of years ago, I believe you had some detailed questions about the Virial Theorem, at Niche Modeling. I came across them later, but didn’t know how to contact you. I believe I have full answers to these questions, if you are still interested.

]]>Do your own version of the equations, in a format that I can cut and paste into an online solver, such as QuickMath

It would also help other casual readers to understand

]]>I don’t want to be changing definitions. M2007 and M2007 defines Su by Su = σ T^4. Su by definition is just the surface radiation due to its temperature.

Actually no.

In M2007: “*Sg is the LW upward radiation from the ground*” and Su is not defined.

From deduction we believe Su = total upward longwave radiation.

In M2010: “*Su = σ.Ta ^{4} is the total surface upward flux*” and “

My clarifications:

Sg is the emission of radiation by the ground.

Su is the total upward longwave flux from the ground = Sg + reflected longwave radiation

Now, when ε = 1.00:

Sg=Su = σT^{4}

When ε ≠ 1.00, Sg cannot be “defined” as σT^{4}, it must be εσT^{4}

Sg ≠ Su

And because the atmosphere also radiates, there must be a reflected portion:

Therefore, Su > Sg.

I guess that Miskolczi thinks this is a minor effect.

I thought this was science? If it is “a minor effect” it needs to be quantified so it can be demonstrated.

The paper says, Aa=Ed.

The author says on this blog: “*I think I was the first who showed the Aa~=Ed relationship with reasonable quantitative accuracy.*

And I am pointing out that because there are apparently **unaddressed errors** Aa~=Ed might mean Ed = 0.94 Aa.

Perhaps the author thinks it is a minor effect because he hasn’t realized his mistake.

Perhaps the author thinks it is a minor effect because he has redone his calculations for Ed = 0.94 Aa or even = 0.90 Aa and the results come out the same.

But if you are serious about science, please confirm with the author of the paper:

**Either** that fig 2 is correct for ε = 0.96 – so therefore explain the mistakes I have made here and in Part Four. It should be very easy to clear up.

**Or** if fig 2 IS wrong, and the author has made a mistake, please confirm, calculate the true ratio of Ed/Aa for real world emissivities (e.g., ε=0.96) and demonstrate that the results of the paper do not change with the corrected values propagating through all of the equations and calculations.

“But in fact, upward surface flux, Su” = Su x 0.967 + reflected atmospheric radiation. ”

The calculation by HARTCODE and my Excel spreadsheet does not consider reflected longwave radiation.

I don’t want to be changing definitions. M2007 and M2007 defines Su by Su = σ T^4. Su by definition is just the surface radiation due to its temperature.

Ed is defined as the downward atmospheric emittance flux.

I recognize that you think a portion of the Ed will be reflected, adding to St and Aa.

I guess that Miskolczi thinks this is a minor effect.

]]>