I have no source for this, so I think I realized it for myself but I have int he past found out I simply forgot where I learned/(was taught) something. It is I believe self evident like most things are, once you actually see it.

Conservation Angular & Linear momentum is trivially and obviously tied to newtons laws, when we put in the extra words that were too too obvious to be said.

For every force there is an equal and opposite force that …….

exists for exactly the same length of time as the other one and

it is also co-linear with the other one.

Change in momentum = Impulse = F t

As the forces are co – linear. The for every possible axis of rotation there is an equal and opposite force that produces by mere computation an equal and opposite torque, and thus an equal and opposite change in angular momentum about any axis you chose.

HTH. its part repayment for all the things you have cleared up for me

9,999+ to go.

Ta.

In George White’s analysis, the ‘T’ variable is the direct surface radiation to space.

]]>RW says

“If you disagree that the 3.7 W/m^2 per CO2 doubling is the instananeous reduction in ‘T’ (the direct surface radiation to space) and this results in an instantaneous reduction at the TOA of 3.7 W/m^2, then this is where the problem between us lies. I have a few sources, including Myhre himself, that verifies the 3.7 W/m^2 is exactly as White says it is – the reduction in ‘T’.”

The 3.7 W/m^2 is due the reduction in T from the effective change in radiating altitude… not surface cooling. But the fact that the average height of emission to space rises with an increase in opacity. So the higher altitude of effective emission from the troposphere to space is initially cooler, due to its raised altitude, from an increase in opacity(adding GHG’s)

So the incoming E would be greater than the out going E, leading to an increase of E in the system, until the T increases enough, at the new average height of emission that equilibrium is achieved. That what comes in goes out.

I think you were talking about the same stuff about six months to a year ago, on other threads here… i may be taking it out of context if this is a different argument?

]]>Climate is entirely controlled by external influences and what we get is weather, as the Earth tries to come to equilibrium with ever varying imputs.

Good luck with your weather analysis.

]]>Or do you not want to know?

]]>Dewitt,

You say:

“The instantaneous effect of increasing ghg concentration is to decrease transmission and increase emission because emissivity equals absorptivity. Total emission decreases because transmission decreases faster than emission increases because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere. Your calculation, like White, assumes that only transmission decreases. That violates Kirchhoff’s Law and amounts to a violation of the Second Law. If you decrease transmission from 93 by 3.7 to 89.3 W/m², emission increases from 146 to 147.85 W/m² so total emission at the TOA only decreases to 237.15 W/m², half of what you need. You have to decrease transmission by 7.4 W/m² to get a reduction of total emission of 3.7 W/m².”

I’m afraid I really don’t quite understand what your talking about here. Can you elaborate in more detail? If you disagree that the 3.7 W/m^2 per CO2 doubling is the instananeous reduction in ‘T’ (the direct surface radiation to space) and this results in an instantaneous reduction at the TOA of 3.7 W/m^2, then this is where the problem between us lies. I have a few sources, including Myhre himself, that verifies the 3.7 W/m^2 is exactly as White says it is – the reduction in ‘T’.

Post your email address or send me an email and I’ll forward you the entire exchange between myself and Myhre.

]]>Wrong again. You still don’t get it. Did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not. Here it is again and this really is for the last time:

The instantaneous effect of increasing ghg concentration is to decrease transmission and **increase emission** because emissivity equals absorptivity. Total emission decreases because transmission decreases faster than emission increases because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere. **Your calculation, like White, assumes that only transmission decreases**. That violates Kirchhoff’s Law and amounts to a violation of the Second Law. If you decrease transmission from 93 by 3.7 to 89.3 W/m², emission increases from 146 to 147.85 W/m² so total emission at the TOA only decreases to 237.15 W/m², half of what you need. You have to decrease transmission by 7.4 W/m² to get a reduction of total emission of 3.7 W/m². Here are the correct values for different values of transmissivity, T.

T transmitted emitted total up Ts new

0.180 69.3 157.85 227.15 290.73

0.200 77.0 154.00 231.00 289.51

0.220 84.7 150.15 234.85 288.32

0.222 85.6 149.70 235.30 288.18

0.232 89.3 147.85 237.15 287.62

0.240 92.4 146.30 238.70 287.15

0.242 93.0 146.00 239.00 287.06

0.260 100.1 142.45 242.55 286.00

Note that to decrease the total TOA emission by 3.7 W/m², the value of T must be 0.222, not 0.232. But this is still a toy model, not the real atmosphere. As T → 0, Ts new → 303 K. In the real world, the Ts would increase exponentially.

]]>By this I mean if you just assumed or inputed that the full 3.7 W/m^2 is equal to post albedo solar power entering the system, using White’s model and this basic method, you would get the same exact ‘zero-feedback’ sensitivity as you did above (about 1.1 C).

]]>“When and where did I ever say it wasn’t?”

You didn’t, but I just wanted to clarify to be absolutely sure.

Might I ask, do you agree that post albedo solar power (ignorning diurnal fluctuations) is all continuously downward emitted into the system, acting to warm the system and ultimately the surface?

If yes, do you agree that an amount equal to about half of the surface radiative power absorbed by the atmosphere is continuously exiting the system, acting cool the system and ultimately the surface?

If no to one or both, can you explain your objection?

]]>You say:

“Holding the atmospheric emission constant at 146 W/m² while the absorptivity of the atmosphere changes is wrong. It says the atmosphere would emit 146 W/m² up and down even if it were completely transparent, which is obviously completely wrong. Atmospheric emission is, in fact, directly proportional to its absorptivity. The correct formula for the atmospheric emission when the transmissivity changes instantaneously from the values in White’s diagram with a surface emission of 385 and a transmissivity of 0.241 is (1-T)*192.5 which equals 146 when T=0.241. So now you have 1-T in the numerator and the denominator and F = 192.5/385 = 0.5 for any value of T.”

The whole point is with the known boundary fluxes, when ‘T’ equals 0.241, F equals 0.5. This says nothing about what the emission would be after the system’s response to a change, like if ‘T’ were to decrease, except that after equilibrium F would equal 0.5.

Here is what happens in that case:

When CO2 is instantaneously doubled, ‘T’ (and OLR) reduces by 3.7 W/m^2 (from 239 W/m^2 to 235.3 W/m^2). For so-called ‘zero-feedback’ sensitivity per George’s model, to re-establish equilibrium with space, the amount emitted to space from the atmosphere ultimately has to increase. The upward emitted half of the 3.7 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere (1.85 W/m^2) re-establishes equilibrium with space fairly quickly, because this power upon re-emission is directed away from the surface toward space and the thermal time constants of the atmosphere are infinitesimal compared those below the surface. Once equilibrium is re-established, this power is essentially the same as that passing directly from the surface into space (i.e. like ‘T’). The downward re-emitted 1.85 W/m^2 is input into the system and ultimately reaches the surface acting to warm it, requiring the surface to warm further in response in order to re-emit the -1.85 W/m^2 at the TOA back out to re-establish full equilibrium with space (239 W/m^2 in and out). This requires the surface to emit an additional 1.15 W/m^2, because 62% of what’s emitted from the surface is ‘blocked’ by the atmosphere and returned or re-circulated back to the surface (239/385 = 0.62; 1.85 W/m^2 x 0.62 = 1.15 W/m^2 and 1.85 W/m^2 + 1.15 W/m^2 = 3.0 W/m^2 = 0.55C from S-B). Or it takes about 1.61 W/m^2 of surface radiative power to allow 1 W/m^2 at the TOA (385/239 = 1.61; 1.85 W/m^2 x 1.61 = 3.0 W/m^2 = 0.55C from S-B).

The new values after ‘zero-feedback’ equilibrium is re-established would be:

Post albedo solar power = 239 W/m^2

‘T’ = 90.0 W/m^2 = 0.232

‘A’ = 298 W/m^2

Amount of ‘A’ emitted to space = 149.0 W/m^2

Amount of ‘A’ returned to the surface = 149.0 W/m^2

Ts = 287.55K = 388 W/m^2

Again, it’s important to note that White’s model is an equivalent model whose behavior at the bounaries matches the required behavior.

]]>