Characterizing a Planet's Temperature

[physicsguy21]

Well, this pseudoscience has been fun...

This is just hot air. So basic physical reality is pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is physical reality? Not in my world it isn't, especially when observations offer confirmation that would otherwise be absent.

You're telling me that the atmosphere above this mythical 16K effective emission height can exist in a state colder than the relative greybody temperature? How so? Where are the physics?

Thermalization per areal unit increases with density but it is never 100%. There is no relation between radiative temperature and molecular temperature in molecular-kinetic maintenance.

[cmc0605]

What, you don't want to talk to physicsguy about Holder's inequality and how it disproves the entire Earth's radiative balance model?

Not really. He does have a point about the inability to linearize Stefan-Boltzmann over a large range, but it's still useful for the Earth case with a relatively well-mixed distribution of heating. It's true that the average temperature must be less than or equal to the effective temperature derived above; The moon's temperature is not "190 K" or whatever...it is much hotter than anywhere on Earth on the dayside, and much colder at night. Moreover, the atmosphere can become colder than the effective temperature- the stratospheric "skin temperature" will be roughly Te/(2^0.25) where Te is the effective temperature.

In any case this simple model is not at all relevant for GCMs of the type used by the IPCC which solve for the temperature structure and absorber distribution at a number of grid points and with fully operational radiative physics. This is just a useful starting off model, and criticizing its deficiencies is easy but a waste of time.

[physicsguy21]

The Moon's net temperature is measured and confirmed at 197K avging both 'halves', via NASA's Diviner mission. I had thought this would be the least debated aspect. Of course one side is scorching hot while the other is very cold..the moon has no atmosphere to offer insulation and diminish stellar radiation. Clearly atmospheres insulate the surface, I have never denied this.

If atmospheric molecular temperature is, by some amazing phenomenon, determined radiatively, no global altitude based portion of it should average colder than -18C assuming that the 255K figure is accurate, which I contend that it isn't because insolation is weighted first.

However the real problem is that we're combining 'temperatures' that have no physical meaning to one another, atmospheric temperature decreases with height until the ozone-induced inversion. The level of thermalization per volume based unit is key in determining atmospheric temperature. Physical parameters developed that coincide with our observations are incorrect. I stand on long island NY in May, the molecular temp is 20C, the solar vector 100C, the MSAT is 40C, I can experience all three.

This evidence from AMSU speaks for itself.

Insolation varies by over 100Wm2 on a seasonal scale, we're closest to the Sun in January so we can directly measure the changes in atmospheric profile after correcting for topography, but most importantly, whether or not there is any effect on the upper atmosphere from topographical effects.

The surface emits hottest during the northern hemispheric summer for clear reasons. The lower troposphere follows this seasonal emission pattern, but the upper atmosphere does not, in fact it shows an opposite sign. Most of that can be attributed to ozone but the radiative effect from the surface is non-existent well before then. This is because we're talking about two very different 'temperature' parameters.

14K feet, notice the peak during July: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

56K feet: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+006

135K feet: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+011

That should make the effect pretty clear, in my humble opinion.

[donsutherland1]

What? My evidence is the Moon, it has been recently measured at 192K via NASA's Diviner mission just last month, and earlier measurements have pinned it down to a similar value. The IPCC assigns it 255K which is now proven wrong. I also mathematically proved the error in our calculations with a simple flat blackbody. To add on, I have shown it to be physically impossible for Earth to have a 255K greybody temperature because no atmospheric layer should be colder than the greybody temperature of the planet.

I just noted why people have reacted to your points as they have. The 255K figure is a reasonable approximation of the earth's effective temperature. Given the significance of alleging that the estimate is wrong (and with it some widely-used principles), one needs very powerful evidence to sustain the claim. I don't believe you have provided evidence that rises to that level.

Based on what? Modeling and speculation, the same embarrassing thinking present in climate science. Galileo's observations were considered pseudoscience, and we don't know any more about the dynamics of our Sun now than they knew about the dynamics of our solar system then.

The models are based the latest scientific understanding. The models are simplifications. There's a lot of uncertainty. There's a lot to learn. But the models do offer some insight into understanding the sun. The models will continue to be improved as scientific knowledge expands. For now, simple as they might be relative to what might exist tomorrow, they're still valuable and most definitely better than nothing.

This is for another thread, but I can demonstrate the physical implausibility of the nuclear fusion nonsense or discuss it with you via personal message. The fusion concept is no more than hypothesis.

Fusion cannot explain why the Solar wind accelerates to Millions of mph from the Sun, heating up to millions of degreesF. The solar wind completely stopped in May of 1999 if I remember the date correctly, impossible in fusion theory. To add on, the Sunspots on Earths surface represent holes torn into the photosphere by intense magnetic activity, revealing the interior of the sun to be dramatically darker.

That fusion is an important dynamic associated with the sun and all other stars does not mean that it explains everything or must explain everything to be held as valid. There almost certainly is no "theory of everything." Other factors (known and unknown) contribute. However, it's a leap of faith to suggest that the sun is "not powered by nuclear fusion deep within..."

Finally, there were some predictions of the kind of solar wind suppression event that occurred in May 1999. It's not clear whether the temporary suppression of the solar wind was due to internal factors, external ones, or some combination.