0
$\begingroup$

I have made a modified blackbody model that predict earth temperature distribution with high accuracy. It doesn´t include mass or gases. It is based on the initial thought that all energy above surface is solar heat, and heat transfer must apply to the system. Just some simple modification to the perfect blackbody surprisingly enough gave very accurate results.

I answered a question with these equations, but a moderator deleted it for unknown reasons. It is only numbers, and no speculation, so I really can´t understand why.

The greenhouse effect uses The Stefan-Boltzmann equation to add fluxes, stacking them, and that is not allowed in thermal physics. It is a balance equation and should only be used for "net" transfer.

I show why it is wrong to use an average value of solar irradiation over the whole surface area, it is because intensity is instantaneous. You cannot use average, because that means that the sun would only be ~5C. Or -18C depending on what solar average you use. Solar heat is about 105Celsius at TOA, that makes a big difference. I show how surface temperature and atmosphere temperature distribution is connected to the solar constant all the way.

It is not shown here, but the model also show direct and total irradiation at zenith, with accuracy. Anyway, since it was deleted without explanation, I get the feeling of censorship, since it falsifies the greenhouse effect. Now I ask you. What is wrong with it?:

I use Stefan-Boltzmann equation and temperature. Solar heat is absorbed according to the geometric difference between the blackbody and earth, two volumes with shells.

$TSI/(4/3^2)$.

And since only half the surface area is irradiated,

$(1/2∗TSI)/(4/3^2)=383W/m^2$

or 286.7 Kelvin. The effective temperature is found by heat transfer to the surface and inverse square law,

$1/4∗(TSI−((1/2∗TSI)/(4/3^2)))=244W/m^2$, or 256 Kelvin.

Tropopause temperature:

$((1/2∗TSI)/(4/3^2))−(1/4∗(TSI−((1/2∗TSI)/(4/3^2)))=138W/m^2$

or 222 Kelvin. As you can see, heat dominates everything, and just modifying the blackbody to observed differences, absorption in depth of a volume + irradiation of only half the surface, gives a accurate distribution of temperature.

The numbers are, from my POV, unquestionable. Such a good fit falsifies the greenhouse immediately, especially since no experiments show the effect where cold gas can increase the intensity of the heat source heating it, which the theory claims. So, what are your opinions?

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by farrenthorpe, bon, Semidiurnal Simon, Pont, David Hammen May 7 '17 at 21:41

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a question/answer site... not a discussion forum. Voting to close as unclear what you are asking. $\endgroup$ – farrenthorpe May 6 '17 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ Add some paragraph breaks and put your question (succicntly) at the top. $\endgroup$ – Spencer May 6 '17 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suggest your write up your theory for submission to an appropriate and reputable peer review climate journal. $\endgroup$ – haresfur May 6 '17 at 23:03
2
$\begingroup$

The premise that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used for greenhouse gases is wrong. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used for irradiance output, not energy input. The ground warms the atmosphere, and the atmosphere releases energy into space.

I suggest looking at the one-dimensional energy balance model. See http://kurs.uib.no/acdc/filer/219.BYQINh.pdf

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The link you pointed to uses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation several times. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen May 8 '17 at 9:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are correct, but if you note, I specifically say that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is for energy output. Specifically, it is for energy absorbed, then emitted, for the atmosphere as a whole, not just the small portion that makes up greenhouse gases. Of course I left out a lot of details- the atmosphere emitting radiation into the ground, for example. My main point was to show that the type of model OP wanted was already created, and incorporated Greenhouse gases. $\endgroup$ – BarocliniCplusplus May 8 '17 at 14:58

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.