CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, maybe you misunderstood me. I asked YOU to explain what is incorrect in that particular paper, seeing as you were in there with your instant dismissal. You must have spotted something in it that I missed. My brain is still in holiday mode...:cool:

You, (seriously?), think there could be a 57C hole in our understanding of the atmosphere?

Thargor

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Gaoith had the decency to spend hours reading the paper. Other posters quick to dismiss? Not so much.

So, as I understand it, you think the calculations are correct, based on a flat earth?

I see.

How could you possibly misread 2 simple posts that badly that you come up with that "understanding"? Gives an insight into into the state of the rest of your posts I suppose.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

You, (seriously?), think there could be a 57C hole in our understanding of the atmosphere?

Way to dodge the question again

I said I didn't believe it, but reading it again I don't see anything glaringly wrong. What is it?

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Way to dodge the question again

I said I didn't believe it, but reading it again I don't see anything glaringly wrong. What is it?

You don't see anything ELSE glaringly wrong you mean


What's wrong with the paper? That they claim a 57C error isn't damning enough then? That can be overlooked because there isn't anything 'glaringly' wrong?



Hummmm.....

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

You don't see anything ELSE glaringly wrong you mean


What's wrong with the paper? That they claim a 57C error isn't damning enough then? That can be overlooked because there isn't anything 'glaringly' wrong?



Hummmm.....

It's clear that you've not even seen the paper and are here just for the ride.

Here is is. Go and read it and enlighten me on where the error is. Put me out of my mysery.*

https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

*I couldn't give a fook whether it's right or wrong.

Thargor

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's clear that you've not even seen the paper and are here just for the ride.

Here is is. Go and read it and enlighten me on where the error is. Put me out of my mysery.*

https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

*I couldn't give a fook whether it's right or wrong.

Ive never seen the paper either, its always faster to just google their names, the first result is a piece about their bullsh1t shyster tactics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/

In short they tried the usual cherry picking of a few datapoints but when they couldnt even get that to work they fabricated , sorry, they "recalculated" new measurements for Mars so it fit their "study" instead of using the inconvenient real data.

The withdrawn study “is just a curve-fitting exercise of five data points using four free parameters and as many functional forms as they could think of,” Schmidt, an expert in atmospheric climate modeling, said in an email. Like the previous pseudonymous research, “it too has nothing fundamental to add.”

He added, “The authors’ insistence that they are ‘contradicting mainstream theory’ is just delusional self-aggrandizement.”

Grinspoon, too, said the model does not invalidate decades of research into Earth’s atmospheric science. “I don’t think they’ve made this case,” he said. “Certainly not enough to rearrange everything we know about climate.”

There were other red flags embedded within the study. Nikolov and Zeller recalculated Mars’ pressure and temperature data, in lieu of using the “known data for Mars that people had been carefully studying for decades,” Grinspoon said. “If they hadn’t, their model would not have worked quite as well.”

So congratulations, you've wasted everyones time again, back to Wattsupwiththat or Facebook to provide your next piece of stunning evidence for the global climate conspiracy...

SeaBreezes

Thargor wrote: »

Ive never seen the paper either, its always faster to just google their names, the first result is a piece about their bullsh1t shyster tactics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/

In short they tried the usual cherry picking of a few datapoints but when they couldnt even get that to work they fabricated , sorry, they "recalculated" new measurements for Mars so it fit their "study" instead of using the inconvenient real data.



So congratulations, you've wasted everyones time again, back to Wattsupwiththat or Facebook to provide your next piece of stunning evidence for the global climate conspiracy...

Yet again you conflate consensus with correct. If you were a climate scientist who was just told their life's work was based on incorrect calculations what would you say?

I will remind you Zharakova was ridiculed and the IPCC tried to prevent her being published 10 years ago. And she was proved right against consensus.

And N&Z correctly predicted Pluto temps. Before horizon flyby.

That said I think personally, the truth is between their discovery and The CO2 narrative. But that's just my thoughts. Who knows?

Gaoth Laidir

Thargor wrote: »

Ive never seen the paper either, its always faster to just google their names, the first result is a piece about their bullsh1t shyster tactics:


In short they tried the usual cherry picking of a few datapoints but when they couldnt even get that to work they fabricated , sorry, they "recalculated" new measurements for Mars so it fit their "study" instead of using the inconvenient real data.



So congratulations, you've wasted everyones time again, back to Wattsupwiththat or Facebook to provide your next piece of stunning evidence for the global climate conspiracy...

Congratulations, you genius. That's not even referring to the paper I was discussing. :rolleyes: Maybe it's time for you and the other guy to actually click on that link and stop Googling names.

Well done on wasting everyone's time.

Thargor

Oh sorry, looks like they usually end up retracting their papers when their tactics are exposed, there are multiple instances to choose from when you look up their names and pseudonyms, well Im sure whichever one of their publications you're on about bucks the trend and is a totally legitimate proof of a 57 deg C hole in our understanding of climate science, bearing in mind that a tenth of that figure is approximately the difference between current climate and global ice age...

SeaBreezes

Thargor wrote: »

Oh sorry, looks like they usually end up retracting their papers when their tactics are exposed, there are multiple instances to choose from when you look up their names and pseudonyms, well Im sure whichever one of their publications you're on about bucks the trend and is a totally legitimate proof of a 57 deg C hole in our understanding of climate science, bearing in mind that a tenth of that figure is approximately the difference between current climate and global ice age...

Read them.

M.T. Cranium

Seabreezes, you asked about 2019 annual temps, I mentioned that Toronto had finished in 54th place out of 180, now seeing that the CET which uses two decimals to avoid a lot of ties finished tied 24th with 2016, out of 361 years in their data set. So it was not that notable a warm year in either case.

More generally on this question of planetary atmospheric temperature, Mars which is far enough from the Sun to get perhaps 50% of our insolation (bearing in mind that it drops off at an exponential rate) and a very thin atmosphere has a mean global temperature of about -25 C, compared to our 15 C. Venus has heated up well above 400 C but they have a runaway greenhouse effect (all those Venusian oil fields I suppose).

I am going to try to wade through that paper and see where the 57 C deg "adjustment" fits in. But so far, our greenhouse gas increase seems to have changed the mean global temperature by about 1 C deg and some arctic climate stations (as I showed in my own research available in another thread here) by about 2 C deg (possibly 3 or 4 around Jan Mayen and Spitzbergen). These global averages are heavily influenced by those additions and without them I would imagine a "non arctic" global mean would show less concentrated warming in the modern period, as both the CET and Toronto data sets display.

We are in a warming climate period generally speaking but with natural variability still taking us to both extremes. This is still happening with greater frequency in North America. Last February was coldest on record in quite a few locations in western regions (coldest among 100-130 years of data at least). And even at warmed up urban Toronto, Feb 2015 managed to finish third coldest ahead of a lot of very cold 19th century cases with no urban heat island. The only years to beat it were 1934 and 1875.

This past November, Toronto had two minimum temperatures that set daily records (again up against years where the city was not there) that were not just daily records, but what I call "benchmark records" which are earliest of season in the autumn or latest of the season in spring. There were also benchmark records set in April 1982, and all-time snowfall records in April 1975 and October 1969. The modern climate (perhaps 1969 is a bit far back) seems quite capable of holding its own against the notably cold decades of the 1850s to 1880s.

Thargor

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Read them.

Ive honestly wasted enough time on it at this stage.

Gaoth Laidir

MT, where exactly is the Toronto station in the university? Environment Canada has it exactly here, but I don't see it on aerial imagery. Has it ever been moved?

Tuisceanch

https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

In the report referenced above the authors define a term which they abbreviate to ATE (Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement) which is used to describe the total extra warmth near a planet surface measured as a difference (K) between the planet’s present mean global surface temperature and an estimated planetary reference temperature in the absence of atmosphere.

The ‘effective-emission’ or ‘radiating equilibrium’ temperature (K) (Te) frequently quoted 255 K (−18 C) is the mean global temperature of Earth in the absence of GE, i.e. if the Earth’s atmosphere were absent or completely transparent to the outgoing infrared radiation. This is called the Greenhouse Effect (GE)

In this paper the authors argue that this is a non-physical quantity (thus lending support to their own zero-dimension analysis) and so propose to recalculate that figure, based on their derived equations:





They equate ATE ≡ GE but rather than using Te they derive a new value,which they call Tna,and is defined as:

the average skin temperature of an Airless Spherical Celestial Object (ASCO).Tna depends on solar irradiance and the surface albedo:

ATE = Ts – Tna

They calculate Tna:

using the above equations, as 197.6 K, which translates into ATE = 287.6–197.6 = 90.0 K.

They infer that

the Earth’s atmospheric effect has a sizable thermodynamic component that is independent of the greenhouse infrared back radiation. In other words, ATE includes more than just the radiative effect of greenhouse gases (GE), i.e. ATE = GE + TE, where TE is a Temperature Enhancement caused by thermodynamic (pressure-controlled) processes.The thermal effect of radiatively active gases is then obtained as a residual, i.e. GE = ATE – TE.

They admit that:

an accurate assessment of the TE magnitude is a non-trivial task and entails the use of coupled atmosphere–ocean global circulation models, which is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, the above TE estimate (~16 K) should merely be viewed as an indication that Earth’s ATE has indeed a sizable thermodynamic component requiring further investigation.

They surmise that:

that the radiative portion of ATE controlled by greenhouse gases might be larger than 33 K in reality.

What the authors are trying to infer,in my opinion, is that the Greenhouse effect is larger than assumed thereby attempting to cast doubt on the effect of fossil fuel emissions since the industrial revolution. I think their rationale is dubious and the fact papers like these are seized upon by people with no grounding in physics or climate science to support their rather transparent efforts to pour scorn on more reputable science,despite not even understanding it, is not testament to their sincerity or their proclamations of 'open mindedness'.

That is what I understood from reading the report.

Gaoth Laidir

Thargor wrote: »

Ive honestly wasted enough time on it at this stage.

You didn't waste any time at all on it by the looks of it.

M.T. Cranium

So I had a look at the paper claiming the 57 deg additional warming supplied by our atmosphere. The key point for our discussion would seem to be that this larger boost to the atmospheric warming effect, even if true, has no real significance to the debate going on now about the level of increased warming to be expected from a stronger greenhouse gas effect. It is essentially a debate about whether the earth without an atmosphere would average -20 C (as seems to be generally accepted) or the -77 C that these authors estimate from their study of the Moon's actual mean temperature.

I can accept that their estimate is correct for the Moon but their assumption that an airless earth would achieve a similar mean temperature (of a very thin atmosphere as the Moon possesses, which of course is a physical impossibility for a body with our gravitational pull, even Mars retains considerably more of an atmosphere than the Moon has) seems flawed to me. They obtain a similar albedo to the lunar regolith (around .13) but in any case, this is all rather pointless speculation since we are only concerned in this debate about how much the 19th to early 20th century atmosphere (which may have had a global average temperature of 14 C) could warm up under various assumptions of added greenhouse gases. I think most will accept that we have warmed up by roughly 1 C deg already and could go another 1 to 2 under plausible scenarios of increase. Some want to debate cause and effect (as in warming produces extra greenhouse gas). Others see circulation changes as having feedback effects that will short circuit global warming (for example, if additional heat energy in the subarctic leads to heavier snowfalls there, it could counter the warming with the production of stronger arctic air masses).

But as an isolated proposition, the 57 deg differential rests on whether or not you can accept that an airless earth would achieve the same mean temperature as the slower-rotating Moon. Had the earth always been airless it would not have had oceans at any point, but a suddenly airless earth would have vast frozen surfaces. These are probably considerations outside the investigative focus of the authors. I can't imagine conditions on an airless earth and I think it is rather pointless to imagine them, so the 57 deg difference between two impossible situations is the ultimate example of angels dancing on pins.

I should add that even with a weak atmosphere of less than 1 mb, Mars has stabilized at a higher temperature than they estimate for the earth. Temperatures of -77 C might occur in polar nights on Mars (as they do in Antarctica) but mean planetary temperatures on Mars are around -25 C, I think the authors were accused of changing that variable in their model but I don't see where they quote anything much lower than that. Thus for whatever implausible reason they seem to be saying that an airless earth could be colder than Mars. That makes no sense to me.

Tuisceanch

One of the papers referenced in that study is 'Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect' https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324

A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.

The author here though is not referencing the discussed work but rather a much earlier study '“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D.Tscheuschner,(2007)'.

SeaBreezes

Thargor wrote: »

Ive honestly wasted enough time on it at this stage.

Exactly. Google is your god. IPCC your religion. When your ready to start thinking for yourself we will be right here waiting for you to assist.

SeaBreezes

Tuisceanch wrote: »

One of the papers referenced in that study is 'Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect' https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324



The author here though is not referencing the discussed work but rather a much earlier study '“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D.Tscheuschner,(2007)'.

Maybe a mistake? Watched a very phallic video on infrared. Unsure of the implications?

Tuisceanch

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Maybe a mistake? Watched a very phallic video on infrared. Unsure of the implications?

Perhaps you should read some of the papers you keep linking then you might.

SeaBreezes

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Perhaps you should read some of the papers you keep linking then you might.

Wtf?? Do you even know what you are posting?

Thargor

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Exactly. Google is your god. IPCC your religion. When your ready to start thinking for yourself we will be right here waiting for you to assist.

Do people like this actually exist in the real world? :rolleyes:

Thargor

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You didn't waste any time at all on it by the looks of it.

No no I clearly did, I always say Ill never engage with people like you in these godawful threads again but I keep doing it for some reason.

Just out of curiosity, does it bother you when you look up the name of any of your these personalities and see a long record of retractions and fabrications and general lying? Or does it not matter as long as they're telling you what you want to hear?

Tuisceanch

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Wtf?? Do you even know what you are posting?

Yes I'm saying that, given I have read the report currently being discussed, and provided my feedback. I would like to know whether you could explain the findings in the actual report that you initially posted: https://tinyurl.com/u4fw6o7

Given that the report is based on a premise supported by their previous report:

A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory.

The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed,but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition;

Are you able to explain,with reference to the report,how they reached that conclusion?

Can you also explain what the meaning of the following graph is:



You also stated in a previous post,based on comments from the authors of the reports that:

Viewing atmospheric dynamics exclusively from the standpoint of radiative transfer is silly with respect to actual physical reality. In a fluid like the atmosphere, the dominant modes of heat exchange are convection, advection & pervection (pressure wave mode of energy transfer)

There is a NON-LINEAR interaction between radiative and other modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere, which climate models do not simulate, since they artificially decouple radiative transfer from the other modes. This results is a WRONG solution to the coupled heat exchange.

Is it your opinion that climate models don't consider convection and advection?
Could you explain,in your own words,what is meant by pervection?
Are you sure climate models do not model other modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere?

oriel36

The opponents of man-made 'climate change' modeling are trying to blunt the speculative conclusions by appealing to natural 'climate change' modeling but both sides are more interested in protecting the 'scientific method' which creates that particular bandwagon.

Left to it's own devices, climate like geology and biology, is imprinted as clues on the Earth's surface in terms of ice ages and their absence, however, the working principles of climate are derived from the motions of the planet and all planets where an atmosphere is present.

Uranus has Spring storms as one polar latitude emerges from the planet's circle of illumination -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE

Venus has no appreciable rotation, no plate tectonics, no spherical deviation but the largest volcanic activity in the solar system creating an atmosphere with an almost exclusive carbon dioxide content. With no dynamic to change weather conditions, our sister planet is pretty much an awful place.

Saturn has the same surface rotation as a function of its orbital motion as the Earth, Uranus and all the other planets relative to the orbital plane, the Sun or indeed any view from space but its rings help observers bridge the difference between the unique inclination of Uranus and that of the Earth -

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/saturnoppositions.png

Empirical graph warfare may entertain those who lack the perceptive/intuitive qualities required to link the motions of planets to their atmospheres and the behaviour of weather but presently I do not see the intellectual or perceptive stature to take the wider perspectives and that can be dismaying.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Jupiter%27s_swirling_colourful_clouds.jpg

The inclination of Jupiter means that no appreciable changes happen in its atmosphere as it orbits the Sun so the great storm has existed within the zonal bands for centuries.

All this would not appeal to those who try to scale up the conditions found in a common greenhouse (experiment) to the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities) but then again, the answer to the doom and gloom man-made 'climate change' is hardly doom and gloom natural 'climate change'. The 'scientific method' in this case is therefore a self-aggrandising venture and the real problem for astronomy and Earth sciences.

The answer to the idea that the moon also rotates as it orbits the Earth is not to argue with that aberration, merely suggesting that walking around a table with an outstretched arm pointing at the table imitates the orbital behavior of the moon around the Earth and why we do not see all sides of the lunar surface but more or less one side. If people continue to insist then I can point out where awkward phrasing by Kepler led Isaac to believe he was describing a spinning moon but then again Kepler was prone to lose the run of himself sometimes even though he is just describing normal lunar phases and not an absurd intrinsic rotation -

https://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJAS0eQ64C&pg=PA80&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's clear that you've not even seen the paper and are here just for the ride.

Here is is. Go and read it and enlighten me on where the error is. Put me out of my mysery.

https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

I did.



The error is 57C.

posidonia

oriel36 wrote: »

...


Empirical graph warfare may entertain those who lack the perceptive/intuitive qualities required to link the motions of planets to their atmospheres and the behaviour of weather but presently I do not see the intellectual or perceptive stature to take the wider perspectives and that can be dismaying.


...

Well, the super smart (and your words indicate you are super smart and as such blessed with 'perceptive/intuitive qualities' the rest of us don't have) do have trouble talking to the rest of humanity. I guess you'll just have to try harder

oriel36

posidonia wrote: »

Well, the super smart (and your words indicate you are super smart and as such blessed with 'perceptive/intuitive qualities' the rest of us don't have) do have trouble talking to the rest of humanity. I guess you'll just have to try harder

About 20 years ago I started to realise that the Principia had the same hypnotic grip on its followers as Dianetics has within scientology. Even those who attempt to escape the 'scientific method' doctrine and its elitism find it exceptionally difficult to do so and often react with scorn when it is pointed out that any reasonable discussion becomes impossible when a single man allows time, space and motion to be 'defined' for you -

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html

His idea of induction is therefore inducing his followers to 'reason' in a certain type of way, almost like rote learning, so flaws and distortions get piled one on top of the other over time and across the generations .

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf


You came to me previously with a taunt to prove that my intuition was wrong using the exact same notions that Newton so skillfully used to project elitism -

" I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common." Newton

If you accept any of that you forfeit you ability to reason independently as an individual or as a group of individuals by virtue that people always know what time, space and motions are as normal perceptions and without the need for having them 'defined'. I actually know what he tried to do with those terms within an astronomical framework but because his followers are caught in a trance-like grip centred on his agenda, they find it almost impossible to take the wider perspectives. They clearly show an awful purpose and intent so no, super-smart is elitism this world has suffered enough from as such designations are superficial and destroy the inspirational research of astronomy and Earth sciences.


I am surprised that a ban hasn't been called for but maybe, just maybe people have a sense of something familiar they haven't seen in quite some time.

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I can accept that their estimate is correct for the Moon but their assumption that an airless earth would achieve a similar mean temperature (of a very thin atmosphere as the Moon possesses, which of course is a physical impossibility for a body with our gravitational pull, even Mars retains considerably more of an atmosphere than the Moon has) seems flawed to me. They obtain a similar albedo to the lunar regolith (around .13) but in any case, this is all rather pointless speculation since we are only concerned in this debate about how much the 19th to early 20th century atmosphere (which may have had a global average temperature of 14 C) could warm up under various assumptions of added greenhouse gases.

But as an isolated proposition, the 57 deg differential rests on whether or not you can accept that an airless earth would achieve the same mean temperature as the slower-rotating Moon. Had the earth always been airless it would not have had oceans at any point, but a suddenly airless earth would have vast frozen surfaces. These are probably considerations outside the investigative focus of the authors. I can't imagine conditions on an airless earth and I think it is rather pointless to imagine them, so the 57 deg difference between two impossible situations is the ultimate example of angels dancing on pins.

I should add that even with a weak atmosphere of less than 1 mb, Mars has stabilized at a higher temperature than they estimate for the earth. Temperatures of -77 C might occur in polar nights on Mars (as they do in Antarctica) but mean planetary temperatures on Mars are around -25 C, I think the authors were accused of changing that variable in their model but I don't see where they quote anything much lower than that. Thus for whatever implausible reason they seem to be saying that an airless earth could be colder than Mars. That makes no sense to me.

They do distinguish between a tangible and tenuous atmosphere in their discussion, the latter meaning so thin as to have no effect on radiative or convective impact on outgoing radiation. The Moon would certainly count as tenuous, being around 0.3 trillion (3x10^-13) times thinner than that of Earth. Their reasoning is that without an atmosphere, convectional heat transfer between regolith particles, which is orders of magnitude more effective than pure radiative or contact conductive processes, leads to its heat retention coefficient and hence night time temperature being much higher. It is all hypothetical indeed, though they deal with an Earth devoid of surface ice, as that would require it to have an atmosphere in the first place.

A tenuous atmosphere, on the other hand, is one that has not had a measurable influence on the surface albedo and regolith thermo-physical properties and is completely transparent to shortwave radiation. The need for such delineation of atmospheric masses when calculating Tna arises from the fact that Eq. (10a) accurately describes RATEs of planetary bodies with tangible atmospheres over a widerange of conditions without explicitly accounting for the observed large differences in albedos (i.e. from 0.235 to 0.90) while assuming constant values of αe and ηe for the airless equivalent of these bodies. One possible explanation for this counterintuitive empirical result is that atmospheric pressure alters the planetary albedo and heat storage properties of the surface in a way that transforms these parameters from independent controllers of the global temperature in airless bodies to intrinsic byproducts of the climate system itself in worlds with appreciable atmospheres. In other words, once atmospheric pressure rises above a certain level, the effects of albedo and ground heat storage on GMAT become implicitly accounted for by Eq. (11). Although this hypothesis requires a further investigation beyond the scope of the present study, one finds an initial support for it in the observation that, according to data in Table 2, GMATs of bodies with tangible atmospheres do not show a physically meaningful relationship with the amounts of absorbed shortwave radiation determined by albedos. Our discovery for the need to utilize different albedos and heat storage coefficients between airless worlds and worlds with tangible atmospheres is not unique as a methodological approach. In many areas of science and engineering, it is sometime necessary to use disparate model parameterizations to successfully describe different aspects of the same phenomenon. An example is the distinction made in fluid mechanics between laminarand turbulent flow, where the non-dimensional Reynold’s number is employed to separate the two regimes that are subjected to different mathematical treatments.

We do not currently have sufficient data to precisely define the limitbetween tangible and tenuous atmospheres in terms of total pressure forthe purpose of this model. However, considering that an atmosphericpressure of 1.0 Pa on Pluto causes the formation of layered haze [93],we surmise that this limit likely lies significantly below 1.0 Pa. In thisstudy, we use 0.01 Pa as a tentative threshold value. Thus, in the contextof Eq. (10b), we recommend computing Tna from Eq. (4c) if P > 10^-2 Pa,and from Eq. (4a) (or Eq. 4b, respectively) using observed values of αeand ηe if P ≤ 10^-2 Pa. Equation (4a) should also be employed in cases,where a significant geothermal flux exists such as on the Galilean moonsof Jupiter due to tidal heating, and/or if S ≤ 0.15 W m-2. Hence, the 30-year mean global equilibrium surface temperature of rocky planets depends in general on five factors: TOA stellar irradiance (S), a reference airless surface albedo (αe), a reference airless ground heat storage fraction (ηe), the average geothermal flux reaching the surface (Rg), and the totalsurface atmospheric pressure (P). For planets with tangible atmospheres(P > 10-2 Pa) and a negligible geothermal heating of the surface (Rg ≈ 0), the equilibrium GMAT becomes only a function of two factors: S and P, i.e. Τs = 32.44 S0.25 Eα(P). The final model (Eq. 10b) can also be castin terms of Ts as a function of a planet’s distance to the Sun (rau, AU) by replacing S in Equations (4a), (4b) or (4c) with 1360.9 rau-2.

Appendix B of their 2017 paper deals specifically with their calculations of Mars. They cite a wide range of currently-accepted average Martian temperatures in the literature, from 200 to 240 K. In Table 2 they quote their airless temperatures of Earth and Mars as 197 K and 159.6 K, respectively.

Although Mars is the third most studied planetary body in theSolar System after Earth and the Moon, there is currently no consensus among researchers regarding its mean global surface temperature (TM). TM values reported over the past 15 years span a range of 40 K. Examples of disparate GMATs quoted for the Red Planet include 200 K [79], 202K [82,130], 210 K [32], 214 K [80], 215 K [6,81], 218 K [77], 220 K [76], 227 K [131] and 240 K [78]. The most frequently cited temperatures fall between 210 K and 220 K. However, a close examination of the available thermal observations reveals a high improbability for any of the above estimates to represent Mars’ true GMAT.

Figure B.1 depicts hourly temperature series measured at 1.5 m above ground by Viking Landers 1 and 2 (VL1 and VL2 respectively) in the late 1970s [60]. The VL1 record covers about half of a Martian year, while the VL2 series extends to nearly 1.6 years. The VL1 temperatureseries captures a summer-fall season on a site located at about 1,500 m below Datum elevation in the subtropics of Mars’ Northern Hemisphere (22.5o N). The arithmetic average of the series is 207.3 K (Fig. B.1a). Since the record lacks data from the cooler winter-spring season, this value is likely higher than the actual mean annual temperature at that location. Furthermore, observations by the Hubble telescope from the mid-1990s indicated that the Red Planet may have cooled somewhat since the time of the Viking mission [132,133]. Because of a thin atmosphere and the absence of significant cloud cover and perceptible water, temperature fluctuations near the surface of Mars are tightly coupled to diurnal, seasonal and latitudinal variations in incident solar radiation. This causes sites located at the same latitude and equivalent altitudes to have similar annual temperature means irrespective of their longitudes [134]. Hence, one could reliably estimate a latitudinal temperature average on Mars using point observations from any elevation by applying an appropriate lapse-rate correction for the average terrain elevation of said latitude. At 22.5o absolute latitude, the average elevation between Northern and Southern Hemisphere on Mars is close to Datum level, i.e. about 1,500 m above the VL1 site. Adjusting the observed 207.3 K temperature average at VL1 to Datum elevation using a typical near-surface Martian lapse rate of -4.3 K km-1 [78] produces ~201 K for the average summer fall temperature at that latitude. Since the mean surface temperature of a sphere is typically lower than its subtropical temperature average, we can safely conclude based on Figure B.1a that Mars’ GMAT is likely below 201 K. The mean temperature at the VL2 site located at ~48o N latitude and 3,000 m below Datum elevation is 191.1 K (Fig. B.1b). The average terrain elevation between Northern and Southern Hemisphere at 48o absolute latitude is about -1,500 m. Upon adjusting the VL2 annual temperature mean to -1,500 m altitude using a lapse rate of-4.3 K km-1 we obtain 184.6 K. Since a planet’s GMAT numerically falls between the mean temperature of the Equator and that of 42o absolute latitude, the above calculations suggest that Mars’ GMAT is likely between 184 K and 201 K.

Gaoth Laidir

Thargor wrote: »

No no I clearly did, I always say Ill never engage with people like you in these godawful threads again but I keep doing it for some reason.

Just out of curiosity, does it bother you when you look up the name of any of your these personalities and see a long record of retractions and fabrications and general lying? Or does it not matter as long as they're telling you what you want to hear?

I don't condone falsifications of any type, by these guys or anyone else. I believe in the doubl-blind peer review process, where neither the author nor the reviewer knows the identity of the other. That way, only the merit of the content of the paper is judged. You, Akrasia and a few others seem to believe in the opposite.

I note that the Science Direct retraction specifically stated that it was not due to the scientific merit of the paper. Whether the content of the paper is ultimately right or wrong is a separate story.