“….the science of radiant heat transfer has matured to the point where engineering solutions have been developed and widely implemented”

See:-

RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987

Abstract An adequate treatment of thermal radiation heat transfer is essential to a mathematical model of the combustion process or to a design of a combustion system. This paper reviews the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer and some recent progress in its modeling in combustion systems. Topics covered include radiative properties of combustion products and their modeling and methods of solving the radiative transfer equations. Examples of sample combustion systems in which radiation has been accounted for in the analysis are presented. In several technologically important, practical combustion systems coupling of radiation to other modes of heat transfer is discussed. Research needs are identified and potentially promising research topics are also suggested.

http://www.engr.uky.edu/rtl/Papers/Viskanta_Menguc_1987.pdf

[Warning: 64 pages and 334 references]

“An in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, CO, SO2, NO and N20 ) has recently been prepared. 4″

4. BLOKH, A. G., Heat TransJer in Steam Boiler Furnaces,
Energoatomizdat, Leningrad (1984) (in Russian) (to be
published by Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington,
D.C.).

“Detailed reviews of radiation heat transfer in pulverized coal-fired furnaces are available. 4″272″299 Radiation heat transfer in furnaces is due to gaseous and particulate contributions. Emissivity data for the major emitting gaseous species CO2 and H20 are generally adequate. 4.64″

64. SAROFIM, A. F. and HOTTEL, H. C., Heat Transfer–
1978, Vol. 6, pp. 199-217, Hemisphere Publishing
Corp., Washington, D.C. 11978).

“The expressions for the total emissivity and absorptivity of a gas in terms of the weighted sum of gray gases are useful especially for the zonal method of analysis of radiative transfer.

There are several curve-fitted expressions available in the literature for use in computer codes. Some of them are given in terms of polynomials 48- 50 and the others are expressed in terms of the weighted sum-of-gray gases. 51~-54″

48. LECKNER, B., Combust. Flame 19, 33 (1972).
49. MODAK, A. T., Fire Res. I, 339 11979).
50. STEWARD, F R. and KOCAEFE, Y. S., Heat TronsJer–
1986, C. L. Tien, V. P. Carey, and J. K. Ferrell (Eds),
Vol. 2, pp. 735-740, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,
Washington, D.C. (1986).
51. TAYLOR, P. B. and FOSTER, P. J., Int. J. Heat Mass
TransJer 17, 1591 11974).
52. SMrm, T. F., SHEN, Z. F. and FRIEDMAN, J. N., J. Heot
Transfer 104. 602 (1982[
53. FARAG, I. H., Heat Transfer 1982, U. Grigull, E.
Hahne, K. Stephan and J. Straub (Eds), VoL 2. pp.
489-492. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1982).
54. COPALLE, A. and VERVlSCH, P., Combust. Flame 49. 101
11983).

“Radiation accounts for about 40 % of the total heat transferred to the cylinder, but the radiation from gases (CO2 and H20 ) is only 20 % of the total radiation, with the rest being soot radiation”

Amazing to find what the IPCC DOESN’T defer to when you start digging.

Combined, they averaged 22% of New Zealand Fahrenheit temps recorded as .0, and this compares with 30% in Australia’s ACORN series and 31% in its HQ dataset.

The .0F raw data findings, which have been ignored, suggest consistent rounding with a probable downward bias that raises questions about the validity of the NIWA record before 1971 … http://www.waclimate.net/round/new-zealand-temperatures.html

“…is a misrepresentation as it only deals with daytime highs. This is not the same as global temperature” – Soon and Briggs are just following the lead of Meehl and van Loon at NCAR. From the article:-

Recent work by NCAR senior scientists Drs. Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl place strong emphasis of this physical point, and argue that the use of daytime high temperatures is the most appropriate test of the hypothesis connecting solar radiation with surface temperature. All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records, while the Sun is on the other hemisphere.

“It is well understood that the increased greenhouse effect predominantly increases temperatures at night. Choosing to only look at day time highs is cherry picking” – Not according to the scientists active in this area.

I was merely countering Simon’s alarm which I assume from his position he attributes to CO2. If he is only going by apparent correlations, he has to look at the best (Ha!).

“Since most of the atmosphere is below 273K I suggest that Leckner’s curves are not applicable, which means Eggert’s analysis is not credible” – Wrong again, The Eggert rationale is this (from Part 1):-

Figure 1 is an illustration of one curve from the family of CO2 emissivity curves. This was obtained by plotting the emissivity at the temperature stated for various path lengths. Other curves in the family can be generated for any particular temperature. A review of Leckner’s curves shows that in the range of temperatures of the atmosphere (293K to 216K) a single temperature will suffice for estimating emissivity. The temperature chosen was 273K. Note that the area below 273K is a projection beyond Leckner’s curves and may be in error.

The curve shows NO change in emissivity at path lengths greater than 500 Bar – cm and
minimal change after a path length of 100 Bar – cm

These types of curves are used by engineers in design. The success of the designs is an indication of the validity of the curves. Any alternate explanation for radiant heat loss through the atmosphere must provide results with at least the same degree of success in predicting reality.

The question is how to apply them to the atmosphere.

So 273 is a proxy for the atmospheric range 293K to 216K that takes account of pressure and suffices. Eggert then goes on to apply the curves to the atmosphere in Atmospheric Path Length.

Eggert could have presented “thousands” of curves (from Part 2):-

In order to be able to perform calculations for designing many different types of things that must account for radiant heat loss in the atmosphere, H. C. Hottell at MIT performed thousands of measurements of heat as it went through various concentrations of CO2 at various lengths of gas. He then generated a number of graphs that are used by engineers in designing a huge range of applications. In the 1970‟s, B. Leckner further refined these curves. The premise of these papers is that these graphs and methods for determining radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere are applicable to determining radiant heat absorption in the . . . atmosphere.

But one is sufficient for the purpose of exposing the IPCC oversimplification of these curves (a simplification of a simplification). Worse, the IPCC make NO recourse to the literature of the radiant heat transfer work of Hottell and Leckner, which is (from Eggert’s references):-

i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)

ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)

And as Eggert puts it in Part 1:-

The Engineering of Radiant Heat Transfer

This section looks at engineering rather than pure science because the science of radiant heat transfer has matured to the point where engineering solutions have been developed and widely implemented.

The IPCC does not defer to that mature science.

Nice try Nick (kudos for your attempt) but not even close to upholding the IPCC RF methodology (providing a null to Eggert’s hypothesis). Until you can come up with something substantial, you’re on the list Nick:

The Defaulter List to date is now:-

Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
Nick

“Note that the area below 273K is a projection beyond Leckner’s curves and
may be in error.”

Since most of the atmosphere is below 273K I suggest that Leckner’s curves are not applicable, which means Eggert’s analysis is not credible.

Also your claimed sunspot/temperature correlation is a misrepresentation as it only deals with daytime highs. This is not the same as global temperature. It is well understood that the increased greenhouse effect predominantly increases temperatures at night. Choosing to only look at day time highs is cherry picking.

Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie

Richard C, you surely must be deranged.

But timely of you to turn up Nick, I have a challenge for you that I’ve made to several others recently but no-one has risen to it (although Simon’s interest seems piqued, he may yet come up with something but his reasoning so far actually supports the hypothesis).

I’ve started a list of those who cannot (or will not i.e. default) offer a rebuttal of substance (validity and therefore success) to the following series and I challenge you with it:-

An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 1: Scientific Discussion

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf

And here,

An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 2: Layman’s Discussion

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf

And here,

An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf

The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC (actually a simplification of a simplification). Quoting Part 2:-

“The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”

The Defaulter List so far is:-

Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie

Note that the paper is in the form of a hypothesis for which you will have to provide a credible null. Do I add your name to the Defaulters List Nick? Or have you got something that upholds the IPCC RF science?

All other climate change issues are subordinate to this one Nick (including Arctic issues). Unless some-one comes up with a credible null, the climate change edifice crumbles. The hypothesis you have to address is now, by default of AGW, the climate change hypothesis-of-right.

Dunno. I haven’t the foggiest.
I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not even a scientist.

I go with the IPCC and the world’s leading scientific institutions, they do or at least interpret the science. But I’ve been through this already.

Since we’re on the question thing, here are some interesting ones.

Who’s paying the bill for the total failure in court?

What are the chances that the big money backers, if any, will cut the expendable front line adrift and won’t cough up?

Can you trust Barry Brill?

Who is on the Trust Deed?

This commenter has been banned from the CCG for persistent ad hominem attacks against his fellow conversationalists and for disregarding online anonymity. Richard Christie, if you want to say anything, email me privately. I’ve removed the worst of Christie’s abusive remarks and what seems to be personal material and I’ll remove any more that comes to my attention. I’ve left the more thoughtful remarks and questions that, though they reveal his attitudes, hurt nobody. Christie is the first commenter on the CCG who refused to respond to polite requests to avoid abuse and was thus banned, so I guess it’s an historic day. But it doesn’t make me proud. When conversation descends to the peurile hurling of insults does it mean intelligence predominates? Is a civilised society wise to value the routine practice of hatred, small-minded bigotry and a refusal even to listen? – RT