Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
The Unified Theory of Climate post is exciting and could shake the world of Climate Science to its roots. I would love it if the conventional understanding of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect (GHE) presented by the Official Climate Team could be overturned, and that would be the case if the theory of Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, both PhDs, turns out to be scientifically correct.
Sadly, it seems to me they have made some basic mistakes that, among other faults, confuse cause and effect. I appreciate that WUWT is open to new ideas, and I support the decision to publish this theory, along with both positive and negative comments by readers.
Correlation does not prove causation. For example, the more policemen directing traffic, the worse the jam is. Yes, when the police and tow trucks first respond to an accident they may slow the traffic down a bit until the disabled automobiles are removed. However, there is no doubt the original cause of the jam was the accident, and the reason police presence is generally proportional to the severity of the jam level is that more or fewer are ordered to respond. Thus, Accident >>CAUSES>> Traffic Jam >>CAUSES>> Police is the correct interpretation.
Al Gore made a similar error when, in his infamous movie An Inconvenient Truth, he made a big deal about the undoubted corrrelation in the Ice Core record between CO2 levels and Temperature without mentioning the equally apparent fact that Temperatures increase and decrease hundreds of years before CO2 levels follow suit.
While it is true that rising CO2 levels do have a positive feedback that contributes to slightly increased Temperatures, the primary direction of causation is Temperature >>CAUSES>> CO2. The proof is in the fact that, in each Glacial cycle, Temperatures begin their rapid decline precisely when CO2 levels are at their highest, and rapid Temperature increase is initiated exactly when CO2 levels are their lowest. Thus, Something Else >>CAUSES>> Temperature>>CAUSES>> CO2. Further proof may be had by placing an open can of carbonated beverage in the refigerator and another on the table, and noting that the “fizz” (CO2) outgasses more rapidly from the can at room temperature.
Moving on to Nikolov, the claim appears to be that the pressure of the Atmosphere is the main cause of temperature changes on Earth. The basic claim is PRESSURE >>CAUSES>>TEMPERATURE.
PV = nRT
Given a gas in a container, the above formula allows us to calculate the effect of changes to the following variables: Pressure (P), Volume (V), Temperature (T, in Kelvins), and Number of molecules (n). (R is a constant.)
The figure shows two cases involving a sealed, non-insulated container, with a Volume, V, of air:
(A) Store that container of air in the ambient cool Temperature Tr of a refrigerator. Then, increase the Number n of molecules in the container by pumping in more air. the Pressure (P) within the container will increase. Due to the work done to compress the air in the fixed volume container, the Temperature within the container will also increase from (Tr) to some higher value. But, please note, when we stop increasing n, both P and T in the container will stabilize. Then, as the container, warmed by the work we did compressing the air, radiates, conducts, and convects that heat to the cool interior of the refrigerator, the Temperature slowly decreases back to the original Tr.
(B) We take a similar container from the cool refrigerator at Temperature Tr and place it on a kitchen chair, where the ambient Temperature Tk is higher. The container is warmed by radiation, conduction and convection and the Temperature rises asymptotically towards Tk. The Pressure P rises slowly and stabilizes at some higher level. Please note the pressure remains high forever so long as the temperature remains elevated.
In case (A) Pressure >>CAUSES A TEMPORARY>> increase in Temperature.
In case (B) Temperature >>CAUSES A PERMANENT>> increase in Pressure.
I do not believe any reader will disagree with this highly simplified thought experiment. Of course, the Nikolov theory is far more complex, but, I believe it amounts to confusing the cause, namely radiation from the Sun and Downwelling Long-Wave Infrared (LW DWIR) from the so-called “Greenhouse” gases (GHG) in the Atmosphere with the effect, Atmospheric pressure.
Some Red Flags in the Unified Theory
1) According to Nikolov, our Atmosphere
“… boosts Earth’s surface temperature not by 18K—33K as currently assumed, but by 133K!”
If, as Nikolov claims, the Atmosphere boosts the surface temperature by 133K, then, absent the Atmosphere the Earth would be 288K – 133K = 155K. This is contradicted by the fact that the Moon, which has no Atmosphere and is at the same distance from the Sun as our Earth, has an average temperature of about 250K. Yes, the albedo of the Moon is 0.12 and that of the Earth is 0.3, but that difference would make the Moon only about 8K cooler than an Atmosphere-free Earth, not 95K cooler! Impossible!
2) In the following quote from Nikolov, NTE is “Atmospheric Near-Surface Thermal Enhancement” and SPGB is a “Standard Planetary Gray Body”
NTE should not be confused with an actual energy, however, since it only defines the relative (fractional) increase of a planet’s surface temperature above that of a SPGB. Pressure by itself is not a source of energy! Instead, it enhances (amplifies) the energy supplied by an external source such as the Sun through density-dependent rates of molecular collision. This relative enhancement only manifests as an actual energy in the presence of external heating. [Emphasis added]
This, it seems to me, is an admission that the source of energy for their “Atmospheric Near-Surface Thermal Enhancement” process comes from the Sun, and, therefore, their “Enhancement” is as they admit, not “actual energy”. I would add the energy that would otherwise be lost to space (DW LWIR) to the energy from the Sun, eliminating any need for the “Thermal Enhancement” provided by Atmospheric pressure.
3) As we know when investigating financial misconduct, follow the money. Well, in Climate Science we follow the Energy. We know from actual measurements (see my Visualizing the “Greenhouse” Effect – Emission-Spectra) the radiative energy and spectra of Upwelling Long-Wave Infrared (UW LWIR), from the Surface to the so-called “greenhouse” gases (GHG) in the Atmosphere, and the Downwelling (DW LWIR) from those gases back to the Surface.
The only heed Nikolov seems to give to GHG and those measured radiative energies is that they are insufficient to raise the temperature of the Surface by 133K.
… our atmosphere boosts Earth’s surface temperature not by 18K—33K as currently assumed, but by 133K! This raises the question: Can a handful of trace gases which amount to less than 0.5% of atmospheric mass trap enough radiant heat to cause such a huge thermal enhancement at the surface? Thermodynamics tells us that this not possible.
Of course not! Which is why the conventional explanation of the GHE is that the GHE raises the temperature by only about 33K (or perhaps a bit less -or more- but only a bit and definitely not 100K!).
4) Nikolov notes that, based on “interplanetary data in Table 1” (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europe, Titan, Triton):
… we discovered that NTE was strongly related to total surface pressure through a nearly perfect regression fit…
Of course, one would expect planets and moons in our Solar system to have some similarities.
“… the atmosphere does not act as a ‘blanket’ reducing the surface infrared cooling to space as maintained by the current GH theory, but is in and of itself a source of extra energy through pressure. This makes the GH effect a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed!
I just cannot square this assertion with the clear measurements of UW and DW LWIR, and the fact that the wavelengths involved are exactly those of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other GHGs.
Equation (7) allows us to derive a simple yet robust formula for predicting a planet’s mean surface temperature as a function of only two variables – TOA solar irradiance and mean atmospheric surface pressure,…”
Yes, TOA solar irradiance would be expected to be important in predicting mean surface temperature, but mean atmospheric surface pressure, it seems to me, would more likely be a result than a cause of temperature. But, I could be wrong.
Conclusion
I, as much as anyone else here at WUWT, would love to see the Official Climate Team put in its proper place. I think climate (CO2) sensitivity is less than the IPCC 2ºC to 4.5ºC, and most likely below 1ºC. The Nikolov Unified Climate Theory goes in the direction of reducing climate sensitivity, apparently even making it negative, but, much as I would like to accept it, I remain unconvinced. Nevertheless, I congratulate Nikolov and Zeller for having the courage and tenacity to put this theory forward. Perhaps it will trigger some other alternative theory that will be more successful.
=============================================================
UPDATE: This thread is closed – see the newest one “A matter of some Gravity” where the discussion continues.
jae says:
IF the back-radiation from greenhouse gases actually causes some kind of “radiative greenhouse effect,” then just where is this magic effect for the last 15 years?? OCO levels are ever increasing….
And temperature is increasing too. UAH LT temperatures have a trend of 0.072 +/- 0.033 C/decade from Dec 1996 to Nov 2011.
Terry Oldberg said @ur momisugly December 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“A scientific model (aka scientific theory) is a procedure for making inferences.
….
Very few researchers know anything about the principles of reasoning.”
While I agree with the second statement, the first is clearly incorrect.
A scientific model is not a scientific theory. Consider the following statement by Stephen Hawking: “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.” Note the words “on the basis of a model”.
Consider the first scientific model most of us are presented with in school: a stick in the ground casting a shadow. The model of this, drawn on paper, or blackboard, shows a straight line from the end of the shadow furthest from the sun directly towards the sun and grazing the top of the stick. The various parts are labelled in order to facilitate talking about the model. To describe this drawing as a theory makes no sense whatsoever. The theory is: Just because light always travels in a straight line (a law of optics), we can calculate the height of any arbitrary vertical object by measuring the length of the shadow, the angle between the light ray and the ground using the mathematical laws of trigonometry.
This is pedantic I know, but it’s a little frustrating at times when the word “theory” is so often misused. A “model” is usually a diagram, or set of mathematical statements along with simplifying assumptions such that the “theory” can be adequately explained.
Ira, your compressed gas cylinder fails to model the situation because of heat exchange between the walls the cylinder and the air. There is no such convective loss on a planetary scale.
To model a planet correctly, your cylinder walls need to be perfectly insulating so they do not model a situation that does not exist.
What is missing from your model is the effects of convection, which duplicates continuous pumping.
Uh, yes. And thank you for the graph reference, it looks very linear right up to 60km above the surface.
You might note that these places are in the subtropics and have sun at near zenith practically the whole year. Also, since these are the very lowest of places on the planet, the air that reaches here was hot to begin with in the neighboring land, and then has been subject to gravitational work during its descent–6F per thousand feet.
ferd berple says:
December 30, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Bill Illis says:
December 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm
The warmest places on the planet are those below sea level, those with the highest atmospheric pressure – the Dead Sea, Death Valley, the Danakil Depression. If atmospheric pressure is not the reason for this, then one needs to invoke a stonger response of back-radiation caused by GHGs as one goes lower.
____________________________________________________
they are also the coldest at night and the area has one of the highest High to Low temp ratios. the gain is lost at night… Dont you just love a self correcting planet… the mean temp remains the same….
Bill Illis says:
You have created a strawman. Nobody is disputing the existence of the lapse rate. The point is, however, that the lapse rate does not uniquely determine the surface temperature. You also need the temperature at some other point in the atmosphere, such as the effective radiating level, which is, in turn, dependent on atmospheric composition…in particular, the opacity of the atmosphere to radiation emitted by the surface …i.e., the greenhouse effect.
Ira,
Your comments regarding our paper contain so much misunderstanding and conceptual errors that I could not explain them all in a simple reply. You seems to have been unable to follow consistently our arguments and the logic behind it. That’s OK, because, as I commented in my reply to the other thread, this is a NEW paradigm that requires a cognitive SHIFT in order to grasp it. We are committed to do our best in helping scientists in this regard… Watch for an formal ‘reply paper’ from us sometime next week.
I’d like to make only one comment here in regard to your main premise – ‘confusing cause with effect’. Towards the end of your paper you state:
“Yes, TOA solar irradiance would be expected to be important in predicting mean surface temperature, but mean atmospheric surface pressure, it seems to me, would more likely be a result than a cause of temperature. But, I could be wrong.”
Unfortunately, you are wrong! On a planetary level, the mean surface pressure is completely INDEPENDENT of temperature or solar heating. It is only a function of total atmospheric mass, the planet surface area, and gravity. That is why, the average thermodynamic process at the surface is isobaric in nature (meaning it operates under nearly constant pressure) … Read carefully Section 3.1 (on p. 6) of our paper. Most of your arguments fall apart from there … This is really a high-school level physics … 🙂
Cheers!
Kevin Kilty says:
Sorry, Kevin. I seem to have misinterpreted what you are saying as trying to make the argument of those who believe that the “greenhouse effect” is unnecessary to explain why the Earth’s average surface temperature is at 288 K rather than 255 K. If you were just saying basically what I am saying, then I misinterpreted what you said.
Willis says: “This is not science. This is nonsensical handwaving. It is no more intelligible after your replacement than it was before.”
There is a great amount of nicky picky that goes on here. I just try to make it a bit lighter and simpler: As pointing out that Death Valley is warmer relative to higher altitudes because of the depth of the atmosphere, which is then picked apart by a lecture on the surrounding terrain which of course is not the point. The point is from the FACT that denser atmosphere increases the temperatures that was point out in the example of Venus compared to counterparts.
So much for poor examples on my part. 🙂
Happy New Year to all of you!
highflight56433hi;
There is a great amount of nicky picky that goes on here. >>>
Welcome to WUWT!
highflight56433hi;
As pointing out that Death Valley is warmer relative to higher altitudes because of the depth of the atmosphere, which is then picked apart by a lecture on the surrounding terrain which of course is not the point.>>>
Ah, but it is! One of the things the alarmawarmists rely on is presenting only part of the story in order to support their conclusions. Should a skeptic get the answer to a highly complex matter 99.9% correct, they will be shredded on this site for their egregious error. Were the alarmawarmists held to the same standard, their arguments would wilt in the face of an encyclopaedia of refutation for every page they write. The more rigorous the standards we apply to ourselves, the stronger our collective voice becomes in presenting actual science versus their puffed up pretentious magic disguised as science.
In this case, the temps in Death Valley are in part driven by altitude, and in part by terrain. The more complete the answer, the better, else we succomb to the inverse of Arthur C Clarke’s famous statement, which would have to be reworded to say:
Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
highflight56433hi says:
December 30, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Since neither you nor anyone else has been able to explain the paragraph I highlighted, it’s hardly “nicky picky”.
Regarding lower altitudes being warmer than higher altitudes … that’s always been true. It’s called the “lapse rate”. Surely you don’t think the fact that that mountains are cooler than foothills proves anything about what heats them?
w.
Happy New Year Anthony, Contributors, Mods, Rockers, Trolls and Ne’er-do-wells. Remember, it’s more fun to talk with someone who doesn’t use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like “What about lunch?”, or “Would you like a nice cold beer?”
Kevin Kilty says:
Uh, yes. And thank you for the graph reference, it looks very linear right up to 60km above the surface.
It’s a linear *decrease* in temperature, not an increase.
Kevin Kilty says:
December 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“The Ideal Gas Law is an equation of state. It relates the variables P,V,n, and T to one another in all instances (as long as the gas is ideal). The relationship of temperature to pressure in an adiabatic expansion that you cite is not an equation of state, but rather a path on a curve in P,T space–a path on a curve, or, if you wish, a process.”
Good point.
Ned Nikolov says:
December 30, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Dr. Nikolov, like Ira I can’t understand what you are doing. Could you give us a very, very short (a few sentences) explanation of the core idea of your work? Because as I indicated upstream, I find your descriptions totally impenetrable. What is your main point in brief?
Many thanks,
w.
thepompousgit (Dec. 30, 2001 at 7:32 PM):Thanks for taking the time to reply and for giving me an opportunity to clarify! There are contexts in which it is important for one to distinguish between a theory and a model. However, logic is not one of these contexts.
In both cases, there is the need for the one inference that is correct to be distinguished from the many inferences that are incorrect. It can be shown that the principles which distinguish the correct inference from the incorrect ones are identical with respect to a theory and a model.
As it turns out, an inference has the unique measure that is called its “entropy.” The entropy of an inference is the information that is missing in it for a deductive conclusion. Its “entropy” is the missing information in this inference for a deductive conclusion.
In view of the existence and uniqueness of the measure of an inference, the correct inference can be identified by an optimization in which the correct inference minimizes the entropy or maximizes it under constraints expressing the available information. That was a briefing on a more complicated topic.
Theo gets it, the rest still like watermelons not opening their eyes. Authors response sheds some more light for those that wish to see.
A column of air at one bar. heat it, the column height increase but its mass and hence pressure stays the same.
But if you mix in heavier gases, the pressure increases and for a given input of heat, the temperature rises.
Willis Eschenbach;
Since neither you nor anyone else has been able to explain the paragraph I highlighted, it’s hardly “nicky picky”.>>>
The paragraph as written is meaningless.
Now…if we put aside what they said and try and figure out what they meant…
Seems to me that the gist of it is that the higher the pressure, the more temperature increase to be expected from a given energy input. Now me and gas don’t much get along, I try and avoid gas as much as possible, despite which I am frequently accused of being full of hot air. I’m also accused from time to time of being full of “it” and I surmise from the comments that “it” and “hot air” are not the same thing, but may share a similar cause…
That said, at the highest level, does what they meant (or at least what I think they meant) not make a certain amount of sense? The higher the pressure, the more densely packed the molecules are. So…for low pressure gases, a given energy input would not raise temperatures as measured by conductance because while the molecules increase their vibrational states, the number of collisions doesn’t increase much. But under high pressure, the exact same energy input to a given volume would raise the chances of collisions and therefor temperature as measured through conducatance (such as a thermometer).
The mesosphere would be a good example of a very low pressure gas. Technically, the “temperature” of the mesosphere is very high. Stick your average thermometer into it though, and you won’t get a very high temperature. There simply aren’t enough molecules colliding with the thermometer to raise the thermometer’s temperature to the average temperature of the molecules. Hence the thermometer says it is “cold” even though the individual molecules in the mesosphere are seriously hot. Double the amount of energy flowing into the low pressure mesosphere and the thermometer reading just won’t change a lot. But compress that mesosphere to the same density as air at earth surface, and then stick the thermometer into it. Ooops, melted thermometer. OK, get a new thermometer made for ugly high temps. Now double the energy input. I’d expect to see the thermometer record a rather large jump in temperature.
ah- quantum misinformation theory, eh?
wherein the atom of misinformation is discovered to be made of subinformative particles called morons… this is vital to artificial stupidity research. the supercomputer designed for the purpose has a petabye of write only memory and code runs in base 1.
it may be that if fuzzy logic can be made wooly enough it will be worth harvesting
Terry Oldberg said @ur momisugly December 30, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“thepompousgit (Dec. 30, 2001 at 7:32 PM):Thanks for taking the time to reply and for giving me an opportunity to clarify! There are contexts in which it is important for one to distinguish between a theory and a model. However, logic is not one of these contexts.”
Thank you Terry. I hope to respond to this as time permits (it’s New Year’s Eve here in the Land of Under). I suspect there is much to learn from you. I have preserved a link to your website.
Cheers
Lord Kelvin once said
I apply this idea to the oft quoted paragraph
I like to see definitions, measurements and equations when new ideas are introduced. What equation defines, and what experiments could be performed to measure:
* NTE
* “enhancement” of the energy supplied by an external source, as a function of density, rates of molecular collisions, and external heating.
Ned Nikolov,
Don’t get me wrong, I liked your poster but you are being a little hard on Ira Glickstein.
I got results comparable to yours for the planet Venus with its actual atmospheric composition and when CO2 was replaced by a gas that was more transparent in the IR (Helium or Nitrogen). The only problem was that if one used the “Dry Adiabat” the surface temperature came out too high so I assumed a lapse rate intermediate between the wet and dry rates as works on planet Earth.
While your analysis is superior to mine it still does not deal properly with planets that have vapours present.
After all the worrying about minutia, I come back to the simple question.
Suppose you have a planet similar to the earth in terms of mass and orbit. This planet has no water and an albedo at the surface of 0.3 (ie 70% of the sunlight is absorbed by the surface). What would the average surface temperature be (at equilibrium) if
1) there was absolutely no atmosphere
2) an atmosphere with 1x the mass of earth’s atmosphere, but 100% pure N2
3) an atmosphere with 2x the mass as earth’s atmosphere, but 100% pure N2
4) an atmosphere with 10x the mass as earth’s atmosphere, but 100% pure N2
(Bonus: would the answer matter if I added liquid N2, thereby cooling the atmosphere as it evaporated, or if I added hot N2, thereby warming the atmosphere as it was released?)
I maintain these would all have very nearly the same average surface temperature, because the radiative energy balance at the surface is the same. If anyone disagrees, then I ask what mechanism warms/cools the gas molecules near the surface above/below 255 K? Specifically, I am interested in the predictions that would be made by Nikolov and Zeller’s Unified Climate Model.
Ira says: “Agreed again, but only WITH WATER because you need the GHE effect of water vapor to get the 288K. I do not believe that 390 ppm of CO2 in an otherwise pure N2 Atmosphere would generate much GHE unless you add water vapor comparable to current levels. ”
Good catch. The CO2 by it self would only provide a fraction of the total warming. My guess would be 1/4 to 1/2 of the warming (about 8-16 K) but that is just an educated guess. O3, CH4 and H2O would be needed to get up to 33 K.