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.
Kevin Kilty says:
>>What is this “pressure” effect on lapse rate?
Have a look at the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
“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..”
That seems to be about it.
That also resolves an inadequacy in my previous and more wordy contribution but enough contributors are now seeing Nikolov’s point that I don’t need to revisit it.
There is a good analogy though.Note that all energy has mass and all mass is energy as per Einstein’s equations. If a specific package of energy with any mass at all passes through empty space without encountering a gravitational field then no heat will be generated from it. If that same package of energy/mass falls into a black hole then 100% will be converted into heat and if it becomes hot enought it will come out as light.
Thus the amount of heat generated as the package of energy/mass passes through a gravitational field will depend on the strength of that gravitational field and the pressure that the field induces.
The interaction is dependent on the amount of mass and the strength of the gravitational field and NOT on the atomic structure of the mass. It is the atomic structure of GHGs that are alleged to make them more capable of responding to irradiation in the infra red but as can be seen from Ninolov’s paper and the example above the atomic structure is irrelevant to the quantity of energy released from that mass within a gravitational field.
So unless someone better at physics than me can point out a flaw it seems logical that the greenhouse effect results from density and not composition of the atmosphere around a planet for a gravitational field of a given strength.
One thing has become crystal clear to me, reading the Nikolov/Zeller post, and the ensuing comments as well as this post:
the original contribution has been written in such a way that the actual meaning has become so obscure that one would need a phrase book to make any sense out of it.
Hence the misunderstandings, hence the need for Dr Glickstein’s post here, hence the frustration expressed by Willis, whose essays provide the best examples of how to convey difficult concepts in accessible language.
For the sake of clarity, may I suggest that Drs Nikolov and Zeller work hard on expressing themselves in plain English?
That goes for some of the comment posts as well.
Joel Shore said:
“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.”
There is the nub of the problem. No mention of gravity, pressure or mass at all and therefore utterly wrong.
Joel and all other alarmists put the greenhouse effect down to atmospheric composition alone whereas Nikolov, myself and a few others here see that it is atmospheric mass plus gravitationally induced pressure alone.
It comes back to my two descriptions of the greenhouse effect above namely:
i) AGW theory states that the greenhouse effect is caused by gases in the air with a high thermal capacity warming the surface by radiating energy downwards.
ii) The Nikolov paper describes the greenhouse effect in the way I have always understood it i.e. ALL the molecules near the surface (of whatever thermal capacity) jostle more tightly together under the influence of gravity (and the pressure that it induces) and share kinetic activity (provoked initially by solar irradiation but actually being a consequence of all energy transfer mechanisms combined) amongst one another until that kinetic energy can escape to space by radiative means albeit slightly delayed by all the jostling about.The delay results in a temperature rise because more energy is packed into a smaller space by the effects of gravity and the consequent pressure.
You takes your pick 🙂
This is a paradigm shift for some but to me it is simply a return to the classical physics of 50 years ago which seems to have been thrown out of the window when someone (who?) in a position of authority within the climate establishment suddenly announced that atmospheric composition rather than quantity was the determining factor for the power of the greenhouse effect.
How is it that nobody challenged that ?
Stephen Wilde says: “Thus the amount of heat generated as the package of energy/mass passes through a gravitational field will depend on the strength of that gravitational field ”
I agree completely. This is what heats a collapsing nebula to get it hot enough to become a star. This also heats planets as they form (along with radioactive decay), causing the early earth to be molten on the surface.
But this is not all there is too it. The surface of the earth did not STAY molten. As the bombardment of asteroids/meteors tapered off, this source of energy also tapered off. The warm surface radiated MUCH more energy than it received from the sun. This high temperature was NOT an equilibrium condition. Eventually, the earth cooled off until it was indeed radiating as much as it received from the sun.
Similarly, any atmosphere that collected would have warmed by compression INITIALLY. However, over eons, it, like the hot magma, would have had to reach a radiative equilibrium.
Erinome says:
December 30, 2011 at 7:32 pm
“And temperature is increasing too. UAH LT temperatures have a trend of 0.072 +/- 0.033 C/decade from Dec 1996 to Nov 2011.”
And, almost all of it from the 1998 El Nino. Cherry picking a wee bit early in the season, aren’t we? Probably nobody else has commented on your post because it is so glaringly preposterous.
Friends:
Firstly, I write to say what I said in the other thread; i.e.
“In the abstract to their paper Nikolov & Zeller wrongly claim;
“We show via a novel analysis of planetary climates in the solar system that the physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.”
Their analysis is NOT novel.
It is a repeat of the Jelbring Hypothesis
(ref. Jelbring H, ‘The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass’, Energy & Environment,• Vol. 14, Nos. 2 & 3, (2003)).
Jelbring’s 2003 paper can be read at
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf”
Secondly, the Jelbring Hypothesis does NOT confuse cause and effect. At December 30, 2011 at 6:28 pm, Phill’s Dad gives a good explanation of why it does not provide such a confusion.
The Jelbring Hypothesis (now also presented by Nikolov & Zeller) amounts to the following.
‘All the radiative, convective and evaporative effects in a planet’s atmosphere adjust such that the atmosphere obtains a temperature lapse rate close to that defined by –g/cp, and this lapse rate defines the planet’s average surface temperature. The average surface temperature is observed to agree with the Jelbring Hypothesis on each planet with a substantial atmosphere that has a mass which varies little through the year.’
Clearly, some atmospheric effects (e.g. convection) do adjust in response to gravity. At issue is whether the interaction of all the radiative, convective and evaporative effects provides the suggested adjustment.
Happy New Year
Richard
PS
At December 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm itemises some basic clarifications that several commentators in this thread would benefit from reading.
“Similarly, any atmosphere that collected would have warmed by compression INITIALLY. However, over eons, it, like the hot magma, would have had to reach a radiative equilibrium.”
To this day the wamth of the atmosphere (which I define to include the oceans) remains derived from the Earth’s gravitational field acting on the moving molecules in that atmosphere.
Not the movement as they drift around but the kinetic movement induced by solar irradiation.
It is the interaction between the kinetic activity of the molecules and the gravitational field of the Earth that sets and maintains the level of the misnamed greenhouse effect.
(I have explained seperately why the gravitationally induced pressure at the Earth’s surface controls the energy cost of evaporation and thus the rate at which energy can flow from oceans to air.)
More solar irradiation, more kinetic activity and a higher temperature.
More mass, more kinetic activity and a higher temperature.
Gravity is blind to the atomic structure of molecules because mass is all it cares about. Thus for a greenhouse effect derived from this phenomenon the composition of the mass in the atmosphere is not relevant and the proportion of so called GHGs has no contribution to make.
Where GHGs DO have an effect is in influencing the speed of throughput of energy( through the air alone, not the oceans) in order to help to maintain thermal stability for the system as a whole.
On the surface of Earth changes in speed of throughput are reflected in the climate regionally because we experience such changes in throughput of energy as warmer or colder winds crossing a point on the surface. Shifts in the permanent climate zones reflect such changes.
However the system energy content does not change unless solar input or the strength of the gravitational field change. Therefore in the absence of a change in solar input, the mass of the atmosphere (or the mass of something else within the system) must change in order to raise the system energy content. GHGs do not make a significant difference to mass.
The limited effect of GHGs which I do concede as regards the speed of energy throughput is infinitesimally small compared to the changes in speed of energy throughput from other causes which are induced by variability in sun and oceans.
I have dealt with that elsewhere.
Grey lensman says:
December 30, 2011 at 9:35 pm:
“A column of air at one bar. heat it, the column height increase but its mass and hence pressure stays the same.”
This seems wrong to me. Instead, I think it should say “A column of air at one bar. Heat it, the column height increases but its mass stays the same. Its weight however decreases, due to less gravity further out. Hence pressure decreases.”
I was very stirred by the new theory, but had great pause for thought when Ira Glickstein said
“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. ”
However, there was some relief when commieBob said: December 30, 2011 at 4:24 am
“Temperatures on the Lunar surface vary widely on location. Although beyond the first few centimeters of the regolith the temperature is a nearly constant -35 C (at a depth of 1 meter), the surface is influenced widely by the day-night cycle. The average temperature on the surface is about 40-45 C lower than it is just below the surface. (http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html)”
This would make the surface of the moon about 193-198 deg K, somewhat closer to the new theory than Ira believed – so perhaps it is worth more exploration than the outright rejection Ira recommends.
“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”
Mars has albedo of .24
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
It seems like it’s world like Mars. And won’t like the Moon because it will have
plate tectonic and active volcanic activity. So it won’t a world covered in regolith
though it have fair amount regolith in some areas. Won’t millions of year overly
oxided surface.
So tropical zones one will temperature similar to the Moon, and one should have
generally more thermal capacity of the ground.
Daytime highs of temperature 400 K
and an hour after sunset it will be about 300 K
And nite low of 200-250 K
Polar winter temperatures: 100 K
Temperate and polar average temperature: 300 K to 150 K
“2) an atmosphere with 1x the mass of earth’s atmosphere, but 100% pure N2”
Tropics, daytime high surface temperature: 340 to 350 K
Air temperature 320 K
an hour after sunset it will be about: 320 K
Night time low: 300 K
Polar winter temperatures: 150 K
Temperate and polar average temperature: 300 K to 250 K
“3) an atmosphere with 2x the mass as earth’s atmosphere, but 100% pure N2”
Tropics, daytime high surface temperature: 330 K
Air temperature: 325 K
an hour after sunset it will be about:325 K
Night time low: 325 K
Polar winter temperatures: 175 K
Temperate and polar average temperature: 290 K
“4) an atmosphere with 10x the mass as earth’s atmosphere, but 100% pure N2”
Tropic surface and air temperature: 310
Polar winter temperatures: 200 K
Temperate and polar average temperature: 250 K
I think highest average temperature would be
about 1/2 an earth atmosphere
Tropics, daytime high surface temperature: 350K to 370K
Air temperature 330 K
an hour after sunset it will be about: 340
Night time low: 320 K
Polar winter temperatures: 150 K
Temperate and polar average temperature: 320 K to 260 K
A small but important addition to my previous post is necessary.
GHGs cause a faster throughput of ‘processed’ solar energy IN THE AIR ALONE. They first absorb more solar energy than other non GHG gases then re radiate within the air to cause more evaporation of surface water or soil moisture and convection resulting in a faster or larger water cycle. Thus they first slow down the rate of solar energy loss back to space but the increased size or speed of the water cycle speeds it up again for a zero net effect.
The important point though is that in so far as GHGs produce a faster processing of incoming solar energy IN THE AIR that energy is then denied to the oceans which are therefore a fraction cooler than they otherwise would have been.
GHGs therefore reduce total energy content in the oceans but increase it in the air (mostly in latent form) for a zero net effect on total system energy content.
The whole thing gets balanced out as necessary by changing surface air pressure distribution for a shift in the permanent climate zones.
That is a Unified Theory.
Richard S Courtney says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:56 am
Richard, thank you for the hint of the Jelbring paper. It is fantastic to read about this.
This plus the Nikolov & Zeller paper is very interesting.
I see that someone (N.Shore was it?) says it is “rejected by the scientific community”, and I wonder who that community is. Could it possibly be …..The Team?
But it will not go away that easily. The cat is out of the sack?
I always knew some defining moment would soon occur in “climate science”, though taking years to occur. It’s seems we now may be there. Time for everyone, even Willis (hint), to decide if you really have a proper scientific mind, or are you going to allow your ego to get in the way.
Well, I suggest a little experiment:
Bottle A is a Dewar bottle, witch is closed with a movable but gas tight piston, it is _thermal_ isolated.
Bottle B is a very stiff bottle witch is isolated from the outside pressure, it should be made from a well thermal conducting material, f.e. aluminiumoxide. This bottle is _pressure_ isolated.
Inside both bottles are pressure and temperature measurement equipment and of course a third set is outside, this testbed is situated onto a cage, similar to the meteorologigical observation points.
Now, we go up to sea level over a depression (let’s say above Jericho), with a heli. We fill both bottles with the air in that level, seal them accordingly and fly down to ground. We fly to ground and measure pressure and temperature, the thermal conducting bottle we must let settle until the gas inside has the same temperature as the air on the ground.
This different times to settle (pressure==immidiate, temperature==counduction dependent) would be an extra term in our (we hope to create) world-climate-formula.
And we should keep the walls of Jericho in our eyes too… 😉
Funny experiment, see You in Israel/Palestine…
This post and the recent Unified Climate theory post have sharpened my thinking. Thanks all round.
Current conclusion is, BOTH pressure AND greenhouse-gas effects matter. And you have to look at the temperature profiles of Earth, Venus, Jupiter and Mars to see this.
Venus, Jupiter and Mars clearly show the lapse-rate phenomenon of temperature increase due to increasing pressure. At this point, Huffman is correct.
Mars also shows something else that’s important: IMO, the effect of conduction of heat from the surface, on atmospheric temperatures close to the surface.
But Earth shows something else again that is, to me, strong evidence of at least one greenhouse gas effect: ozone. Our atmospheric temperature profile is a “W”, each leg of which denotes a different layer:
* Troposphere up to 0.1 bar: temperature decreases with pressure, comparable to Venus & Jupiter. Inherently unstable.
* Stratosphere up to 0.001 bar: temperature increases with height, owing to the formation of ozone – most strongly at the highest levels where incoming solar radiation is least blocked by the ozone’s effect. Inherently stable.
* Mesosphere up to 0.001 bar: temperature again decreases with height, layer therefore inherently unstable and open to cloud formation again (noctilucent clouds).
* Thermosphere: temperature again increases with height, due to absorption of the strongest incoming radiation, causing ionization (the old name, ionosphere) and providing a radio-wave reflection layer.
It’s the stratosphere that shows GHG activity predominating, IMHO. But please, feel free to show me wrong.
Forgive me for raising what is probably a stupid point, but how do we know the temperature of the moon?
How confident should we be in the 250K figure and that that figure is truly representative of the temperature of the Moon as a whole.? I have always assumed this figure to be correct without questioning it , but now I consider that I should at least ask myself whether the assessment is correct and reliable.
Is the 250K an equitorial figure, a polar figure etc. I am aware that not having an atmosphere will mean that there is no atmosphere absorption on sunlight such that there will not be the same variation in solar irradiance as experienced on Earth. I presume that there is no such thing as a half shaddow on the Moon and it is either in full sunlight or in complete darkness
How many reference points of measurement are taken and what is their distribution? Is this eneough to have a proper handle on the lunar temperature or is it that we merely have an indication of possible highs and possible lows which we then average out and assume that this is representative of the temperature of the Moon as a whole.
Of course, it is easier to get an idea of temperature of a body like the Moon compared to the problems in assessing the temperature of the Earth given the very much more variable nature of the Earth, its axis, and, of course, the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere.
I am just curious, how do we know accurately the temperature of the Moon. I welcome feedback on this.
Stephen Wilde says:
I am not sure what you mean by “composition” alone. The amount of each substance that absorbs IR is important and perhaps even the amount of non-IR absorbing substances because they could determine the lapse rate.
Since such a paradigm shift would seem to involve throwing out the First Law of Thermodynamics, I don’t think it is a return to anything but nonsense.
This all sounds so groovy and wonderful…but can you explain how it satisfies the First Law of Thermodynamics? I.e., how does a surface without an atmosphere that absorbs radiation from its surface maintain a temperature higher than the temperature at which the surface would be emitting back into space as much energy as it is receiving from the sun? Are you maintaining the gravitational field is a continual source of energy…i.e., that the earth and its atmosphere are undergoing gravitational collapse?
Further to my last post about the assessment of the temperature of the Moon, presumably I should have added a query about the uniformity of albedo. If there are variations in the uniformity of albedo then unless we have temperature measurements taken at places that properly represent that variation in albedo, night not an error creep in as to the assessment of temperature. Further it is conceivable that some rocks (possibly due to their mineral content) although having the same albedo may have exhibit differences in latent heat capacity.
Just throwing some thoughts into the mix since although my question is very probably a stupid one, it is important in the context of the present discussion..
I can’t show Lucy wrong, but I can raise a question that has long puzzled me (and a few others). She says “temperature increases with height, owing to the formation of ozone”. This is the received wisdom. However, the usual photolysis of oxygen to make an oxygen atom that then, in a three body collision with another oxygen molecule produces ozone and a recoiling third body doesn’t work – the photolysis requires shorter than 241nm uv, and there are essentially no photons of these wavelengths below about 0.000 01bar, i.e well above the stratopause. So what is the process that makes ozone (and heats the stratosphere)?
Incidentally, I think the pressure at the mesopause is more like 0.000 001bar
I think one problem a few people may be having is they have studied and accept the warming effect of GHGs. As such they cannot accept another theory until someone points out why the warming effect is wrong. IMO it is not wrong, it is just not complete. That is, there is a complimentary cooling effect that has long been downplayed or ignored. I believe that once people look harder at the cooling effect they will have less problem accepting the UCT.
I’m often surprised by the Eschenbach/Watts/Shore/Glickstein/Mosher lovefest. Modulation of the rate of cooling is not heating. Atmospheric feedback creates a Finite Impulse Response system, not an Infinite Impulse Response system. Our climate system response to solar input is not under damped or critically damped. Of course, its over damped.
My view of the cooling effect of GHGs has always been to look at the emission of radiation of energy from the atmosphere that came from sources other than surface radiation. I had difficulty quantifying it’s strength. However, Brian H provided a link to an essay that combines both the warming effect and the cooling effect into one simple idea based on first principles:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
With this in mind it appears that CO2 will favor emitting over absorbing radiation at temperatures over -78C and overall CO2 provides a mild cooling effect in the atmosphere. I’m sure the same exercise could be done for any GHG.
wayne says:
Yes, because it surely is our egos that are the problem and not the fact that we are being asked to uncritically embrace a “theory” that does not even obey the First Law of Thermodynamics!
Lucy Skywalker:
I am not disputing the bulk of your post at December 31, 2011 at 3:38 am but I write to point out that the hypothesis under discussion does not apply to Mars.
The hypothesis suggests a planet’s atmosphere adjusts to form a lapse rate according to the mass of that atmosphere. Such an adjustment is not possible to achieve on Mars because the mass of that atmosphere is constantly changing.
The Mars atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide which freezes on the winter pole. The frozen gas is not part of the atmosphere. The frozen carbon dioxide sublimes in the Spring so becomes part of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide then freezes on the other pole as the Martian year progresses.
Hence, drawing conclusions pertinent to the discussed hypothesis is not possible by comparisons of the atmosphere of Mars to the atmosphere of other planets. It would be like drawing a conclusion by comparison to the atmosphere of the Moon (yes, the Moon does have an atmosphere but with a mass so small that it is usually ignored).
Richard