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.
@Ira:
The intent of my (admittedly rather snarky) posting on doing an experiment with glass cylinders was to simply make the observation that this new theory has (at least so it seems) the potential for some experimental work that would further its hypotheses. You already picked up the torch in your reply by refining my hypothetical experiment.
Their (the authors) premise seems to be that gaseous environments delay vertical heat transport (mainly) as a function of their pressure, independent (relatively) of their molecular mix. Whether or not that is true is way beyond my capabilities to determine but I love the refocus towards energy analysis and away from temperature. It seems to me that temperature focus is a trap for those who mistake temp for heat.
The authors have taken a stab at an ‘experiment’ by analyzing other planetary bodies. I’d like to see more experimenting and less jawboning I guess.
BTW: I’ve never seen a kinetic energy ‘budget’ for the atmosphere. One of the things I’ve never seen discussed is the energy in things like hurricanes, tropical storms, or just general weather systems that would seem to contain huge amounts of both potential and kinetic energy. Aren’t these also important mechanisms of vertical heat transport delay? What about the kinetic energy in the gulf stream? Any incoming radiation that is converted to horizontal energy flow constitutes a diversion of vertical transport doesn’t it?
At some point someoe seems to have decided that atmospheric composition involving radiative processes makes a significant difference to the temperature set by thermodynamic and gravitational influences.
I think one can deal with the resulting confusion by accepting BOTH scenarios but putting them in proper proportions.
As I see it the GHG aspect is in the air only and the gravitational pressure aspect is in air and ocean but mostly in ocean.
Gravity is blind to anything other than mass so the thermal characteristics of GHGs are an irrelevance to that portion of the story.
Since downwelling IR from GHGs cannot get into the oceans it is limited in its effects to the air but the oceans control air temperaure.
The only way the system could deal with the GHG portion of the effect is to alter the rate of energy flow from surface to space.
In other words the GHGs fractionally alter the balance between sea surface and surface air temperatures by increasing the energy content of the air (mostly in the form of latent heat) and reducing the energy content of the oceans by converting incoming solar energy to longwave before it can get into the oceans.
The system then has to correct that GHG induced imbalance between sea surface and surface air temperatures and must do so by shifting the surface air pressure distribution and the positions of the permanent climate zones.
I think that tops and tails it very effectively.
But the GHG effect remains miniscule compared to what sun and oceans achieve on multicentennial timescales.
astonerii says:
December 30, 2011 at 3:44 pm
The Earths atmosphere is contained in a non flexible fixed volume container? I missed that part of my science lessons. …. That effect is due to the fact that the full radiating surface of the Earth includes the entirety of the volume of the atmosphere. Thus raising the true black-body surface above the surface of the Earth by 5 KM and placing that as the location where where the 254.6k black-body calculated temperature forms. Using adiabatic lapse for 5KM and increasing the 254.6K by this amount gives the no greenhouse gas black-body earth with Atmosphere surface temperature.
It all makes absolute perfect sense.
Agreed!! It also explains why the lowest spots on earth are the warmest, and the highest are the coldest. Something the radiation model does not explain.
I am one of those who think that the jury is out on whether CO2 actually cools the atmoshere. I consider that there is insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion one way or the other. In my first comment on this article I suggested that if you had an atmosphere with no GHGs that atmosphere would be unable to radiate away any heat and if you were then to add CO2 to that atmosphere this would allow the atmosphere to radiate some of its heat. This would suggest that CO2 can have cooling properties (depending upon the make up of the atmosphere).
It seems to me that CO2 blocks incoming solar light (at three wave lengths) and this reduces slightly the amount of solar energy reaching the oceans and being absorbed by them. This leads to a cooling. CO2 may block outgoing LWR thus slowing down it’s path leading to a warming but CO2 also helps radiate away some energy in the atmosphere that would otherwise find it difficult to radiate away thereby promoting/facilitating cooling. It seems to me that CO2 operates in three different ways and whether these in totality result in a net plus or a net negative is presently not established.
Water vapour is, of cours, very different to CO2 in that it has a high latent heat content and therefore holds a lot of energy.
“Are you maintaining the gravitational field is a continual source of energy…i.e., that the earth and its atmosphere are undergoing gravitational collapse?”
The gravitational field interacting with the kinetic movement of molecules is a constant source of heat for so long as energy is supplied to the molecules. If no energy s supplied to the molecules they cool to absolute zero, all kinetic activity stops and no heat is generated.
It is an energy conversion process not an energy creation process so the Laws of Thermodynamics are complied with.
Joel Shore says:
December 31, 2011 at 5:25 am
/////////////////////////////////
Joel
You do not need gravitational collapse to create heat, just gravitational interaction. Look at Io which is heated by gravitational interaction.
On Earth both the Sun and the Moon are pulling the oceans creating tides. They do the the same but with less noticeable effect to the atmosphere. All of this is work and as a by product creates heat.
Lucy Skywalker says:
December 31, 2011 at 3:38 am
‘It’s the stratosphere that shows GHG activity predominating’
I like to see someone stick their neck out as you regularly do.
As I see it ozone responds to radiation at about 10 micrometers and emits at a wave length readily absorbed by CO2 which absorbs at shorter and longer wave lengths than ozone. The presence of ozone at up to 10ppm in the stratosphere accounts for the reversal of temperature at the tropopause but it achieves this in large part because it is partnered by CO2 at 400ppm. Ozone traps a portion of the radiation that would be otherwise freely transmitted and emits at a wave length that energizes CO2. So, above the tropopause the composition of the long wave radiation is altered to favor atmospheric heating. The reversal of the lapse rate above the tropopause is a spectacular demonstration of the capacity of radiation at various wave lengths to energize atmospheric gases.
Below the tropopause convection counters the downward propagation of that energy and according to Nikolov and Zeller the ‘countering’ is complete. Hence via mathematical calculation surface temperature relates to energy intake and atmospheric pressure alone. There is no radiative effect from above, neither from the troposphere or the stratosphere. Incidentally, the lack of a radiative effect from the stratosphere on the troposphere is discernible from the temperature profile in the near tropical southern atmosphere where the stratosphere experiences a peak temperature in winter while at the surface and all the way up into the troposphere the peak is in summer. The heating of the stratosphere in winter relates to a strengthening of the high pressure cells in winter. More radiation emanates from below as the air descends and is compressed.
What is not generally realized is that ozone is driven into the troposphere, particularly in the winter circulation at high latitudes where the entire atmospheric column is coupled in convection. The coming and going of ozone in the upper troposphere affects atmospheric temperature, relative humidity and cloud cover, changing on interannual and longer time scales in accordance with geomagnetic activity. This is a feature of the Nikolov and Zeller analysis that has been ignored by all those who have commented here and at the talkshop. It is this mechanism that accounts for the changes in surface temperature experienced on solar cycle and 100 year time scales. It appears in figure 10 above. It is this process that must be understood if we wish to understand the climate change that has been of concern.
Its just nice to know that we can cross the GHG idea of the list as completely inoperative. Man is off the hook. More CO2 will help to green the planet. The planet can sustain more people. We can all stop worrying about our carbon footprint. It’s wholly desirable.
The GHG effect has always troubled me because like many aspects of AGW it is a half-truth, distorted to support the cause. This discussion has helped my understanding to crystallize, so thank you all for that. I guess that Stephen Wilde’s comment above is about right.
The spectroscopic and black body aspects of the concept are true. The AGW interpretation of the consequences is wrong.
thepompousgit Dec. 30, 2011 at 10:17 pm):
The article at http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ might interest you. In it, I examine the relationship between logic and the methodology of the inquiry into AGW. I conclude that this methodology is neither logical nor scientific but that the ambiguity of reference of terms in the language of climatology can create the appearance that it is both logical and scientific.
“The coming and going of ozone in the upper troposphere affects atmospheric temperature, relative humidity and cloud cover, changing on interannual and longer time scales in accordance with geomagnetic activity.”
I think the effects of ozone might be more extensive than that given the recent finding that ozone quatities above the stratopause (around 45km) vary in response to solar variabiliy oppositely to below the stratopause.The entire vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere seems likely to be affected with consequential effects on the height of the tropopause and the surface pressure distribution throughout the troposphere.
Also I think the level of geomagnetic activity and the amount of cosmic rays may just be proxies for different solar causation.
But that is for another day. AGW theory is dead once one puts the radiative effects of GHGs in their proper place (in the air alone) and in their proper proportion (miniscule compared to natural solar and ocean induced changes).
Good progress made in the past few days due to Nikolov’s paper giving the issue a kick start even if it might be ‘old’ science at least in part.
I’m sure I learned about the gravitational field effects interacting with the kinetic energy of vibrating molecules around planets to produce heat in the form of a greenhouse effect some 50 years ago.
Yet of late many have been brainwashed into thinking it is all or mostly a radiative phenomenon occurring only in the atmosphere.
Someone took a very sharp wrong turn at some point and it was never challenged at the time.
Richard S Courtney;
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.>>>>
This would still result in an “average” over the course of the Martion year. The mass of the atmosphere would simply fluctuate in a given band with a max and min. If the theory is correct, then the Martian temperature would also fluctuate within a given band, and around the annual average. Further, I would expect that band to be fairly narrow. Even with the longer Martian year, the heat capacity of the planet would easily reduce the fluctuations to a rather narrow band.
Obviously, the non-GHGs (N2, O2 and Argon) have energy in the atmosphere – the temperature of the atmosphere is the temperature of the non-GHG molecules because they are 99% of it. They are not at Absolute Zero, they are, on average, at the temperature that our thermometres measure. So, non-GHG molecules absorb energy; at the very least, through collisional energy exchanges.
So the question becomes, without GHGs absorbing certain long-wave frequencies, what would the atmospheric temperature / the lapse rate be.
Without GHGs, the N2, O2 and Argon molecules would be thermalized by contact with the surface (they are colliding with the surface at something on the order of billions of times per second). The non-GHGs apparently have no way to emit that energy away except through further collisional energy exchanges with other non-excited non-GHG molecules. So the energy gradually builds up from the immediate surface to the higher levels of the atmosphere over a given short period of time.
The atmosphere continues heating until there is some method for the thermalized non-GHG molecules to release their energy to space.
N2, O2 and Argon have a few emission lines but these are weak and are not at the temperatures that would be expected in such a thermalized atmosphere. [Perhaps blackbody radiation, but physics seems to think that these “diatomic gas molecules” don’t exhibit blackbody radiation].
The atmosphere would continue heating up, perhaps expand far into space, and it wouldn’t stop. The surface might be emitting large quantities of long-wave energy through the large atmospheric windows that exist now without GHGs, but the atmosphere is constantly warming up by the thermalization. A large fraction of the photons from the Sun would eventually get permanently thermalized into the emmissionally-inert diatomic gas atmosphere.
The GHGs, therefore, cool the atmosphere by allowing stong emission of the energy at certain long-wave frequencies. It is the opposite of the theory. The lapse rate is a function of how efficient the GHGs are at emitting long-wave energy to space (which depends on the density of the atmosphere – at 10 kms high, CO2 is 60% efficient at emitting energy directly to space).
Stephen Wilde;
I think one can deal with the resulting confusion by accepting BOTH scenarios but putting them in proper proportions.>>>
BINGO!
EXACTLY!!!!!
There are many threads on this site about sensitivity, and the data is increasingly indicating that sensitivity to changes in CO2 concentration is very low. It isn’t that the concept of CO2 as a GHG is wrong, but that in the context of the earth system as a whole, the exact components of the atmosphere and their ratios in regard to each other are not nearly as significant as the total mass of the atmosphere.
OK, ferd berple, place the air containers within an insulating foam that prevents convection and conduction to the cool refrigerator or the warm kitchen. However, make that foam out of a plastic material that passes LWIR. If we do that, it seems to me that the same graphic applies, albeit with an extended time scale.
Face the facts.
In case (A), increasing the pressure within the container, and holding it at a constant high setting will cause only a TEMPORARY increase in the temperature within the container. Even if the only means that energy can be lost is via radiation from the walls of the container, the temperature will asymptotically drop. over time, to equal the temperature of the inside of the refrigerator.
In case (B), increasing the outside temperature of the container, by removing it from the cool refrigerator and placing it in the warm kitchen, will, over time, cause a PERMANENT increase in the pressure and temperature of the container. Even if the only means that energy can be gained is via radiation from the kitchen to the walls of the container, the temperature will asymptotically rise,. over time, to equal the temperature of the kitchen.
Of course, the only* way the Earth System can gain or lose energy to Space is via radiation.
*Other than the heat from the molten core, but that amounts to 1/10000 of the incoming radiation from the Sun, or incoming asteroids or outgoing space ships that amount to even less than 1/10000 of the energy budget :^)
Richard M says:
December 31, 2011 at 5:38 am
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>>>
Another BINGO!
The alarmist view of GHG’s is very one dimensional. At best, they allow for secondary effects only in terms of estimating positive feedbacks. What real world system has positive feedbacks!?!!?
The effect of GHG’s cannot possibly be a straight forward direct relationship to concentration. Secondary effects of convection alone would cancel most of the warming from the GHG effects. The system is chaotic in that we don’t even know what all the variables ARE let alone how they are interelated!
“It is the opposite of the theory. The lapse rate is a function of how efficient the GHGs are at emitting long-wave energy to space (which depends on the density of the atmosphere – at 10 kms high, CO2 is 60% efficient at emitting energy directly to space).”
Nice one Bill.
And remember that most GHGs are condensing water vapour which makes the cooling effect highly efficient.
That would go on perfectly well without any non condensing GHGs at all because the gravitationally induced portion of the greenhouse heating PLUS the entry of solar shortwave into the oceans would keep the oceans liquid just as they are now.
Without water on our world the heat build up would have blown the atmosphere off into space and Earth would just be a rock with a very thin residual atmosphere like Mars.
Venus is a different case in some way but I’m not sure why. I’d guess it is because the average weight of the molecules forming the Venusian atmosphere is much greater than our preponderance of Oxygen and Nitrogen so it hasn’t been blown out to space despite the high temperature that has developed.
Unless AGW proponents can find a substantial flaw it is just a mopping up exercise from now on.
davidmhoffer:
Thank you for the response to me that you provide at December 31, 2011 at 9:00 am. I had pointed out how and why the mass of the Martian atmosphere varies by more than 50% over the course of a year and, I said, this would preclude the effect of atmospheric mass determining an average global temperature on Mars.
You have replied;
“This would still result in an “average” over the course of the Martian year. The mass of the atmosphere would simply fluctuate in a given band with a max and min. If the theory is correct, then the Martian temperature would also fluctuate within a given band, and around the annual average. Further, I would expect that band to be fairly narrow. Even with the longer Martian year, the heat capacity of the planet would easily reduce the fluctuations to a rather narrow band.”
You may be right. I am not an astronomer and, therefore, I am not adequately knowledgeable of variations in the mean global temperature of Mars over a year. Perhaps somebody here can provide a link to a reliable source of the pertinent data.
However, we do know that the mean global temperature of the Earth rises by 3.8 K from June to January and falls by 3.8 K from January to June each year. This variation results from the different coverage by land of the northern and southern hemispheres.
In my opinion, this seasonal variation of the Earth’s mean global temperature is the main reason to doubt the hypothesis which is the subject of this thread.
Richard
Richard S Courtney;
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)).>>>
I was originaly rather negative about Nikolov and Zellar, but I’m starting to warm up to it 😉
If they arrived at a nearly identical hypothesis to Jelbring via a completely independant thought process, does that not lend credence to BOTH papers?
Black body radiation is a function of temperature so the different gases in the atmosphere radiate depending on how hot they are, regardless of composition or whether they are GHG or not. Of course, the GHG component may have higher energy due to absorbed IR. Collisions between all molecules will spread the kinetic energy around more evenly.
So, most of the GHG effect warms up the atmosphere, getting more convection going. The downward component cannot penetrate the oceans since it is absorbed by the surface molecules of water resulting in faster evaporation.
Basically, the GHG effect gives some heating but also initiates a range of negative feedbacks which result in the global temperature stability that has made life viable.
THANKS Ned for joining the discussion in my Posting thread. I look forward to reading your ‘reply paper’. As I stated above, I would love it if your theory, or some other theory, overturns the doctrine of the Official Climate Team. Unlike some others here at WUWT, I applaud the fact that your theory was published and is being discussed with the interest and courtesy due to serious and well credentialed scientists.
In particular, I await your explanation of how an Atmosphere-free (and water-free) Earth would be about 100K cooler than the similarly situated Moon. That was my first, simplest, and most critical “red flag” on your theory. advTHANKSance.
I agree completely with the above statement. Clearly, Surface pressure is the sum of the weight of the column of air above the Surface, and, thus, the mean Surface pressure would be constant so long as the Atmosphere does not lose or gain mass. [Added 1:30PM EST: During maximum glaciation, much of the water vapor condenses out of the Atmosphere to form ice, which would reduce its total mass as compared to periods of minimum glaciation. I do not know how much that changes the mass of the Atmosphere, and therefore the mean surface pressure. Anyone know?]
I was thrown off when, in the posted topic, you wrote “a planet’s mean surface temperature as a function of only two variables – TOA solar irradiance and mean atmospheric surface pressure,” [Emphasis added]. That led me to believe that you considered mean atmospheric surface pressure a variable in your theory, or perhaps you were referring to the variability of the pressures at various altitudes above different geographic areas of the Surface. I am sorry for my misunderstanding and I look forward to further discussion. Happy New Year! Ira
Warmed gases rise due to convection and the blackbody radiation from these gases will diminish as they lose temperature. The proportion of that radiation which is downwards will increasingly encounter more atmospheric molecules as opposed to land and sea. The land/sea target area will also effecively decrease with the altitude of the gas.
If the gas happens to be water vapour it wll condense at some stage, releasing latent heat.
If I am understanding the issues here at all, the crux of the issue seems to how changes in atmospheric pressure(mass of the atmosphere) affect the radiation of heat to space.
I am having a hard time understanding why an injection of matter into the atmosphere causing higher pressures and temperatures would not also cause more energy to be lost to space and, thus, ultimately, a return to lower temperatures.
Can anyone help me out here?
Cheers, 🙂
davidmhoffer:
At December 31, 2011 at 9:32 am you ask me:
“I was originaly rather negative about Nikolov and Zellar, but I’m starting to warm up to it 😉
If they arrived at a nearly identical hypothesis to Jelbring via a completely independant thought process, does that not lend credence to BOTH papers?”
In my opinion, yes, it does. But we should always keep in mind that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.
I again stress that I do not know if the hypothesis is right or wrong, but I am certain that it deserves much more – and more proper – evaluation than it has obtained since it was first published in 2003.
Happy New Year.
Richard
Oh
My
GOSH!
Did Miloszcki (sp?) get it wrong?
I just went hunting for his paper and couldn’t find it, if someone has a link?
My recollection though is that he accurately predicted the temps of both Venus and Earth based on optical depth of the atmosphere. Is it possible that he got cause and effect reversed? After all, my expectation would be that mass of the atmosphere and optical depth would vary in a nearly 1:1 relationship?
Mr. Shore please state the first law as you understand it and the violation of which you spoke. Please add the equation and where in the equation the violation takes place. I trust this is a simple request.