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.
shawnhet:
At December 31, 2011 at 9:49 am you ask;
“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?”
I will try to help.
The hypothesis is that the mass of the atmosphere affects the rate of change of temperature with altitude (i.e. the lapse rate). Thus, the altitude at which the emission to space effectively occurs is altered. The amount of the emission is not changed (it equals the amount of heat the planet gets from the Sun).
But if the effective emission height changes then the distance from that height to the surface changes. And temperature increases with distance below the effective emission height (i.e. temperature decreases with distance from the surface in the lower atmosphere).
I hope this helps.
Happy New Year.
Richard
The compressed gas cylinder model does not match the earth. Heat is lost from the gas cylinder through the metal walls. On earth the walls of the cylinder are formed by the air and the surface of the planet. The heat lost from the air to the air has no effect on temperature. Heat lost from the air to the surface would warm the surface.
Yes, Jasper |Gee, there is less gravity as you go further from the center of the Earth, so, strictly speaking, you are correct, the Surface pressure at the bottom of the column of air would go down a teeny-weeny bit as you heat it.
However, it seems to me that yours, and a couple others in this thread, is kind of picking at nits. Imagine we were comparing the weight of an elephant and a rhinoceros, noted that the elephant was heavier, and someone said, “Yeah, that’s because the elephant has fleas.” (Along those lines, a joke told at water aerobics this morning: “What do you get if you cross an elephant with a rhinoceros?” Answer: “Elephino”)
Richard S Courtney;
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.>>>
I’m not an astronomer either, but you are effectively making my point.
The earth’s temp is X… +/- 1.9 degrees. The orbit is elliptical, the hemisphere’s have different land/ocean ratios, and the Gore effect moves from one hemisphere to the other depending on where he’s spending his time.
But the temperature of the earth is on average X and varies in a narrow band by plus or minus 1.9 degrees.
I would expect Mars to also have a temperature of X that varies within a narrow band, and that if Nikolov and Zellar are correct, that they would be able to predict the average. In fact, might that no make a rather interesting method of verification? If one can quantify in a meaningful manner the fluctuation in the mass of the Mars atmosphere, then that should correlate to the fluctuation in temperature (with orbital parameters etc layered on top of course).
dmh
PS – If we could stuff Al Gore into a spaceship and send him off to Mars, we could then also quantify the Gore Effect by observing the changes induced by removing him from Earth and also the changes induced by adding him to Mars!
“Richard S Courtney says:
December 31, 2011 at 10:02 am
The hypothesis is that the mass of the atmosphere affects the rate of change of temperature with altitude (i.e. the lapse rate). Thus, the altitude at which the emission to space effectively occurs is altered. The amount of the emission is not changed (it equals the amount of heat the planet gets from the Sun). But if the effective emission height changes then the distance from that height to the surface changes. And temperature increases with distance below the effective emission height (i.e. temperature decreases with distance from the surface in the lower atmosphere).”
Agreed. The atmosphere affects the surface temperature by moving the point at which incoming and outgoing radiation are in balance. On a planet with no atmosphere, this point is at the surface. But on a planet with and atmosphere that point is higher up, in the atmosphere.
The point at which incoming and outgoing radiation are balanced is the black-body temperature. Something like 285K depending on which formula you use. The additional 33K of warming observed at the surface (at sea level) is a result of the lapse rate, which is a function of gravity not radiation. If you are on a mountain top, the increase is less. If you are below sea level, the increase is more.
@davidmhoffer December 31, 2011 at 9:53 am
“Did Miloszcki (sp?) get it wrong?”
You should find it at
http://miskolczi.webs.com/
The radiation model of surface temperature proposes that radiation determines surface temperature. However, this is a result of the radiation model ignoring convection. When radiation tries to increase the surface temperature above the lapse rate, convection increases to balance the temperature at the lapse rate. When radiation is less than what is require to maintain the lapse rate, convection decreases to balance the temperature at the lapse rate.
Thus, surface radiation cannot change the surface temperature beyond what is provided for by the lapse rate, except temporarily, as it will lead to an increase/decrease in vertical circulation, which will re-establish the lapse rate.
So, for example, when the sun shines on the earth in the morning, this creates a vertical movement of warm air, and a corresponding down-flow of cool air, which bring the surface temperature back into line with the lapse rate.
By decoupling convection, the radiation model has overstated the role of radiation in determining surface temperature and ignored the role of gravity in establishing the lapse rate.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 31, 2011 at 9:22 am
Venus is a different case in some way but I’m not sure why.
The magnetic fields of earth and venus slow the rate at which the atmosphere is lost to space due to solar radiation. Otherwise as you correctly point out, the atmosphere of both planets would have been blasted into space by the solar wind. Out-gassing from the molten interior of both planets helps replenish atmosphere that is lost, but even then earth is losing its atmosphere. Current oxygen levels are 21% as compared to 35% a couple of hundred million years ago. It is unlikely the giant insects of the past for example could survive in the present atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 31, 2011 at 1:48 am
“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.”
I must have missed it the first time around. But, I thank you for clearly elucidating the “why” of my inchoate thoughts as to why this matters.
“However the system energy content does not change unless solar input or the strength of the gravitational field change.”
You pricked something in the back of my mind with that. What we call gravity at the surface is not just mass attraction alone. It also includes the “centrifugal force” from the spinning Earth. With Earth rate of 15 deg/hour and radius of 6378 km, that subtracts 6378e3*(15*pi/180/3600)^2 = 0.033 m/s^2 from the gravity effect, resulting in the 9.81 m/s^2 value which we call 1g at the surface. I’m wondering – the difference is small, but might this tie in with observations such as here which suggest a correlation between climate cycles and length of day? The variations in length of day are also really small, so probably not. But, I thought I’d toss it out there.
Joel Shore says:
December 31, 2011 at 5:25 am
“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?”
You are confusing energy with power. In steady state, the energy reradiated over a lengthy interval has to equal the incoming, or the planet would eventually burn to a crisp. The average temperature is related to the average amount of energy retained.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
December 31, 2011 at 9:19 am
“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.”
And, therefore, a TEMPORARY increase in the pressure as well! I explained this at December 30, 2011 at 11:44 am.
Willis: Sorry I did not make my contention clear. I am merely making the point that atmosphere mass and density altitude allow for warmer temperatures at the surface relative to altitude, all things equal. I am supporting the UTC paper because the cause and effect is great in scope, broader than the AGW CO2 fanatical drum beating; putting them at risk of extinction. The nick picking is around my observation that when ever a new theory hits the street, right away there is a rash of nay saying to bring out from others a response. Thus doing a off handed method of peer review via stirring the bees. Just like the cloud theory and others before it.
Veuve Clicquot Brut for the masses!
Or this vesper delight:
3 parts gin
1 part vodka
1/2 part Lillet
drop of range bitters
wedge of orange
Cheers!
Ira Glickstein;
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.>>>
Ira!
They got it right!
I made the exact same mistake as you and very nearly dismissed this paper out of hand for the very same reason. A quick SB Law calc falsifies the -100K number. NOT!
P doesn’t vary with T!
P varies with T raised to the power of 4!
SB Law is:
P = 5.67*10^-8*T^4
To illustrate why -100K is probably far more accurate than -33K, let’s demonstrate by using SB Law on a “two grid point” model using an “average” of 230 w/m2.
Scenario One
Grid Point A
P = 230 w/m2
Via SB Law
T(GP.A) = -20.6 Deg C
Grid Point B
P = 230 w/m2
Via SB Law
T (GP.B) = -20.6 Deg C
P(average) = 230 w/m2
T(average) = -20.6 Deg c
Now let’s run the exact same calcs but for a very hot grid point and a very cold grid point:
Scenario Two
Grid Point A
P = 380 w/m2
Via SB Law
T (GP.A) = +13.1 Deg C
Grid Point B
P = 80 w/m2
Via SB Law
T (GP.B) = -79.2 Deg C
P(average) = (380 + 80)/2 = 230
T(average) = (13.1 + (-79.2))/2 = -33.1
By averaging T instead of T^4, WE HAVE BEEN MESSING UP THE TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC EFFECT FROM DAY ONE! THIS IS THE MOST COLLOSAL MATH ERROR IN HUMAN HISTORY!
I have neither the math skills nor the data to arrive at a mathematical analysis of what the total effect should be. But I do know that incoming radiance varies from nearly 500 w/m2 in the tropics to ZERO at he poles (for months at a time!). Solve for average T^4 from pole to pole and season to season and from day time high to day time low and THEN convert to T!
I’m betting that is what Nikolov and Zellar have done…
And I’m betting they got it right.
-100K is the number.
davidmhoffer says:
December 31, 2011 at 10:16 am
“If we could stuff Al Gore into a spaceship and send him off to Mars, we could then also quantify the Gore Effect by observing the changes induced by removing him from Earth and also the changes induced by adding him to Mars!”
Finally, a compelling reason to develop a manned mission to Mars! You may have single-handedly saved the US space program from its aimless wandering.
ferd berple (Dec. 31, 2011 at 10:28 am):
When you say “lapse rate” I think you mean “adiabatic lapse rate.” It’s the adiabatic lapse rate that is maintained by convection.
In fact my 500 w/m2 at the tropic vs 0 at the poles isn’t even a big enough range!
The right range is 1365 * 0.7 ~ 1000 watts.
Solve for day time high at the tropics of 1000 watts/m2 cycled with night time average of 0 watts/m2. Then solve for increasingly high latitudes until you get to a daily fluctuation at the poles from a high of 0 w/m2 to a low of 0 w/m2 for six months at a crack!
Suddenly, -100K looks VERY reasonable!
Bill Illis says:
December 31, 2011 at 9:01 am
Bill, your description is very close to what I getting at on the GHG-less atmosphere thread. I wondered if the heat would build and build without GHGs or whether the heat would build to a certain point and then the surface also warm and hence radiate to a higher level bringing the system into equilibrium.
I think the whole issue of conduction between the surface and the atmosphere has been successfully hidden by the team. If you look at what they did they provide only the NET energy flow in the KT papers. However, for GHGs they use the GROSS energy flow.
The GROSS flow of energy is probably even higher for conduction but it mostly evens out. Same is true for the radiation if you compute the NET flow.
As for Miskolczi … I think he had a couple of items of interest. One was that the atmosphere maintained a constant GHE. He thought that as CO2 increased that H2O would decrease to maintain a constant optical depth (1.87 IIRC).
He may have been right about the constant optical depth and there may have been no need to go any further. With the UTC I would expect a constant optical depth as he had found experimentally. One more piece of evidence supporting the UTC.
Have another look at my graphic. Notice the pump and meter on BOTH illustrations in case (A)? That was my way of indicating that we first pump the container up to some given high pressure. During the time we are pumping, as the Pressure rises the Temperature also rises due to the work that we have done. When we reach the given Pressure, we stop pumping. At that point, the Temperature begins to drop slowly, and with it, as you have noted, a bit of the Pressure. That is why the second illustration in case (A) shows the pump and meter still attached, which we use to maintain the Pressure at the given high pressure. The Temperature asymptotically drops to that of the cool refrigerator. At that point, we could remove the pump and meter and the Pressure will remain forever fixed at the given high level and the Temperature will remain forever fixed at the cool level of the refrigerator. Thus, the pumping up to a high Pressure level results in a TEMPORARY change in Temperature – first up, then back down.
In case (B), in contrast, a rise in Temperature, by moving the container from the cool refrigerator to the warm kitchen, results in a PERMANENT rise in the Pressure within the container.
Do you agree:
Case (A): If we do nothing more, the Temperature will be low forever and the Pressure will remain high forever?
Case (B): if we do nothing more, the Temperature will be high forever and the Pressure will also remain high forever?
Please notice the difference between raising Pressure (case A) vs raising Temperature (case B).
Terry Oldberg said @ur momisugly December 31, 2011 at 8:51 am
“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.”
Many, many thanks Terry. It’s amazing what comes from Aristotle’s three laws of thought 🙂
davidmhoffer says:
December 30, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Not me. Not for an instant. I’ve played that “let’s guess what they mean” game before, it’s nothing but wasted time. Unless he can tell us what he means, I’m not chasing his ideas around to try to pin them down.
w.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
December 31, 2011 at 11:51 am
“That is why the second illustration in case (A) shows the pump and meter still attached, which we use to maintain the Pressure at the given high pressure.”
The number one rule of physics is you can’t get something for nothing. To maintain the pressure, you are going to have to keep pumping, imparting as much energy as that fleeing due to the heat dissipation. And, that extra pumping will keep you at the same temperature.
Of course, in a realistic system, there will be a limit cycle of pressure and temperature about the induced equilibrium. Temperature will drop. That results in a pressure drop. You sense the pressure drop and pump it back up. As a result, the temperature rises, and the cycle repeats.
But, won’t you eventually pump an infinite amount of gas in? No. Because the pumping action is not adding to the volume of gas, just exchanging it with more energetic gas molecules.
[Bart, I am sorry to say that you simply do not understand. Keep pumping those “more energetic gas molecules” to replace the ones that got less energetic? If you pump a container up to some pressure and maintain that pressure by pumping a bit more until the temperature stabilizes to that of your kitchen, you can disconnect the pump and the pressure will stay exactly the same unless there is a leak in the container or unless you change the ambient temperature in your kitchen. You can take that to the bank. – Ira]
“A small but important addition to my previous post is necessary.
GHGs cause a faster throughput of ‘processed’ solar energy IN THE AIR ALONE. ”
Yes but needs more emphasis. GHG are all about radiant energy- as in the Sun.
Sun is huge huge blazing ball of very hot gas. Huge blazing ball of very hot gas
can transfer a fair amount of energy, and GHG are very faint echo of something
important. Photons aren’t “naturally” a good way to heat things- you make a
laser and that’s impressive. But room temperature radiant energy isn’t impressive.
The blazing ball of intense energy, does not warm gases. It causes none of them
to increase their velocity- and their velocity is what makes them warm. For gas
you need fast moving molecules and you need them confined [you need pressure].
A zillion gas molecule going light speed, all in same direction is not warm gas.
Though very hot if hits something. A zillion gas molecule traveling fast and gravitation
held together is to some extent warm. Heat when talking about gas is velocity and pressure- and that is all.
You can excite a gas molecule with photons- but that isn’t warming the gas.
Such excited gas will not warm your device that measures temperature- direct their
excitement and you have laser- which will warm your device that measures
temperature.
But a small amount [size of house and 1 atm of gas] randomly being
excited doesn’t add much if any heat. The speed these zillions of gas molecules
are traveling is the heat.
The Sun’s radiation [photons] does heat up solid or liquid matter- makes this matter excited
and if excited enough gas molecules fly away from it- generally at very fast speed and
if enough them do this it’s hot gas [immediately crashing into zillions of other gases molecules or other matter].
“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 GHG are going radiate [send photon] to other GHG in random directions. The total sum of this randomness isn’t going to get much work done- cause evaporation. I think it’s biggest affect could be slowing heat radiation of surface and it’s radiating energy into the universe.
My biggest question is how much photon energy can GHG rob from other gas molecule velocity
and thereby actually cool the gas. But seems to me a sizable amount surface energy is radiated directly to space- it’s mostly microwave and microwaves generally punch thru any atmosphere fairly easily. You use radio/microwave to see thru Venus thick atmosphere.
Or in other words, I have doubts of whether CO2 warms or cools a planet. And bigger doubts about CO2 as trace gas is going to much any significance.
“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.”
Yes.
Richard S Courtney says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:56 am
Thanks, Richard. I hesitated to bring Jelbrings name into this, because of my extensive discussions with him about his mistaken ideas.
The clearest I can put it is that Jelbring (and the current authors) have the following theory:
1. The bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the top of the atmosphere.
2. The top of the atmosphere is at the temperature of space, call it a few Kelvin. The bottom of the atmosphere is heated well above that temperature by gravitational compression (PV=nRT). This means the planetary surface has to be a certain amount warmer than the top of the atmosphere.
3. The final temperature of a planet is a combination of direct heating and atmospheric heating.
4. For a given thickness of atmosphere, the larger the planet, the greater the difference in temperature between the top and the bottom of the atmosphere.
Let’s call this greater temperature the “relatively enhanced gravitational pressure energy”. Because there is more pressure from increased gravity, it increases the rate of … hang on, what did he call it … oh, right, it increases the density-dependent rates of molecular collision, which in turn leads to …
Just kidding, that’s how they’re misdirecting your attention from the great reveal, which is …
THEREFORE
5. Gravity is heating the earth. You can tell by looking at the bigger planets, more gravity = more heat.
Me, I always get stuck at the “therefore” part. As I commented to Hans Jelbring at the time, if his theory were true, then the surface of a dead planet with an atmosphere and no sun near it should be warmer than the empty space around it … and that sounds like perpetual motion to me.
He had no answer.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:03 pm
“Unless he can tell us what he means, I’m not chasing his ideas around to try to pin them down.”
Then, take what he said, interpret it in a way that makes sense to you, and put that forward as your own working hypothesis. You are being counterproductively punctilious.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“… if his theory were true, then the surface of a dead planet with an atmosphere and no sun near it should be warmer than the empty space around it”
There has to be a source for the heat. This is like saying a capacitor should build up a charge of its own even when not connected to an electrical circuit.
And, this is an appropriate analogy. A larger capacitor in a series RC circuit connected to a constant voltage will build up a greater charge than a smaller one. Short the voltage to ground, and the charge will dissipate.