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.
Dr. Glickstein: PLEASE HELP!
I have what I hope is a very simple question for a physicist and the answer will really help me understand what is being talked about here. First, a little setup, then the question.
I earlier suggested that a pressure cooker might be a more appropriate analogy than your pressure vessel thought experiment. The reason is that your analogy would only be good if we were talking about an earth that had no sun (or some other external source of heat). Of course the planet would cool down to close to space temperatures regardless of the the amount of atmospheric pressure or even the existence of an atmosphere. The pressure cooker example provides an external heat source (sun) that provides energy that is absorbed a lot by the vessel, but very little by the surrounding air (which anyway is convected off), much in the same way that the earth absorbs solar radiation and space does not.
OK, here’s the question: create a pressure-cooker-like vessel with a relief valve that keeps the pressure at whatever pressure you choose. You have a way of measuring the temperature in the middle of the vessel. Put the vessel over a constant heat source and inject, say, N2 into the vessel at various pressures. Each time, allow the vessel to reach a steady-state outflow of heat. Meaning the vessel has reached a thermal equilibrium. (If I’m not stating this correctly, I think you still get what I mean). Will the internal temperature at steady-state conditions be the same or different depending on the pressure of the N2 in the vessel?
I really don’t know the answer to that. It seems obvious that there would be more retained heat owing to the higher density of the gas at the higher pressures. Does this manifest as a higher temperature?
Yes or no would be fine, but if you’d like to explain your answer, please pretend you are talking to an eight-year-old so there’s some chance I might understand.
Thanks,
Dan
Willis, you are missing the point. The more mass and pressure that the planet’s atmosphere has the greater potential for heating compared to a planet with a less massive atmosphere given an equal source of solar energy.
Bart says:
<>
And, almost all of it from the 1998 El Nino. Cherry picking a wee bit early in the season, aren’t we?
I’m not cherry picking — the time interval, 13 years, was set by the original commenter, not me.
Of course there was a strong El Nino in 1998 — there was also a strong La Nina in 2010. This is precisely why climate scientists calculate trends over a few decades (usually 3) instead of just one — there are too many short-term fluctuations in a decade that can mask the long-term trend.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“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.”
Well, I think they answered that. If I am not mistaken, they say the sun’s input is enough to keep the energy “at bay”. If there is no sun, its energy will “die out”, if you wait long enough. Dont kknow how long you must wait, though.
So, in your test-setup, how long did you wait? Before measuring?
Willis Eschenbach (Dec. 31, 2011 at 12:24 pm):
From your description of the two papers, I gather that you’ve overlooked the key idea in them. The idea is that the possibility of free convection heat transfer sets up a feedback mechanism which persistently forces the lapse rate toward the adiabatic lapse rate. As the adiabatic lapse rate is insensitive to the composition of the atmosphere, the atmospheric temperature profile is insensitive to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. As the adiabatic lapse rate is sensitive to the pressure at Earth’s surface, the temperature profile is sensitive to this pressure.
“Willis, you are missing the point. The more mass and pressure that the planet’s atmosphere has the greater potential for heating compared to a planet with a less massive atmosphere given an equal source of solar energy.”
If Earth had twice it’s gravity it would warmer.
How much warmer?
You would have 14.7 times 2 = 29.4 psi
double temperature. But increases amount radiated
Wild guess adds more than 20 C
[there change laspe also]
If Earth had 1/2 it’s gravity, the pressure would 7.3
increases laspe rate
pressure halves temperature
would radiate less.
Hmm, wouldn’t be likely earth could keep such a high elevation atmosphere.
Assuming it did, I think it reduce temperatures by less than doubling gravity
increases, so around 5-10 C less??
Thanks for getting back to me Richard!
“Richard S Courtney says:
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).”
Ok. That makes sense so far as it goes. However, it raises some more questions to my mind. Going back to the calculation of the lapse rate, I find that the dry adabiatic lapse rate can be calculated by dividing the specific gravity (g) by the specific heat of the air at constant pressure.
Since g is a constant, a lower lapse rate necessitates then that the specific heat of the air goes up as the air pressure goes up, right? And that changes in specific heat of the atmosphere will be directly proportional to changes in temperature at the surface? Couldn’t we then use measured changes in the specific heat capacity of air under different pressures to calculate the changes in the lapse rate directly as an alternative to the authors ATE/NTE approach?
To me, this puts the authors’ equations 7 & 8 in serious doubt. If we know that changes in atmospheric specific heat capacity are what (predominantly) determine the surface temperature of a planet, then a model or expression that does not refer to that property will only appear right accidentally.
Happy New Year to you as well!
Cheers, 🙂
Stephen Wilde says:
What does “…so long as energy is supplied to the molecules” means? A miracle occurs? Look, you have 240 W/m^2 of energy coming in and 390 W/m^2 going out. Where is the extra 150 W/m^2 coming from? Be specific.
Apparently, violating the Law of Conservation of Energy is not a substantial enough flaw for you guys! The worship of complete nonsense by many on this website, including some who really should know better, has gone from silly to pathetic.
Just to add a bit more specificity to my last comment: If you propose that energy is coming from the gravitational field, that means that the gravitational potential energy is decreasing (at some rate like 150 W/m^2 of earth’s surface). What is causing this large decrease in gravitational potential energy?
PV=nRT, implies that heat or energy doesn’t change, and unfortunately that thing called weather is pretty much about how heat, P, V and T change spontaneously and continuously in the atmosphere.
Ira said “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 vs raising Temperature”
I really think this is a such a red herring Ira.
Consider the molecular interpretation of both temperature and pressure. They are a consequence of the kinetic theory. If we could take away all of the energy, molecular motion would drop to zero ( no internal energy) and both P and T would reach an absolute zero. As soon as there is either a temperature or pressure, there would be molecular motion and both would be greater than zero.
In your example, temperature is a transitory phenomenon because you created a potential difference and then allowed heat to flow from the pressurised gas to the surroundings. This illustrates the first law of thermodynamics, but the additional cooling process has no analogy in a uniform atmosphere at equilibrium.
Please have a look at my earlier post where the gas is pressurised, but there is no potential difference and therefore no further transfer of energy. Would be good to get your views on what that means for the original post you were responding to.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
December 30, 2011 at 7:18 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
I believe you and Paul are correct in proposing empirical experiments. However the experiments proposed will not answer the questions raised by the Nikolov & Zeller claims. What is first needed is a clear understanding of what they were claiming. Few people on this thread or the previous one seem to understand.
Tallbloke does –
“I don’t have a problem understanding what Nikolov and Zeller are saying in the passage quoted by Willis. They are simply explaining why it is that in a gravity well supplied with external power, the more highly compressed gas near the surface will be warmer than expected by a grey body calc which doesn’t take atmospheric pressure gradients into account. Simples.”
An experiment designed to test this is not too difficult. All that is needed is to simulate a column of atmosphere.
1. A tall (2m tall x 200mm diameter) pressure cylinder internally insulated with 5mm of white EPS foam with ultra thin reflective foil covering. All surfaces insulated except on underside of matt black alloy top cap.
2. A second internal cylinder of 5mm foil coated EPS foam 1945mm long 140mm external diameter suspended inside the foam lining of the pressure cylinder 25mm away from all walls and end caps.
3. A matt black grey cast iron target disk 125mm diameter 5mm thick placed internally in the centre of the pressure cylinder base.
4. A pressure tight glass window 20mm diameter in the top cap of the pressure cylinder.
5. Peltier or cryogenic cooling for the top cap of the cylinder (~ -50c).
6. High intensity external light source focused through the window in the top cap to illuminate only the cast iron target disk in the base of the cylinder.
7. Valves for the input of various dry gasses
8. temperature sensors for the target disk and various points up the atmospheric column.
9. Air speed sensor for the convection loop
How it works –
1. the external light source is intermittently switched on and off to simulate a planets rotation.
2. The target disk heats up and thereby heats the gasses in contact with it and also emits LWIR.
3. Heated gasses rise up the centre of the internal cylinder, are cooled by the top cap and descend outside the internal cylinder in a convection loop.
4. The foil covered insulation also bounces most LWIR until it impacts the cooling cap and is absorbed.
If a higher internal pressure of dry nitrogen yields higher internal temperatures with the same external light source then Nikolov and Zellers claims are proved correct. A further slightly expensive variation on the experiment would be to mount the cylinder on a centrifuge arm and spin it to such speed that a significant pressure gradient were created along the length of the cylinder, with the light source and cooling cap being at the low pressure end.
This topic has generated over 700 comments at WUWT, yet no one has sought out conclusive empirical data. This illustrates the problem with climate science quite well, too many try to do science from their keyboard , not in the lab or the field. Now get Mum or Dad to help with the scissors and do the experiment.
Joel Shore says:
December 31, 2011 at 2:16 pm
“…you have 240 W/m^2 of energy coming in and 390 W/m^2 going out.”
I don’t know where you pulled these numbers from. I do not know why you are having trouble with the concept, when it is the same deal with GHGs, but just a different hypothesized mechanism for increased energy retention by the atmosphere.
I do know that Watts is a measure of power, though, and it is making me grit my teeth when you use such imprecise language, and I suspect it may be the root of your confusion.
Erinome says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“This is precisely why climate scientists calculate trends over a few decades (usually 3) instead of just one — there are too many short-term fluctuations in a decade that can mask the long-term trend.”
And, there are long term fluctuations which can mask it in three decades, particularly when that is very close to the half period of the obvious ~60 year quasi-cyclical component in global average temperature readily evident to the naked eye in plots of yearly averages. Thirty years is almost precisely the interval guaranteed to give you the maximum indicated warming during the upswing of this component. Is that an accident? I suspect not.
Linear regressions are not truth. They are not magic. They do not reveal something which cannot be seen with the naked eye with proper filtering and perspective. But, the naked eye can discern patterns which such elementary canned routines cannot. And, it is quite apparent that we have recently simply reached the peak for the ~60 year period, and are now poised for the next ~30 year decline.
I would hardly be surprised if you disagree. Indeed, I would be astounded if you did not. But five, maybe ten years from now, you will look back and wonder why you failed to allow yourself to admit the obvious, painful truth – there is no anthropogenic global warming of any significance.
OK Dave, as you know from our personal emails some months ago, I agree with your point that the mean temperature should always be calculated by converting each and every ºC data point to K, then raising each and every K^4, taking the average, doing a K^-4 on that average, and converting the result back to ºC.
I checked your Grid point examples, and you got the math right. However, your delta in T(avg) is -20.6ºC vs -33ºC which is only -12.4ºC/K, so the mean temperature of Earth (288K) could be off by around 4%, not a big deal when Climate Science is so far off in other areas.
The radiance at the poles does go down to zero, but, using the SB Law, that would correspond to a temperature of 0 K or -273ºC, and, due to conduction and convection, the poles never get down that low. The lowest recorded temperature was “−89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica July 21, 1983” [Wikipedia].
OK, 500 w/m2 corresponds to around 307K, and averaging that with 184K, we get 245.5K. 184K corresponds to an effective “radiance” of 64 w/m2. Average of 64 and 500 is 282 w/m2, which corresponds to 266K, a difference of 266-245 = 21ºC/K. Significant, but very far from the -100K that L&K claim the Moon and Atmosphere/water-free Earth would be if their theory is correct.
So, if your extreme case, comparing an average of a polar point with a tropical point, gives an error of only 21/288 = 7%, then I do not see how doing an average of thousands of data points, using only T rather than T^4, can amount to the 100K claimed by L&K which would be 100/288 = 35%.
Sorry Dave, but I am not a betting man.
Bart:
(1) The numbers come from Trenberth and Kiehl ( http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/kiehl4.jpg?w=480&h=350 ) and are good to within several W/m^2. The 390 W/m^2 can also be estimated from the average surface temperature. The greenhouse effect mechanism presents a very clear explanation of what happens: Some of the ~390W/m^2 from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by the atmosphere; hence, not all of it escapes to space. (The atmosphere emits too, but since it is at a colder temperature, it emits at a lower intensity.) All of the alternative mechanisms seems to rely on some vague magic involving things like “the gravitational field interacting with the kinetic movement of molecules” with no quantitative calculations to accompany it and, in fact, no quantitative accounting of energy at all. Do you see the difference?
(2) Sorry…Would you be happier with “…you have energy coming in at a RATE of 240 W/m^2 (or really an INTENSITY of 240 W/m^2…”? And, while I may be a bit sloppy with the terminology (as nearly everyone is), I don’t think I am the one getting confused.
…I should also add to (1) that for the greenhouse effect, we have detailed empirical evidence like actual spectra both of “back-radiation” and of the radiation from the Earth as seen from space, with the “bites” taken out of it at the known absorptions wavelengths of the various greenhouse gases.
OK Dave, OK, 1000 w/m2 corresponds to around 366K, and averaging that with 184K, we get 275K. 184K corresponds to an effective “radiance” of 64 w/m2. Average of 64 and 1000 is 532 w/m2, which corresponds to 312K, a difference of 312-275 = 37ºC/K. Significant, but still far from the -100K that L&K claim the Moon and Atmosphere/water-free Earth would be if their theory is correct.
By the way, as a System Engineer I used to test the estimates provided by vendors and our analysis department by using the same technique you are using, which we called “worst-case analysis”. I would take what I considered the most extreme bad case (such as Dave’s assumption of averaging a polar and a tropical temperature) and do a “back of the envelope calculation” (and, in those days all I had was an envelope and a slide rule :^). If my “worst case” was in the range of the parameters submitted by the real analysts, I would accept their values as correct. If not, I would recheck my approximate calculation and if I could find no error, I would ask them to justify their number.
Now, please L&K, justify that 100K difference. advTHANKSance
Bart says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:29 pm
That sounds fine, but there’s no way I’ve found to twist it so that it makes sense. Nor am I being counterproductive. We have something called “enhanced energy” which supposedly is activated by “external heat”. If that makes sense to you, run with it. Me, I need definitions and examples of those concepts before I go further.
w.
Joe Zeise says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:46 pm
That also makes no sense. Please define “potential for heating”. If you mean “thermal mass” … so what?
w.
kwik says:
December 31, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Have I wandered into another dimension? How on earth does one keep energy at bay? Where does energy go when it “dies out”?
w.
Bart, of course linear regressions aren’t truth. But it disproves the original commenter’s contention that there has been no warming for the last 13 years, which was all I was doing.
There is no obvious 60-year cycle in global average temperature — when I look at the HadCRUT3 data starting in 1850, my naked eye does not see an obvious 60-year cycle.. Because it might appear in spectral analysis does not make it real — any Fourier analysis of data over a finite range will find frequencies that stick out simply due to the boundaries. What is the physical mechanism?
I would hardly be surprised if you disagree. Indeed, I would be astounded if you did not. But five, maybe ten years from now, you will look back and wonder why you failed to allow yourself to admit the obvious, painful truth – there is no anthropogenic global warming of any significance.
Now there’s a novel way to win an argument — assume the future does what you predict, and then blame me today. Brilliant!
Hey, Willis, and ilk, are you really being objective here?
“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 …”
Is it not possible that you do not understand this statement? Is it wrong, if you don’t understand it?. But, of course, I don’t quite understand it, either, and the authors should come forth and explain it. But…you tread on a very unscientific Pravada style theme here, wherein you slam a whole concept because of some verbiage about which you have some QUESTION.
And I find it fascinating for such a brilliant person to challenge ONLY one little part of the treatise! How about all the empirical stuff, Willis???
Facts are, at this point, there is still NO frigging empirical evidence for some silly “radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect.” Period.
And Ira is totally ignoring all evidence contrary to his “science.,” as far as I can tell. He is presenting the same old tired idea of energy stored up in a “bomb.” You have pressure, temperature, or some combination. It has absolutely no connection with the Planet Earth. The FACT is that the atmosphere and the oceans STORE energy, and that is ALL there is to the “greenhouse effect.” That is being demonstrated to be true with each passing year, as the quantity of “greenhouse gases” keeps increasing, while the World does not seem to care or express any change!
The heat stored by the planet, replenished each day by our Sun, is sufficient to keep the gases at the magic temperature at which we live, thanks to the Great Almighty. GHG radiation has absolutely nothing to do with this, which is EXACTLY what the subject article demonstrates!
After doing a bit more research, I don’t think substantial variations in the lapse rate are possible with realistic changes in atmospheric pressure. The variations in specific heat listed here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-specific-heat-various-pressures-d_1535.html
imply a lapse rate(and hence, a surface temperature) that only changes trivially with changes in atmospheric pressure (the lapse rate is defined as the acceleration due to gravity divided by the specific heat of air).
Unless there is some novel way of calculating the lapse rate that I am unaware of, the heating proposed by this theory cannot be due to changes in the lapse rate. IMO, unless it can lay out specifically the means by which a temperature increase due to an injection of atmosphere can *persist*, I think this is a dead end.
Cheers, 🙂
“…you have 240 W/m^2 of energy coming in and 390 W/m^2 going out.”
I don’t know where you pulled these numbers from.
I think they standard numbers from the team.
Something solar energy per meter of diameter of earth divided.
Hmm try 1321 W per meter before the atmosphere.
1.74 x 10^17 watts
12,756 6378 km 1.27 x 10^8 km 1.27 x 10^14 sq meters
So total solar power: 1.74 x 10^17 watts divided by area: 1.27 x 10^14 sq meters
gives: 1370 divide 4 [so whole globe] gives 342.5 W then times .7 gives 239.7 W
And times by .7 because 30% cloud cover [or some other idiocy].
Anyways it makes no sense.
Suppose you had planet like Mars at Mars distance [solar flux around 600 W per sq meter] from
equal two stars which some keep on opposite side- giving Mars constant day globally.
How warm is Mars going to get? No doubt it will be warmer.
My guess is you will still a frozen polar cap- or maybe both poles would summer- so maybe if it would wouldn’t case. But I would say you could have surface temperature of 27 C [80 F]. Or you are never going to get close frying eggs on a sidewalk.
Earth with this Mars. It should even cooler sidewalks.
Lets go wild and have four suns surrounding the Mars or Earth and the fours are giving
250 W per sq and shining there isn’t any nite anywhere- and there overlap so you would see two stars in the sky at various times and/or locations. Would this be warmer?
Jupiter distance is 50 watts per square meter. So it’s at some distance between Mars and Jupiter.
Hmm. here: Ceres: The solar irradiance of 150 W/m2 (in aphelion). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Ceres
According wiki the highest surface temperature on Cere is 235 K
And aphelion is 2.9 AU and perihelion is 2.5 AU. Perihelion would be close to 250 W.
“The Cererian surface is relatively warm. The maximum temperature with the Sun overhead was estimated from measurements to be 235 K (about −38 °C, −36 °F) on 5 May 1991”
So I would guess four suns the sidewalk would never get above freezing and a Mars like planet would get warmer than earth like planet.