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.
Dan, if you put water in a pot on your stove, the maximum temperature it can reach is that of the boiling point of water at normal Atmospheric pressure, where water boils (nominally) at 100ºC or 212ºF. If you live at the top of a mountain where the Atmospheric pressure is less, the water will boil at a somewhat lower temperature, and you will have to, for example, boil your pasta for a few more minutes.
The source of heat is the burner on the stove, and that heat energy goes into the bottom of the pot, warming the water. Once the water reaches a steady state temperature, an equal amount of energy enters the pot through the bottom, and leaves the pot as radiation and convection from the sides and as steam out the top. If you raise the setting of the burner, more energy will enter the bottom of the pot and the water will reach a higher steady state temperature. However, once the water reaches boiling temperature, all further increases of burner setting will not increase its temperature at all, and the additional energy entering the bottom of the pot will be dissipated into the room as radiation, convection, and steam. (Of course, on an actual stove, the hot pot will radiate back towards the burner and dissipate some energy that way. For our thought experiment, let us seal the burner and insulate it such that all energy must pass through the bottom of the pot.)
A pressure cooker works by increasing the pressure within the pot which will raise the boiling point of water in the pot to a higher temperature. That will cook the food more quickly. The pressure cooker has a relief valve that prevents the internal pressure from exceeding the safe limits of the container. (As a kid, I once put a sealed can of soup directly on the lit stove and forgot about it until I heard a real big BANG. The can blew its contents up to the ceiling and all over the kitchen. Quite a cleanup job and my mother never found out about it.)
So we know that if we use H2O in the pressure cooker, higher settings for the relief valve will result in both higher pressures and higher temperatures inside the pot. This will work so long as there is liquid H2O in the pot.
Your question substitutes N2 for H2O with the pressure relief valve set at various pressures. N2 is a gas at all reasonable temperatures. At nominal Atmospheric pressure, it boils at 77K (-196 °C; -321 °F). So, unless you do this pressure cooker experiment in an ultra-low temperature laboratory, the N2 will be in the gas state and, IMHO, the pressure cooker will not appreciably increase its temperature as you change the relief valve settings.
Sorry Dan.
Ira,
My back of the envelope calc was for the tropics ONLY and would not be valid for the earth as a whole. My discussion of the temperate and arctic zones was to illustrate how much more complex doing the same for areas outside the tropics would be. I did NOT average the poles with the equatorial regions as you assumed! I arrived at an equilibrium temp of 150K for the tropics ONLY based on a simple SB model solved across a 24 hour period of the insolation rising from 0 at dawn to 1000 w/m2 at noon and falling back to 0 at sunset. That would in fact, be roughly the equilibrium temperature of the tropics via SB Law under those circumstances.
As to your statement:
“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”>>>>
EXACTLY! But WITHOUT the atmosphere conducting, convecting, absorbing and re-radiating, what would the equilibrium temperature of the poles be if they were at zero insolation for months ata time? Answer: -273! Calculating the “base” temperature of the earth exclusively on SB Law and a uniform 235 w/m2 yields a temperarure of about 253K. That calculation IGNORES conduction, convection as well. To have an apples to apples comparison, one either ignores those factors in Both calcs, or INCLUDES them in both calcs.
By ignoring them, and using a uniform 235 w/m2 24x7x365 insolation, we get about 253 degrees which compared to 288 yields around 35 degrees for warming from the atmosphere.
BUT, if we treat insolation as 12x7x365, rising from 0 to 1000 w/m2 over the day light hours, the tropics yield a base temperature of about 150K. The temperate and arctic zones would be WAY more complicated to calculate via a back of the envelope calc because AVERAGE insolation declines as latitude increases, but VARIANCE of the insolation INCREASES. Add to that the fact that “day” is sometimes much longer than night, and sometimes the reverse. Plus albedo changes dramaticaly as well.
So what’s the “right” number? Well, if the whole earth was just like the tropics, the “right” number would be in the area of 138 degrees K attributed to the atmosphere. My rough guess being that the temperate and arctic zones would yield a lower number than that, but still far higher than the currently accepted 35 degrees, it seems to me that N&Z’s calculation of 100 degrees due to atmospheric warming is FAR more realistic than 35 degrees.
Bart says:
December 31, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Ira says:
“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…”
Ira, forgive me, I must be harsh. This is a nonsensical statement. Pressure is created by molecular motion. Molecular motion is temperature. Boyle’s law is a statement of equivalence. You have made a conceptual error. You cannot separate these variables so. They are intimately intertwined in a 1-1 relationship. You simply cannot have an arbitrary temperature with an arbitrary pressure. It cannot be done.
I stopped reading at this sentence about Willis and his “ilk”. There is no one at WUWT who is more objective than Willis.
There are a few people in this thread who have contributed far, far more heat than light. They are welcome to continue posting here if they meet the Moderator’s criteria, but I do not have to, nor do I intend to read beyond their display names. That is my New Year’s resolution. Happy New Year.
Erinome says:
December 31, 2011 at 6:27 pm
“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.”
He said 13 years. Thirteen years ago right now was December 30, 1998. So, no, you did not disprove it.
There is no obvious 60-year cycle in global average temperature…”
There is to my eyes. But, I have had a LOT of experience in such data analysis.
“…any Fourier analysis of data over a finite range will find frequencies that stick out simply due to the boundaries.”
Ah, no. Or, at least, not without predictable structure.
“What is the physical mechanism?”
Random excitation of a modal response of the Ocean-Atmospheric-Solar system. Such processes are very common, nay expected, in a system described by elliptical partial differential equations with regular boundary conditions and random forcing.
Ok, we have had a perfect cloudless sunny day and I have just conducted my first very basic empirical experiment to check Nikolov and Zellers claims. Initial results indicate they may be correct.
What was done –
– 2 identical 1.25L PETG drink bottles recovered from the new years party detritus had one side spray painted black.
– One bottle had a input port with tap attached though it’s lid
– Both bottles had small holes drilled in their base and probe thermometers force fitted (0.1 degree resolution)
– The lower ends of both bottles were shielded with foam and foil to prevent solar heating of the thermometer probes.
– A fish tank pump capable of aprox 0.1 bar was attached to the input port of one bottle with 1m of pvc tubing coiled though a tub of ice water.
– The bottle without the pump was squeezed slightly be fore the cap was attached firmly
– The bottle with the pump was pumped up until rigid and the tap closed
– Both bottles were left to equalise with indoor room temperature
– Both bottles were placed in full sun on a sheet of EPS foam with their dark side down
– Temperature rise in both bottles was observed
– The experiment was repeated several times, swapping bottles, caps and thermometers to eliminate rig or instrument bias
What was observed –
– Both bottles internal temperature quickly rose around 25C above ambient air temperature reaching around 50C
– The bottle with the higher internal pressure exceeded that of the low pressure bottle by around 1.5 degrees (typical readings 50.5C verse 49C)
– When bottles were warmed then shielded from the sunlight with a sheet of EPS foam, the high pressure bottle appeared to initially cool quicker
I was surprised to see such a small pressure differential created by a fish tank pump actually cause a measurable temperature differential. While the partial pressure of radiative greenhouse gasses would be raised in the higher pressure bottle, this could not account for the observed temperature difference between the bottles. This experiment, while crude, indicates that if the Earth had a higher pressure nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, the surface air temperature may be higher for the same amount of solar input. Nikolov and Zeller may well be correct. I believe that it would now be appropriate for those disputing the Nikolov and Zeller claims to back their arguments with empirical evidence.
How does a microwave cooker work?
It heats the dense water molecules in the food but not the low density air surrounding the food.
Q.E.D.
It is so simple
Here’s another way to look at “enhanced energy”. Compare 3 identical sized planets with different mass. Assume one is Earth, the second has 2x Earth’s mass and the other 1/2 the mass (yeah, it’s a thinking experiment). One would expect the atmosphere on the 1/2 mass planet to cool more by expansion of the atmosphere while the atmosphere on the 2x mass planet would not be able to expand near as much and hence would be unable to cool as much.
If all the planets were receiving the same solar heat then why wouldn’t they have the same temperature? Gravity. The “enhanced energy” is really a suppression of cooling by reducing the volume of atmosphere that contains the energy. There’s no more energy, it’s just contained in a smaller volume which raises the temperature.
OK, I’m a math guy so I could be completely wrong.
jae @ur momisugly December 31, 6:36 pm
Nicely put JAE!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-climate-theory-may-confuse-cause-and-effect/#comment-849278
Ira:
I think you are being very obtuse:
“There are a few people in this thread who have contributed far, far more heat than light. They are welcome to continue posting here if they meet the Moderator’s criteria, but I do not have to, nor do I intend to read beyond their display names. That is my New Year’s resolution. Happy New Year.”
Dear Ira, PhD: I hope you are smart enough to realize that your statement added nothing at all toward this thread. Sorry, Doktor!
I would suggest that you have some serious learning problem if you “stop reading” posts/articles/etc. when you get nervous/anxious/disgusted/mad about some comments. Could it be a sign of immaturity/doubt/religion? DEFINITELY NOT a sign of SCIENCE, for sure! You really should know, if you really have that PhD that the science has absolutely nothing to do with your “feelings” here. Were you a graduate student of Michael Mann? Do you quit reading literature in your field (which is what??) that “bugs you?”
You DO need to read things that you don’t agree with, right? Anyone who says he/she “stops reading” at some point suggests to me that he/she is scared or very, very unscientific. You can have your opinions, but you cannot have your own facts, sir!
However, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU, TOO!!!
PS: I have a very high regard for Willis, but I think his ego is on the line here, also. There is NO empirical proof of any “atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.” AND, UNTIL THERE IS SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SUCH, THERE IS NO SCIENCE.
All the empirical evidence points in the OPPOSITE direction. Sorry, but you have failed to refute this elementary proposition, so you don’t have ANY science! BUMMER, HEY?
Konrad says:
“This experiment, while crude, indicates that if the Earth had a higher pressure nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, the surface air temperature may be higher for the same amount of solar input. Nikolov and Zeller may well be correct. ”
Good to have someone here with a practical rather than a simply theoretical habit of mind.
Bart says:
December 31, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I should caveat that I am talking about the regime in which pressures and temperatures are relatively low, as in the Earth’s atmosphere. In other situations, the pressure/temperature relationship becomes affine. But, the variables are still not arbitrarily decoupled.
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
December 31, 2011 at 7:53 pm
jae @ur momisugly December 31, 6:36 pm
Nicely put JAE!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-climate-theory-may-confuse-cause-and-effect/#comment-849278
>>
Agree. Thank JAE for being able to understand. Bob, you do see deep enough in this matter to see what it means don’t you. It means that, as JAE was implying, that the lapse rate is anchored at the surface, not at the TOA as Joel Shores et al have been preaching. Exaggerate to get some insight. Let’s say the sun was suddenly twice as bright, what would that mean? One, what would be the temperature at the surface and two, what would be the lapse rate and three, where would then be the TOA? Look at the units of the terms in the equations to shout at you.
As far as the temperature you can see by my chart above it is computed by parameters that have nothing to do with radiation, none, period.
As Richard S Courtney was saying, the natural lapse rate is –g/cp and neither, gravitational acceleration and the specific heat, have nothing to due with radiation, none, period.
Those two mean the TOA would be higher, much higher but the surface temperature would remain the same. This is not saying temporary shifts in albedo would not put the earth system away from this natural point but if pushed it would return as fast as additional energy was either accumulated or dispersed by rates such as conductivity of the ocean water or soil, or additional or reduced radiation to space to return it to equilibrium.
And I’m not taking about short lived weather events as the energy here in the system fluxes from point to point. In fact, I can find no factor that could possibly cause ANY permanent movement of this equilibrium point but variances in the atmosphere’s mass. Do you?
Keep your eyes on the units of these terms tossed about. That where the truth lies.
( I spent almost a year on dimensional analysis and if you don’t know exactly what that is, review this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis )
Good to see you around Bob_FJ. Want hear how your efforts on the science shows is coming. And on horizontal radiation, hand on to that thought, that is key in explaining just why the above occurs, how it works.
So, yes if you question, I am drawn to Dr. Nikolov & Zeller’s work. They have already shown real, absolutely real physics sense in the first part of their theory (I haven’t gotten all of the way through yet). But, it does mean hundreds or even thousands of ship-shod climate science theories and hypotheses just bit the dust and their flaws were all in simple, flawed logic, had a feeling it was there. That is undeniable and the screams are going to get loud!
Let me know if you can see what I laid out above.
Konrad says:
December 31, 2011 at 7:26 pm
First, my congratulations, gotta love a man who actually does some experiments.
I’d be cautious in the interpretation of this one. I suspect that a slight pressure would expand the sides of the bottles slightly. It wouldn’t take much to change the temperature, for two reasons. One is that the more swollen bottle will intersect more sun. The second is that the rate of heat loss is proportional to the ratio of surface to volume. So in the pressurized bottle the expanded volume with the same surface area would lose heat more slowly.
Bear in mind that at 50°C, one degree of temperature difference is a change of only 0.3% (three tenths of one percent). The calculation is (273.15 + 51) / (273.15 + 50) – 1, you have to use Kelvin.
So a change in cross sectional area of the bottle of only 0.3% could be at the root of the problem. I’d try it again with glass containers before declaring victory.
Keep us posted if you continue, and well done.
w.
“What was observed –
– Both bottles internal temperature quickly rose around 25C above ambient air temperature reaching around 50C
– The bottle with the higher internal pressure exceeded that of the low pressure bottle by around 1.5 degrees (typical readings 50.5C verse 49C)
– When bottles were warmed then shielded from the sunlight with a sheet of EPS foam, the high pressure bottle appeared to initially cool quicker”
The bottle squeezed after heating was also higher pressure than ambient, due to heating?
I think you create more vacuum by squeezing bottle than most people would expect- of course
it depends on structural strength of container- but I say easily more than 1 psi, and wouldn’t too surprise if got 4-5 psi reduction.
So went up 25 K, got to 50 C. so started from 25 C or 298 K to 323K which is 11-12% increase
so heat would pressurize by about 1.6 psi.
So removed pressure by squeezing and didn’t have pressured after heat, you removed more
than 1.5 psi.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 31, 2011 at 9:37 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
It would indeed be prudent to be cautious about the interpretation of such a basic test. The point you raise about the expansion of the bottles is relevant as PETG bottles are elastic, especially at elevated temperatures.
Previously on the thread I did describe a more involved experiment with apparatus that would eliminate some of the issues with the crude experiment just conducted. However the “atmospheric column simulator” would be expensive to build. In particular the desire for a centrifuge to create a pressure gradient along the test chamber would be rather costly. Where are those “Big Oil” dollars when you need them? 😉
Unfortunately I will be unable to progress any refinements to the basic test for a week or so due to work commitments. However the results from the test conducted were interesting enough that I will try to build a further test chamber, more like the test chamber I proposed earlier on the thread. I would maintain that I now see the Nikolov and Zeller claim as plausible and would be unwilling to dismiss it without firm empirical evidence disproving it.
One other point I would raise is that Nikolov and Zeller are proposing several papers about this theory. Given the simplicity (but not necessarily low cost) of possible empirical experiments in this area of study, it is possible they have already conducted some.
@Bob Fernley-Jones: I forgot I posted to you on this thread without my simple Venus, Earth, Mars table that I referenced. If you have not seen it already check either link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/30/feedback-about-feedbacks-and-suchlike-fooleries/#comment-848012 or
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/#comment-847256
(both have some explanations above)
Joel Shore:
It is reasonable for you to evangelise your faith in the AGW hypothesis.
And it is reasonable for you to dispute the Jelbring Hypothesis.
But it is NOT reasonable for you to defend your faith by misrepresenting anything – including the Jelbring Hypothesis – which challenges your faith. And that is what you are doing in this thread.
Firstly, at December 31, 2011 at 2:16 pm and again at December 31, 2011 at 2:16 pm, you attempt to refute the hypothesis by asking:
“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.”
And you compound that at December 31, 2011 at 3:13 pm saying;
“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?”
Only you has mentioned the radiative energy imbalance of 150 W/m^2 suggested by Kiehl & Trenberth, and only you has suggested that the imballance “is coming from the gravitational field”.
The answer to your question, of course, is that the radiative energy imbalance of 150 W/m^2 results from back radiation. But so what?
I remind that I wrote at December 31, 2011 at 12:56 am
“The Jelbring Hypothesis (now also presented by Nikolov & Zeller) amounts to the following.
‘All the radiative, convective and evaporative effects in a planet’s atmosphere adjust such that the atmosphere obtains a temperature lapse rate close to that defined by –g/cp, and this lapse rate defines the planet’s average surface temperature. The average surface temperature is observed to agree with the Jelbring Hypothesis on each planet with a substantial atmosphere that has a mass which varies little through the year.’
Clearly, some atmospheric effects (e.g. convection) do adjust in response to gravity. At issue is whether the interaction of all the radiative, convective and evaporative effects provides the suggested adjustment.”
So, the hypothesis says that any effect of your asserted very, very disputable “extra 150 W/m^2” is to increase evaporation and conduction that cool the surface such that –g/cp is maintained.
So, what relevance of any kind does your question have to any consideration of the hypothesis? Be specific.
Secondly, at December 31, 2011 at 2:16 pm you assert:
“Apparently, violating the Law of Conservation of Energy is not a substantial enough flaw for you guys!”
Where have we guys who support and adhere to the scientific method violated the Law of Conservation of Energy? Be specific.
Richard
PS I again remind that I do not know if the Jelbring Hypothesis is right or wrong. I am writing to object to your behaviour that is very wrong.
Wayne,
“As Richard S Courtney was saying, the natural lapse rate is –g/cp and neither, gravitational acceleration and the specific heat, have nothing to due with radiation, none, period.”
You are right about this, however, I think you are barking up the wrong tree(I just finished doing that myself). It turns out that even large changes in atmospheric pressure cause very small changes in specific heat(less than twenty 20% increase in cp for a change from 0.01 atm to 100 atm for air) . As such, for all intents and purposes lapse rate can be treated as constant.
Cheers, 🙂
Ira Glickstein, PhD shouts to jae (and he very well knows many others):
December 31, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“They [who dare disagree with IRA’s view of ‘science’] are welcome to continue posting here if they meet the Moderator’s criteria, but I do not have to, nor do I intend to read beyond their display names. That is my New Year’s resolution.”
There you go Ira, keep them shut good and tight, it is your personal right after all. Anyway, seems you will need that ignorance very soon (then of course, you really should remove that PEE ACH DEE, a keeper of science, from behind your name). But, I don’t think you have the right to play God projecting your power to all of the commenters here on your posts. Yes, many have been watching your sly tactics.
[Wayne, your comment above misrepresents my reason for ignoring further comments by jae. As I make clear in my comment (December 31, 2011 at 7:22 pm) I object to jae’s charge that “Hey, Willis, and ilk, are you really being objective here?” That is a personal attack on Willis, one of the most informed and objective Guest Contributors at WUWT. In the above comment, you misrepresent my willingness to read and rationally consider postings of those who disagree with my view of science. I do read every comment on my threads and many on other threads, and, you may notice, I reply to many who disagree with my views. And, I try to do so courteously and without questioning motives. I accept that I may be wrong on some scientific issues, which is far from playing God. Have a Happy New Year! – Ira]
Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly December 30, 8:00 am
Hi Tim, it’s good to see a real physicist join in here, but please let me ask a few questions upon your assertions, in which you start with:
AND then in part:
A) You assert that if all GHG’s, [and by implication all surface water?], are removed from the atmosphere, the surface temperature would be 255K. However, when I do an S-B calculation for outgoing radiation at 255K, I get about 240 W/m^2, and of course, this must ALL escape directly to space in a transparent atmosphere. (the alleged net radiative heat transfer from the surface is 240 W/m^2.) BUT; according to Trenberth et al, this greatly exceeds the incoming surface absorbed energy from the Sun, given as ~161 W/m^2. Would you please answer on what seems to be a major paradox?
B) So you agree that there is a lapse rate, regardless of GHG’s?
Perhaps the basic experimental proof is simple. Arrange some glass cylinders around an IR lamp, equidistant from the lamp. Fill each with a different gas, heavier than air. Thus the density of each will be different.
then measure the equilibrium temperature in each.
Ira,
we all seem to be getting bogged down with words (both pro and con).
I suggest that you settle down and work your way through the maths, summarised in Table 1 and equations 2, 7 and 8.
You will then see what N&Z did not highlight.
They have created a set of interlocking equations which agree with the data.
They may be right or wrong, I am not an expert on atmospheric physics.
But any critism or modifications must also balance in the way that N&Z have done.
Hi Willis as well.
I also suggest that you go beyond the (perhaps) loosely or incorrect termonolgy.
Do the maths.
Then comment.
That’s why we always look forward to your contributions.
This paper deserves either confirmation or destruction.
Regards and a Happy New Year
“Previously on the thread I did describe a more involved experiment with apparatus that would eliminate some of the issues with the crude experiment just conducted. However the “atmospheric column simulator” would be expensive to build. In particular the desire for a centrifuge to create a pressure gradient along the test chamber would be rather costly. Where are those “Big Oil” dollars when you need them? ;)”
You don’t need many gees- 4 or say 10 gees.
Spin cycle on washing machine does 114.6 gees:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2028/how-many-gs-does-my-laundry-pull-during-the-spin-cycle
And bicycle tire at around 100 rpm could give about 5-6 gee – equal to tire speed when riding
at 10 mph. But is maybe overly complicated. How about A 24″ box fan motor, with a stick, hmm would have remove fan motor from box. Or a drill, secured- making secure could hard). A threaded bolt with 4 nuts and two washers. A short stick- say less than 2′. 2 Somethings that attach to each end of stick and can balanced some way. Balance stick first, Then two of something which will be the test chambers- a short piece of PVC pipe?
So jam PVC pipe on end of stick, then bolt, clamp, glue, whatever. Balance that. Then you can glue a PVC adapter to this. Use strong and light material. And I assume you want to spin horizontally rather vertically..
Hmm, I say rather than try to heat it while spinning, cool it, and allow to warm??
Here’s paint gun using PVC and coke bottle:
http://www.advancedspuds.com/coke.htm
Guy says coke bottle can have up to 160 psi .
Come to think about all need to do is pressurize and spin it. And measure temperature.
If you don’t pressure it, it will create vacuum at one end of bottle.
Konrad,
Would there be any extra benefit in carrying out a matching experiment on the Moon as well as Earth ? Perhaps Mars as well.
OK it would add some cost, but we have spent $100b on climate science for precious little benefit. A suitable experiment could help to answer some pretty fundamental questions. It would either reinforce conventional wisdom or broaden our understanding of something we thought was done and dusted. NASA may not be up for it though, which could be a problem.
It’s time we reduced wasteful spending on simplistic climate models that never come close to reality and spent some money on actual boundary pushing research.
There is nothing wrong with questioning established science, that’s one way progress is made; flat Earth, Sun goes round the Earth, Newton, Einstein, etc etc.
Today we even have orbital maths that we thought was correct but now we find that there is a difference between theory and measurement. There is always room for new theories and advancement of our understanding of the complexities of life.