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.
Joel Shore says:
January 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Which is demonstrating exactly what I said: that the pressure does not uniquely determine the temperature because you also have to know the number density.
Which is confirming exactly what I said at January 1, 2012 at 7:36 am. No external reservoir of gas molecules, no increase in “n”.
TWIMC: I really haven’t taken a position one way or the other on whether GHGs or gravitationally induced dynamics are responsible for “greenhouse” warming. I’ve only been trying to get people to argue the question. It seems everyone is trying to avoid the real issues, either by arguing technicalities, or proposing weaknesses in the latter hypothesis which, if genuine, would also be weaknesses in the GHG hypothesis.
davidmhoffer says:
January 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Yeah, and I’m ugly in the bargain …
David, you were responding to, or more accurately you were dodging Joel Shore’s question regarding the difference between ~ 240 W/m2 coming in from the sun, and the ~ 390 W/m2 upwelling from the surface.
In response you have been trying to say the problem is averaging T rather than T^4. But it’s not. It doesn’t matter which way you average. You are still a long ways from 240, whether you are using 386 or 391 W/m2.
So … what’s the answer to Joel’s question?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 1, 2012 at 2:21 pm
“You are still a long ways from 240, whether you are using 386 or 391 W/m2.”
Are you guys arguing about this? I did not think that diagram was meant to show a complete energy budget. Also, W/m^2 is still a density, and may not integrate over the same area.
davidmhoffer:
I agree much of what you say in your post addressed to Willis E. at January 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm.
But I write to dispute your stated opinion that he is not being “objective”.
Willis has disputed the Jelbring Hypothesis (JH) since it was published in 2003. He has rehearsed all the arguments over several years and he reached a conclusion long ago. And the same is true of me.
Willis and I have repeatedly and vigorously disagreed about the JH. He assesses it to be wrong and I assess that I have yet to see anything which would confirm it or deny it.
Our disagreement does not mean either of us is not being “objective” about the JH. Our different assessments indicate the different weightings we each apply to the evidence and the arguments.
Please note that I am not writing to defend Willis: he is more than capable of looking after himself.
I write to ensure that we all recognise objectivity can – and does – result in different conclusions when available evidence is not conclusive. (Incidently, when the evidence is conclusive then obtaining additional evidence may reveal our conclusion is wrong.)
This is important because when a claim that those with whom we disagree must be failing to be objective then our objectivity is lost: we are then guilty of claiming “the science is settled”.
Richard
Willis,
If it is an ugly contest you want, sorry, but you’re not in my league 😉
“David, you were responding to, or more accurately you were dodging Joel Shore’s question regarding the difference between ~ 240 W/m2 coming in from the sun, and the ~ 390 W/m2 upwelling from the surface.”
I was neither responding nor dodging. Joel is of course correct that there is a big difference that can only be accounted for by GH effect. My point to him was that he was relying on 390 w/m2 which is the value derived from SB Law using 15 C as the average, and that this is not a reliable calculation. In this case the wrongly calculated number happens to be the same order of magnitude as the actual number. Coincidence in this case masks the error, but it is still an error.
Further, the point of the climate debate at day’s end is not how much the actual difference is due to GH effect. That number is only usefull in the context of trying to determing if we are in fact causing a significant energy balance by increasing levels of CO2. If we calculate changes to that number in order to determine if we have a positive or negative energy balance, and we calculate it via average of T instead of average of T^4, we’ve arrived at a meaningless number that only looks potentially usefull because it happens to be the right order of magnitude.
Further still, if we measure P directly, we don’t NEED to know what the actual GH effect number is to determine if the energy balance is positive or negative. By measuring and trending P directly, we can make exactly that determination. Provided that we can measure P directly, why would we rely on indirect determinations of energy balance via calculation of the GH effect in the first place?
Further still (sorry, I’m on a bit of a rant) what evidence is being presented to us nearly daily showing that the energy imbalance is positive (ie heating up the earth)? Let’s go through the list:
NASA/GISS – average of T ona global basis.
Hadcrut – average of T ona global basis.
UAH/RSS – I expect they probably have data for P available, but casual glance at their web sites shows they display average of T first and foremost.
KNMI Climate Explorer – how many T related data bases are there on that site? Lots. Is there even ONE that gives you P? Not last I checked (which has been a while I will admit).
Paleo data – purports to provide a reconstruction of average T on a global basis.
These are all trends in T. Without a mathematically accurate method of converting T data to P data, we can’t possibly come to any conclusions regarding the earth accumulating energy or losing it, which is at day’s end THE question we want to answer. That in turn cannot be achieved by averaging T and converting to P.
Whether the radiative transfer theory or the gravity theory of surface temperature is correct cannot be resolved through argument. That approach has repeatedly led to scientific blunders throughout history.
Cause and effect lead to circular arguments in science, because every cause has its own cause. Eventually you run into a wall called the unknown – those things we have not yet discovered. Such is the case with gravity for example – we can predict the effects but the cause remains unknown.
At the end of the day, the only tests that is meaningful in science is the ability to make predictions that are unexpected and can be verified. If a theory fails any test, it is likely incorrect. The leveling off of temperatures in the face of record increases in GHG is the mark of a failed theory.
Had surface temperatures continued to increase and accelerate as was largely expected, then the gravity theory of surface temperature would not have gotten even a first look. Whether it is going to gain traction largely depends on the ability of the theory to predict things that are not obvious or expected.
The CET shows something like a 0.7 C temperature increase per century for 3 centuries. So, a prediction of rising temperatures on its own is not unexpected. The observation that Argo is not showing an increase in ocean temperatures was unexpected and flies in the face of GHG theory. Falling oceans levels also fly in the face of GHG theory.
All it takes to prove any theory wrong is a single example of where it is wrong.
Here is a series of plots of Argo data that demonstrates the GHG theory of AGW is likely a failed theory:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57706237@N05/6616006705/in/photostream/lightbox
If the earth is warming, then why do we see no warming in the oceans? Why specifically do we see no warming in the top 100, 200, 1000 meters? If the globe was warming, then the surface of the oceans should be warming. This directly contradicts GHG theory, given the record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
These plots were made with the Argo viewer downloaded from their site. One of the images gives an example of the typical settings to recreate the plots. The plots are mostly made in units of dbars, which are roughly equivalent to meters.
The task now is to split the gravitational component from the radiative component.
I agree with N & Z that the negative system responses to GHG thermal properties are likely to cancel the effects of GHGs mostly or entirely thereby leaving the gravitational component dominant.
In several articles I have explained how and why I think that that process occurs within the climate system.
The implication is that the total system energy content varies hardly at all being closely tied to the gravitational portion of the greenhouse effect.
Climate change therefore boils down to changing rates of energy flow across the surface on its way to space and that will be a function of the average positions of the permanent climate zones as they shift to and fro over time in response to ANY changes that try to force a change in the balance between sea surface and surface air temperatures.
Shifting climate zones is all we need to explain all observed climate changes to date.
New science can now opren up before us. AGW theory has been falsified by the acknowledgment of alternative mechanisms to GHG quantities in the atmosphere.
The big mistake was to prime the climate models with a weighting for the assumed effects of CO2 simply because no other cause for the observations was known.
That could be sustained during the late 20th century but only for so long as we had an active sun and warm ocean oscillations.
The disjunction now developing is too big to ignore R.I.P. AGW.
EXACTLY – Dan, you solved the problem yourself, and did it correctly.
Yes, n and R are the same for containers #1 and #2. #1 has the full volume V and #2 has half V. Say #1 has Pressure P. Since we jammed the same n into #2 it has double P. If we allow both containers to settle down to ambient Temperature, both have the same T. GREAT!
Note: (#1) P x V = (#2) double P x half V = nRT
We already agreed that n and R are the same for both containers, and the equilibrium temperature for both is the same ambient Temperature T. It is obvious that 1 x 1 = 1 Also that 2 x 0.5 = 1. QED
Ira, your model is faulty. On earth, the containers will not “settle down to ambient Temperature”, because the walls of the container are the contents of the container – the atmosphere – or the surface. Any energy lost from the container to the surface would warm the surface, which would warm the contents. Any energy lost from the container to the air would warm the air which would warm the contents.
You model leads to a misleading conclusion due to the energy lost to the surrounding environment through the walls of the container not being accounted for in your model.
Joel Shore says:
January 1, 2012 at 12:18 pm
“…while they may convince a few who are similarly confused about the basic science, you make the AGW skeptic community look really, really bad in the eyes of real physical scientists!”
That’s OK. “Real” physical scientists who predicted unrelenting warming from GHGs are looking worse and worse everyday, too. I highly recommend this book to you.
Gravitational Component
I remain unconvinced there is any specific “gravitational component”. Certainly, without gravity there would be no Atmosphere, and if gravity was stronger (due to a larger or more dense Earth) with the same Atmospheric mass, the Atmosphere would be denser at the bottom and would not extend as high. Also, Atmospheric pressure at various altitudes affects where and when H2O changes state, etc. In addition, during glaciation cycles, more or less of the H2O is condensed into water or ice, reducing or increasing the mass of the Atmosphere.
If that is what N&Z and you Stephen Wilde mean by “gravitational component”, I agree. But, based on what we have been given to read by N&Z, including Ned Nikolov’s comments in this thread and on Spencer’s blog, among other places, I have no evidence of any kind of new theory, aside from some interesting correlations between Atmospheric parameters between Earth and a few planets and moons. I anxiously await further input from N&Z’s promised posting to WUWT next week.
My mind is definitely not made up, but I am skeptical, as you should be given what we know at this point. I find it amazing that so many on the world’s leading “skeptic” blog are so lacking in skepticism – apparently mainly because they like the conclusions reached by the N&Z paper.
Radiative Component
I have been meaning to thank you (Stephen Wilde) for including my description of the “The Conventional Understanding” with a link back to my WUWT posting
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/30/skeptic-strategy-for-talking-about-global-warming/ in your .pdf file on The Setting And Maintaining Of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature.
Yes, I do support the basic truth of the role of the energy budget, which includes SWIR (Solar) and LWIR (upwelling and downwelling Earth/Atmosphere) radiation, but also includes what are called sensible and latent heat energy from the Earth to the Atmosphere.
Sensible heat is the energy in the warmed parcels of air that take heat energy from the Surface and rise higher in the Atmosphere, carrying heat energy. Latent heat is contained in water vapor that has evaporated from the Surface due to warming by SWIR and the warmth of the Earth, and that latent heat is released at altitude when the water vapor condenses to rain or snow. Heat of vaporization is hundreds of times greater than raising a similar quantity of water by one degree. Both sensible and latent heat move heat energy from the Surface to the Atmosphere and have the effect of cooling the Surface. So, in addition to the “radiative component” the conventional understanding includes convection and conduction, sensible and latent heat, and the effect of weather (clouds, winds, precipitation, thunderstorms, etc.).
I do not believe the Official Climate Team has properly accounted for either the radiative (GHG etc.) or weather aspects, particularly the role of clouds as a net negative feedback, and I suspect they have minimized these aspects in favor of the purely radiative aspect because of their focus on human-produced CO2.
I hope this is true, but N&Z have, so far, failed to state their theory in a form I can understand. Perhaps next week.
Well, I am not ready to write any kind of obituary for AGW, but I have done so for Catastrophic CAGW.
Predictions
1) CO2 sensitivity (called “climate sensitivity” by the Team) will turn out to be a pussy cat rather than a tiger. It will come in, soaking wet, at no more than 1ºC per CO2 doubling, and perhaps as low as 0.5ºC or even 0.2ºC, but it will remain positive.
2) CO2 and other GHGs, including those due to human actions, in the upper Atmosphere will indeed turn out to have a cooling effect, however, GHG’s in the lower Atmosphere, including CO2 caused by human actions, will turn out to have a warming effect.
3) When weather, primarily clouds but also including winds, precipitation, thunderstorms, and so on are properly accounted for, it will turn out that they are net negative contributors to warming.
4) Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory, relating the magnetic effects of Sunspot cycle strength to cloud formation, will turn out to be correct.
5) N&Z’s theory will turn out to have greatly exaggerated the effects of “gravitational components”.
Just to try to get back to the big picture, the point is this: The question is not an either-or dichotomy between “the gravitational component” (really, the lapse rate) and “the radiative component”. Both the radiative properties of the atmosphere and the lapse rate play a role in determining the greenhouse effect.
And, in an indirect way, pressure itself plays a role: Atmospheres with higher surface pressures tend to have higher quantities of greenhouse gases. And, even the non-greenhouse-gases could be important because, for example, if you took our current atmosphere and removed all of the non-greenhouse gases, then I believe that because of the lapse rate, the difference in temperature between the effective radiating level and the surface would be less and hence the greenhouse effect would be smaller. (I say this last part tentatively because I haven’t really thought it all through that carefully…It is an interesting hypothetical question and might even be directly addressed in Ray Pierrehumbert’s book.) [It is also true that pressure can cause broadening of the absorption lines of the greenhouse gases, although I think that this is an effect that is still pretty small at Earth-like pressures.]
And, the main point to realize is that to the extent that these thermodynamic aspects are important, they are already included in the models…And, they are included CORRECTLY, not in the frankly-incorrect way that Nikolov and others who have a very confused picture of the system are trying to include them!
David (or anyone else, Richard, anyone):
Could someone please explain to me the Nikolov hypothesis in a few pithy sentences?
Here’s an example of what I mean. For the greenhouse explanation of the fact the earth is warmer than its corresponding blackbody radiation, I would offer the following pithy sentences.
So what is the basic mechanism for the Nikolov hypothesis? I asked Nikolov, but he didn’t reply.
w.
Sorry guys, I just do not know what the fuss is about. Literally the old “how many angels can dance on the head of a needle”.
Willis, how many clouds of hot gas are there in the cosmos? Why are they hot.
Joel, what has the laws of conservation of energy got to do with it.
Very simply, its just another expression of E=Mc2, the density of air at the surface equating to mass. Just a simple illustration.
Now i put a bowl of gas in the microwave, apply power for one minute, and little happens.
So i increase the density.
Put a bowl of water in the microwave and supply the same power.
Bloody hell it gets hot. Yes i know it has technical flaws but it is a mere parable
That is all that N and Z are saying with the atmosphere. No laws broken, no missing energy or increased energy input, same energy but comparing different atmosphere compositions.
Ok so in terms of atmospheric density the effect is really small but what are we considering, 0.5 degrees over 150 years, is that not a small effect compared with the size of the earth and the Kelvin scale.
The supporters of man made global warming have caused so much damage, diverted and yeh stolen so much money resources and time, the need is to get them to cease now, not fight amongst ourselves and what better way to do that than just use simple science.and calmness.
I look forward to N and Z responding with their clarification.
i’ll be waiting, too.
so far, it just seems like confusion about temperature vs density similar to the confusion between temperature and heat. maybe the same…except that it has the words ‘lapse rate’ mixed in.
Ira Glickstein, PhD @ur momisugly January 1, 5:37 pm
Ira, extracted from your long comment:
That is an interesting comment that I’ll not labour on other than to say that maybe the “difficult language” so far from N&Z could be clarified next week after what amounts here to a peer review, which I reckon is a great process that they will appreciate. Meanwhile, concerning your opinions and analogies on cause and effect, let me go through something related that has me puzzled.
a) The lapse rate in our real-world atmosphere is generally considered to be a significant average of ~6.5 C/Km. Thus, since the several energy inputs from the surface are continuous, there must be heat (thermal energy) loss with increasing altitude and the associated reducing pressure. So, how does that heat escape? No problem; the GHG’s apparently emit it as EMR to space as a consequence substantially of collisions with the vastly greater previously thermalised non-GHG molecules.
b) Yesterday, Tim Folkerts, (a physicist of some fame at WUWT), claimed on a different thread that in an imaginary transparent Earth atmosphere of N2, the lapse rate would be about ~10 C/Km. Shrug, I have no problem with the value, and simply agree that there must be a lapse rate, both with and without GHG’s. The difficulty I have is: what is the mechanism by which an allegedly non emitting gas loses such heat? (within the temperature range being considered)
c) BTW, your analogy in using pressure vessels does NOT simulate a column of the Earth’s atmosphere. (unrestrained in a gravitational field with a pronounced lapse rate and varying P etc.)
I would appreciate your clarification on these issues.
Bob Fernley-Jones asks:
“So, how does that heat escape? No problem; the GHG’s apparently emit it as EMR to space as a consequence substantially of collisions with the vastly greater previously thermalised non-GHG molecules. – – – The difficulty I have is: what is the mechanism by which an allegedly non emitting gas loses such heat?”
The focus on greenhouse gases seems to have obscured the fact that all bodies radiate – even gases – and that a hot gas can lose heat by radiating it away. Does that answer your difficulty?
The interesting question to me is how much energy a gas at a particular pressure can radiate. We need to understand how the 380W/m^2 (or whatever) leaves the planet. Convection can deliver this energy, but at a certain point above the surface the atmospheric pressure will be too low to radiate 380W/m^2.
Heh, Hoel shore:
“Man, Willis is clearly one biased dude! It’s good we have clear, unbiased thinkers like jae here to put things in perspective!”:
PLEASE PROVIDE SOME SUBSTANCE HERE, FELLA! JUST WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING?
LOL, JOEL:
“Just to try to get back to the big picture, the point is this: The question is not an either-or dichotomy between “the gravitational component” (really, the lapse rate) and “the radiative component”. Both the radiative properties of the atmosphere and the lapse rate play a role in determining the greenhouse effect.”
Just frigging fascinating that you are FINALLY realizing that you have been very mistaken. Congrats.
Joel Shore says:
January 1, 2012 at 6:35 pm
“And, they are included CORRECTLY, not in the frankly-incorrect way that Nikolov and others who have a very confused picture of the system are trying to include them!”
I don’t think it is necessary to insist on such a bellicose categorical imperative, nor that the statement is demonstrably true. I think the simple fact of the matter is that what they have shown is not sufficient to invalidate the theory of greenhouse gas warming, so really the whole argument is rather moot.
It is already well known that simple assumptions using the ideal gas law and adiabaticity produce a power law relating pressure and temperature in the troposhpere, and that the necessity of a lower atmospheric heat sink to make everything balance is what leads to the GHG hypothesis (yes, I have done a little reading). That Nikolov has found a more complicated expression which apparently links pressure to temperature for a number of celestial bodies is thus not, ipso facto, a refutation of the GHG argument.
So, as best I can tell, what we are left with is the discovery of an empirical relationship which appears to improve upon simplistic models in predicting the temperature/pressure relationship. That’s not a bad thing, but it’s not particularly Earth shattering, at least not yet unless it leads to further understanding, IMHO.
Joel, you are very concerned with the laws of thermodynamics. So have you considered this.
In terms of its energy balance, the earth is a closed system. It inputs energy from the sun plus any residual heat from the core. Inputs and outputs must balance except if the earth is still cooling.
Thus any increase in heat from so called greenhouse gasses must be balanced by an energy reduction elsewhere within the system.
jae says:
Try reading the two paragraphs above what you quoted that shows why your arguments are utter nonsense: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-climate-theory-may-confuse-cause-and-effect/#comment-849716
It is not a matter of having been mistaken. Everybody who has read anything about the greenhouse effect that goes beyond the most basic picture understands that the lapse rate plays a role in determining the magnitude of the effect. That you seem to think this is something new shows that you, after all this time, don’t even have a clue about the science you have been criticizing!
I said:
Actually, a quick perusal of Ray Pierrehumbert’s book shows that the scale height of the atmosphere does not change when one reduces the number of molecules, so the distance between the effective radiating level and the surface would not be expected to change. Thus, for the most important aspect that I was considering, removing all of the non-greenhouse gases would not appear to change the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. (The magnitude could still change somewhat due to other effects, e.g., due to the change in adiabatic lapse rate because the specific heat is different for an atmosphere without N_2 and O_2 than with it and due to there being less pressure broadening of the absorption lines.)
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm
“David (or anyone else, Richard, anyone):
Could someone please explain to me the Nikolov hypothesis in a few pithy sentences?”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1. All planets with gas atmospheres experience a greenhouse effect.
2. Just like a real greenhouse most of the effect is due to the blocking of convective cooling and part due to the blocking of outgoing LWIR.
3. Convective flows occur slower in thicker fluids for a given gravity field.
4. If you increase the mass and surface density of nitrogen and oxygen around Earth you will slow convective cooling and increase the amount energy that can be retained in the fluid shell around the planet.
This would appear to be what Nikolov and Zeller mean by thermodynamic greenhouse effect. There would still be a radiative greenhouse effect on Earth. However much of this would be balanced by the ability of condensing greenhouse gasses to transport heat through the atmosphere and the ability of so called greenhouse gases in general to radiate energy acquired through conduction from non radiative gasses out to space. Further to this, the ability of radiative greenhouse gasses to back radiate the Earth’s surface and thereby slow cooling is limited over the oceans which are 71% of the surface. LWIR has a very limited ability to slow the cooling of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Willis,
I would be interested in any further thoughts you would have on empirical experiment design to test the Nikolov & Zeller hypothesis.