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 8:13 pm
“…the scale height of the atmosphere does not change when one reduces the number of molecules…”
But, it does change with the average mass of the air molecules, so changing the composition will affect the scale height.
Konrad says:
January 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I’d love to give my thoughts, my friend, but I don’t understand the hypothesis yet. You start by saying:
Let me stop there to ask … including planets with atmospheres which contain no greenhouse gases? I ask because this is a crucial question that determines the further direction of inquiry.
w.
Willis,
This is the simplest explanation of what N & Z are confirming with their equations but I see that Konrad has put forward a neat alternative:
“A warming effect in the atmosphere arises because between coming in and going out the radiant energy is ‘processed’ by the molecules in the atmosphere into heat energy and then back again, often many times for a single parcel of radiant energy, the number of times being directly proportionate to the density of the atmosphere. It is the density, not the composition which gives more or less opportunities for such collisions between radiant energy and molecules whilst the incoming and outgoing radiant energy is negotiating the atmosphere. When an atmospheric molecule absorbs radiant energy it vibrates faster thereby becoming warmer. It is momentarily warmer than the surrounding molecules so it releases the radiant energy again almost immediately. The speed of release is again dictated by overall atmospheric density because greater density renders it less likely that the neighbouring molecules are cool enough for a release of radiant energy to occur. However the time scales remain miniscule on the level of an individual molecule BUT on a planetary scale they become highly significant and build up to a measurable delay between arrival of solar radiant energy and it’s release to space.
It is that interruption in the flow of radiant energy in and out which gives rise to a warming effect. The warming effect is a single persistent phenomenon linked to the density of the atmosphere and not the composition. Once the appropriate planetary temperature increase has been set by the delay in transmission through the atmosphere then equilibrium is restored between radiant energy in and radiant energy out.”
from here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=19
“Greenhouse Confusion Resolved” July 16th 2008.
Now interestingly in about 2003 Hans Jelbring came to much the same conclusion:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
And even more interestingly I have always taken the proposition as read since my schooldays. I don’t know when the radiative processes became regarded as more influential but whenever it was it seems to have been wrong.
N & Z’s calculations also support the supplementary proposition that the radiative component is completely ejected by the system leaving the gravitational component dominant. As it happens I concur with that and have always believed that to be the case intuitively.
Anyway, the entire body of my work over the past 4 years has been based on those two propositions, namely:
i) The gravitational component is dominant and
ii) The radiative component is ejected by the system.
So. if anyone does read my work they will find what I consider to be an almost complete climate description based on those two propositions.
Jelbring, Nikolov and Zeller have provided me with the theoretical and quantitative underpinning for all that I have been working on.
I’m a scientist with a background in the methodology of scientific research. Wattsupwiththat and its columnists are weak in this area. This afternoon I spent a couple of hours in composing a comment on the significance of the Nicolov and Zeller paper. When I submitted this comment to Wattsupwiththat for publication, it disappeared without a trace. My comment was polite, pithy and on target but the opinion which it expressed differed from the opinions of recently published Wattsupwiththat columnists that include Willis Eshenbach and Ira Glickman. Recently, I’ve twice had similar experiences. Have other wouldbe critics of the views of Wattsupwiththat columnists had similar experiences? Is Wattsupwiththat following RealClimate down the road of censuring criticism for self gain?
[Sorry Terry that your comment disappeared. When that happens to me I suspect it is my own action (my fingers too close to the keyboard :^) and I try again. As far as I know, WUWT (unlike RC :^) does not censor contrary views unless they have bad words or personal attacks, which I am sure your comment did not contain. If any further of your comments disappear in one of my threads on WUWT, feel free to email them to me at ira@techie.com and I will post them for you. – Ira (Glickstein :^)]
“Is Wattsupwiththat following RealClimate down the road of censuring criticism for self gain?”
Unlikely.I am also disagreeing with Willis and Ira amongst others but have no problem.
In the past I have had lengthy posts with numerous links blocked by the spam filter so perhaps the Mods could look there
Always save lengthy comments before posting.
“Let me stop there to ask … including planets with atmospheres which contain no greenhouse gases? I ask because this is a crucial question that determines the further direction of inquiry.”
Yes, absolutely. Gravity only recognises mass, not thermal characteristics.
“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.
Part of the upwelling longwave radiation (ULR) from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. When it is re-radiated, part of the energy returns to the earth as downwelling longwave radiation (DLR). This leaves the earth warmer than it would be in the absence of that DLR.”
I would respond in one way, by saying this radiant processes within earth atmosphere does not increase the planet temperature 33 K. But more precisely it does not make a planet without greenhouse gases 33 K warmer.
“So what is the basic mechanism for the Nikolov hypothesis? I asked Nikolov, but he didn’t reply.”
If Nikolov hypothesis is correct, it warms a planet by increasing the molecule speed of atmospheric gas. Or said differently, it’s how to capture more Kinetic energy in the molecules speeds of the gases.
A blackbody is suppose to absorb all energy. The earth does not adsorb much of the sunlight that reaches earth. Humans using solar water heaters adsorb more energy per square meter as compared to earth surface These solar water heaters don’t get 90% or 80% but instead around 70% of the available solar energy, but it’s a marked improvement compare to the ground.
So as a machine to absorb the sun’s energy, earth ground [not going get into discussing the ocean] Is very inefficient, Nikolov hypothesis provides clues of how to increase earth’s efficiency in retaining/absorbing solar energy.
Terry Oldberg,
If the comment disappeared instantly upon submission it just means that the “bad word” filter caught it. Itz usually only a matter of time before the mods notice and restore it provided that the “bad word” which triggered the filter isn’t being used in a way that the filter was designed to prevent. We call it the “hidey hole”. When it happens to me, I just add another comment saying “mods – another down the hidey hole. Please rescue? TIA” and it is invariably back in minutes.
If you will note, I have disputed both Ira and Willis in this thread, and my comments are there for all to see.
“I’d love to give my thoughts, my friend, but I don’t understand the hypothesis yet. You start by saying:
1. All planets with gas atmospheres experience a greenhouse effect.
Let me stop there to ask … including planets with atmospheres which contain no greenhouse gases? I ask because this is a crucial question that determines the further direction of inquiry.”
Good point.
I agree that all planets with any gas or atmosphere experiences what is badly named “greenhouse effect”.
Not only is this known but it’s considered an unresolved problem.
Spencer discribes it this way [discussion in refuting, Nikolov & Zeller hypothesis:
“One of the first things you discover when putting numbers to the problem is the overriding importance of infrared radiative absorption and emission to explaining the atmospheric temperature profile. These IR flows would not occur without the presence of “greenhouse gases”, which simply means gases which absorb and emit IR radiation. Without those gases, there would be no way for the atmosphere to cool to outer space in the presence of continuous convective heat transport from the surface.”
To repeat: “Without those gases, there would be no way for the atmosphere to cool to outer space”
But he is wrong. A way for non-greenhouse gases to radiate energy into space is by warming the surface [land or water] and the surface can radiate energy to space.
And regardless of greenhouse gases and/or non-greenhouse gases this is the main mechanism to radiating the earth energy into space.
I would say most of the sun’s energy which has been adsorbed [or since the term absorbed is misused, solar energy converted and kept as potential energy for more than one second [or a nanosecond] does leave the planet from liquids or solids rather any atmospheric gas radiation.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 1, 2012 at 10:15 pm
“Let me stop there to ask … including planets with atmospheres which contain no greenhouse gases? I ask because this is a crucial question that determines the further direction of inquiry.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yes, that would be what the Nikolov and Zeller hypothysis indicates. A boring grey basalt planet with no atmosphere can radiate a wide IR spectrum freely. Add an atmosphere of “non” greenhouse gasses and things change. The added gas layer now removes energy from the basalt surface faster than it would have been radiated, however that energy now leaves the planet (basalt sphere with gas layer) at a slower rate, as it has been convected away from the solid surface that could most easily radiate it. A gas layer with even greater density and mass will conduct and trap even more of the energy that would have been radiated away from from an atmosphere free planet. Nitrogen and Oxygen may therefore be Earth’s primary greenhouse gasses.
In this scenario it becomes difficult to quantify the effects of non condensing “greenhouse” gasses such as CO2. They do absorb and re-radiate LWIR as can be seen in Tyndall tube type experiments. However the effects of back radiation are not uniform for all Earth’s surface regions. Ocean cooling rates are only marginally effected. However the addition of these gasses to the atmospheric mix also improves the radiative ability of the atmosphere above microwave frequencies.
From this I would hope you can understand my concerns. No amount of hand waving or black board scribbling will answer the questions at hand. Better empirical experiments are required.
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?>>>
Given that they’ve committed to coming back next week with a follow on article to clarify matters, I’m inclined to just wait until then. That said, a large part of my job actually involves listening carefully to highly technical people and determining the gap between what they said and what they meant. So, given the opportunity to practice a primary skill set, I may as well take a crack at it.
From the original thread, this comment by Nikolov wraps it up nicely in my opinion:
“Instead, think about how is it possible for Equation 8 in our paper to predict so accurately mean surface temperatures of planets over such a broad range of atmospheric and radiative environments by using ONLY 2 independent variables – average surface pressure and TOA solar irradiance?”
Going back to equation 8 in their article we see them explain the following:
“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, i.e.
T(s) = 25.3966(S(o)+0.0001325)^0.25*Nte(Ps)”
**************
[apologies, I don’t know how to copy their formula with the super and sub scripts so reproduced it as best I could, please refer to their article for the original]
So, their hypothesis seems pretty straight forward:
********************
The atmosphere raises surface temperature by an amount dependant upon only two factors, these being insolation and mean atmospheric pressure.
********************
I think a lot of the confusion lies in the fact that they’ve included a considerable amount of discussion which has no direct bearing on proving this hypothesis. They’ve attempted to demonstrate both that their hypothesis is accurate, and at the same time, have tried to explain why other long standing accepted norms such as GH effect on Earth being 33 degrees are innacurate. To expand on the above and re-word it a bit:
********************
Atmosphere raises the surface temperature of a planet by an amount dependant upon insolation and mean surface pressure. All other factors including composition of the atmosphere appear to be immaterial, or so small as to make them insignificant. While the processes of convection, conduction, and even absorption/re-radiation of of surface radiance are clearly active, they appear to be tied together in a system of feedbacks in such a manner as to arrive at the same amount of warming of the planetary surface regardless of the actual ratios of atmospheric gases such as O2, N2, CO2 and so on.
*********************
They then use equation 8 to predict the surface temps of 8 celestial bodies using only insolation and mean surface temperature. Much of the additional discussion has nothing to do with proving their hypothesis, it has instead to do with discussing why earlier assumptions such as the GH effect on Earth being 33 degrees (which would cotradict their results) are flawed.
I know you asked for a few pithy sentences but getting an answer like the above in just a few sentences from me is a lost cause. I’m verbose. So sue me! But thatz my answer.
Terry Oldberg @ur momisugly January 1, 10:59 pm
Hi Terry,
Concerning your “disappearing posts”, I think you may have just been unlucky, maybe involving pressing the wrong buttons. I’ve sometimes experienced two kinds of difficulty:
1) Making a post on the wrong thread
2) Making a post that does not immediately appear with the advice; “…awaiting moderation”. Upon resubmitting it there is a message something like: “that looks like a repeat post”. Oh, OK, it seems like the spam filter has blocked it, but upon waiting the post ultimately appears.
In short, I’ve never lost a post at WUWT, but have on other sites, and have even been excommunicated.
If you still feel that you may have been victimised, perhaps you could discuss it with Ric Werme…. Just click: Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT in the RH sidebar, from where you can Email him
“But more precisely it does not make a planet without greenhouse gases 33 K warmer.”
It meant: A planet with greenhouse gas is not made 33 K warmer, as compared to planet exactly
the same but without these greenhouse gases.
Konrad says:
“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.”
I agee with 1
Don’t agree with 2.
“3. Convective flows occur slower in thicker fluids for a given gravity field.”
Thicker fluids doesn’t mean much to me. Liquid or gases with higher density- or are talking about viscosity?
A problem is Convective flows are movement of gas or liquid. And is addition include conduction and energy transfer of molecular gases.
What is unmentioned is buoyancy. And buoyancy is required for movement
of gas “packets” or bodies of liquids. Viscosity does slow speed of movement of liquids- but in term planetary climate issues, not significant.
So higher gravity means faster buoyancy. On 2 gee world balloon go up faster, The air resistance or “viscosity” or density of air, will not change this. Buoyancy and upward flow of air or liquid is mostly about gravity.
“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.”
No, you will increase the amount energy transferred per second. The atmospheric gas will take more energy from the surface and give more energy to the surface.
Convection heat transfer would more significant on 2 gee world as compared to 1 gee world [Earth] and is also true on a world higher higher air density.
With 1 gee world and more density the “power” of buoyancy is increased.
With 2 gee world, and same amount of atmosphere as earth, one has a bit more higher density- loosely you say you get both more speed and power.
Willis Eschenbach:
At January 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm you ask:
“David (or anyone else, Richard, anyone):
Could someone please explain to me the Nikolov hypothesis in a few pithy sentences?”
And
“So what is the basic mechanism for the Nikolov hypothesis? I asked Nikolov, but he didn’t reply.”
Willis, as you usually do, you have put your finger on the nub of the issue and, therefore, I will give my responses to your questions.
Firstly, (as I repeatedly point out above), the Nikolov Hypothesis (Nh) is a repeat of the Jelbring Hypothesis (Jh) which (as I repeatedly point out above) says (see my post above at December 31, 2011 at 12:56 am);
“‘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.’
This is a hypothesis and it is not a theory because (as is also the case with the AGW hypothesis) to date it has failed to provide predictive information that can be verified.
However, in this thread davidmhoffer has made two suggestions as to such predictive verification. These are:
(a) The hypothesis should predict the seasonal range of the global temperature on Mars
And
(b) The hypothesis should predict the +/- 1.9 K seasonal variation of the Earth’s global temperature as being related to variations in atmospheric mass (i.e. variations in atmospheric moisture content) between summers in the northern and southern hemispheres.
I most sincerely thank davidmhoffer for this because I have been seeking any possible predictive verifications of the Jh since 2003. Indeed, in my opinion, these suggestions of his are by far the most important outcome of this thread.
And, Willis, I do not know the answer to your question;
“So what is the basic mechanism for the Nikolov hypothesis?”
Nobody knows that.
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.
The fascinating fact is that (as Jelbring and Nikolov have each independently observed) the planets each seems to fulfil the hypothesis. This fulfilment may be pure coincidence and, therefore, it may merely be a curiosity. But the curiosity does deserve investigation as to whether it has a governing mechanism.
Almost all science has progressed by the following sequence:
1. observation of a curiosity,
2. formulation of a hypothesis to explain the curiosity,
3. acceptance, rejection or modification of the hypothesis, and
4. determination of the mechanism(s) that generate the curiosity.
And the ‘greats’ in science (e.g. Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, etc.) are those whose hypotheses were proven ‘true’ by their successful predictive verifications. But few ‘greats’ exist because most hypotheses fail the test of predictive verification.
Importantly, identification of a mechanism is pointless at this stage in investigation of the Jh/Nh because we have yet to determine if the hypothesis can pass the test of predictive verification. So, at present we only have a conjecture which has not been empirically supported or disproved. The conjecture deserves to be put to the test of predictive verification.
The sadness is that the AGW hypothesis has failed all predictive verification tests but there are people who reject the Jh/Nh hypothesis before it has been subjected to any such tests.
Anyway, that is my view, and I hope it helps the discussion.
Richard
THANKS Konrad for the first explanation of N&Z in plain English! I hope Ned Nikolov will endorse your words when he does his promised posting this week at WUWT (assuming he agrees with you).
My take on Konrad’s (L&Z’s?) four points:
1. Agreed, so long as some of the gases absorb/emit in the LWIR spectrum and are relatively transparent to SWIR.
2. HMMM. Yes a physical greenhouse works mainly by blocking convection and, if it is glass which blocks LWIR, partly due to that. The Earth’s Atmosphere, on the other hand, IMHO, works mainly by blocking (actually GHG absorbing/re-emitting) LWIR. I need to be convinced that convection is blocked (by non-GHGs or GHGs) in any meaningful way. Indeed, without those gases there would be no convection, right? And, convection is a way to move heat energy (sensible and latent) from the Surface to higher in the Atmosphere, which cools the Surface and seems to me the opposite of blocking. Please explain.
Furthermore, as the parcel of air carrying sensible and/or latent energy rises, it radiates LWIR in all directions, including back down to the Surface. Also, when it reaches an altitude (temperature/pressure) where water vapor condenses, the latent heat energy is released, warming the air and increasing the LWIR radiation, again in all directions, some towards the Surface.
3. Agreed. Molasses convects slower than water, so I guess a denser gas would convect more slowly than a thin one. But, over the past half-million years or more, our Atmospheric mass has been pretty much fixed at the current level, except for reduction during glacial periods when more H2O is in the form of ice and water and increase during warm periods when more H2O is in the form of gas. And, I do not think that mass change is very large. So, while (3.) is true, what practical effect does it have?
4. Agreed, but, again, by how much? And how does that compare to, for example, a modest increase in GHGs?
Absolutely!
I am not so sure about this last point. It seems to me that DW LWIR is the primary energy source for evaporative cooling of the ocean Surface, along with conducted heat energy from the SWIR-warmed oceans. The cool skin of the oceans is less than 1 mm thick and is only 0.1ºC to 0.5ºC cooler than the bulk ocean water near the Surface. Taking the average cooling effect, that is less than 0.001 (<0.1%), so, for a given bulk temperature, the oceans radiate only a tiny percentage less than the land.
“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?”
Any gas that can absorb radiation, will radiate the same wavelength.
Same statement: Any gas molecule which can receive a photon and emit same photon.
Gas which is transparent to certain wavelength is not “receiving certain photons”. It may interfere with certain photons, such as bend or refract the path of photons.
Does the alteration of path of a photon involve any kind energy transferred?
It may. But being transparent is saying a particular gas is not absorbing a wavelength/photon of certain type of electromagnet radiation.
I would say if gases radiated all their energy, stars could not form.
Or we would not exist.
Or a significant component of the energy of a gas is it’s velocity.
And if a gas is emitting photons it’s not slowing it’s velocity. Nor is gas which
absorbs a photon increasing it’s velocity.
The energy of gases in your atmosphere is largely about the velocity of the molecules.
Gas molecules can very obviously lose to velocity, by hitting slower gas molecules, or
“colder” or lower temperature solids or liquids.
[One can slow a molecule of gas by hitting with a laser [intense and directed radiation [an intense beam of photons]- that has been done.
But a molecule of gas is going in a random directions, one photon is insignificant in terms it’s energy as compared to mass and velocity of a molecule. The energy density of sunlight has a weak affect upon molecules and the molecules going in all directions.
Though if you consider the gas molecules as mass they could have average direction, and from this prospective if one concerned small affects, it’s possible that sunlight could decrease or increase the velocity of the molecules of gas. It’s possible that sunlight could slow the average velocity of gas [cool the gas]. This require that on average the motion of gas molecules heading in the direction of the Sun. If instead on average the molecules to heading away from the sun, then the sunlight could increase the velocity [slightly]. This affect because it is minor, should probably be ignore.]
If you ignore the above mentioned affect, then the only thing affecting a gas molecule velocity
is slower moving gas molecules [colder gas] or colder liquids or solids. Of course hotter gas, liquids, and solids increases a gas molecules velocity.
Gas molecules within a container which has same temperature as the gas, never lose their velocity- so you can zillions molecules bouncing of each other and the container and in billion of years not slow down. Gas molecules [clouds of gas] in space bounce off each other and will make all the gases the same temperature [same velocity] and as long as nothing warmer or colder comes along will bounce off each other for forever.
“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.”
I used to wonder a similar thing. The gas in your atmosphere is obviously low pressure at high elevations. A significant aspect of gas at high elevation is that for “a molecule” to “remain” up there it generally has to be moving fast. Molecules have mass and therefore must obey gravity.
At low elevation molecules of gas sort of support themselves, but it’s not like a solid chunk of matter, which is using binding strength molecules to “defy gravity”. Nor is it like a pile of sand [also using “binding strength molecules”]. It’s super balls that bounce forever, but the infinite capability to bounce doesn’t defy gravity- gravity must be obeyed by gas molecules.
Have a vacuum and bounce a molecule of gas from 1000′, and with the same temperature surface, it bounce forever- goes back up to 1000′ over and over again.
But I am ignoring factors. Say you bounce the ball in direction of the spinning planet, the ball would gain it’s bouncing height, it would eventually bounce to escape velocity [leave earth though probably enter orbit. So a single molecule could achieve somewhere around 7.8 km/sec [orbital velocity]. If same moecule bounced in opposite direction it would loss it’s bounce.
Now with atmosphere with zillion of bouncing balls, in the lower atmosphere, none of them bounce far, all them of bouncing fast. But say looking at 5 km up. Here there less bouncing balls, the bouncing balls are still bouncing at same velocity, but can go further before hitting another ball. Go higher, say 10 km, same thing less balls, roughly same speed, and even further before they hit another ball. At some point one going reach place where all balls are not bouncing “equally”. We going have “unjust society” at higher in the atmosphere- there is going to be “income discrepancy”. We going get higher velocity balls and balls moving slower than balls are traveling at lower elevation. So as you go up, there will very few of the fat cats and lots at equal income, but the higher you go, you get less low income, and more fat cats.
This because to “survive” at higher elevation you need to go faster. But you can get upward mobility among the poor, a fast molecule can hit them, and steal the wealth. But as you higher, one gets more the fat cat and there hitting at longer distances, but they have obey gravity, they tend to fall more, but they hit more fat cats than the poor and tend stay higher and going on average much faster.
Low elevation molecule speed is 500 meters per second. Fat cats could tend to be more than say 1000 meters per second on average. One could have a few molecules going say 2000 or 4000 meters per second. At some point you going to have some molecules traveling at orbital speed 7800 meters per second. They can’t goes say 10,000 meters per second or they leave earth. But the fat cats at this level are going to start to meet crazy super rich, molecules which could traveling at say 100,000 to 400,000 meter per second [solar wind]. The fat cats could leave the earth because of a rare enounter, or they transfer some this wealth by heading in direction of earth with gained velocity from the super rich.
So anyways, at some velocity above 500 meters second, you could greenhouse gases or non-greenhouse reacting different when they get hit, maybe up to 2000 m/s doesn’t do anything strange, but some velocity on the way to 100,000 to 400,000 it seems likely something different occurs.
Is this important in terms of climate- probably not.
Richard S Courtney says:
January 2, 2012 at 2:16 am
“‘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.’
Thank you for that simple and easy to understand hypothesis. Unfortunately, however, it is fairly easy to falsify this as a cause of the GH effect (at least on Earth) IMO.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-specific-heat-various-pressures-d_1535.html
If you look at that website, you see that the specific heat of air(cp) at 0.01 atmospheres(approximately 1/2 the surface pressure of Mars) is only about 0.16% more than the current surface pressure of the Earth. IOW, if the Earth’s GH effect acted based on alterations to the lapse rate alone, there has been almost no change in the GH effect from the point where Earth’s atmosphere was less than that of Mars to its current surface pressure. This does not describe the *effects* predicted under the Unified Climate Theory nor, I assume the Jelbring hypothesis.
In any case, respectfully, unless my reference above is wrong, your description of the mechanism producing the GH effect on Earth must be wrong.
Cheers, 🙂
Bart says:
The empirical relationship had so many free parameters that it is very doubtful that it is anything but a fit to the available data…i.e., that it has any significant predictive power for out-of-sample data. (Furthermore, since their calculation of T_gb seems to be erroneous, it is a fit involving an incorrectly determined value.)
Good point…I had missed that because Ray Pierrehumbert uses “R” in a rather non-standard way (as the ideal gas constant divided by the molecular weight rather than just the ideal gas constant). So, for that reason in addition to the other reasons that I mentioned, there will be SOME dependence of the greenhouse effect on the non-greenhouse gases present…although likely not the kind of dramatic dependence that I thought there might be if, for example, the scale height were in some way proportional to the total mass of atmosphere.
The adiabatic lapse rate is defined by the “gas Laws” not by gravity (other than of course high gravity gives high pressure!).
The adiabatic lapse rate requires that a fixed number of molecules be moved between pressure differences. Once at a new pressure the new temperature will stabilise to the surroundings (but that is not what adiabatic lapse rate is about).
However, for every molecule transported from high to low pressure there MUST be a molecule transported from low to high pressure. This means there is NO net flow of energy.
Where the atmosphere blends into a vacuum there can be no convective/conductive transfer of energy (there is nothing to transfer the energy to!)
Radiation is the only option. N2 H2 O2 etc. have little propensity to absorb and therefore to emit the required radiation. It has to be mainly from GHGs (CO2 H2O CH4 etc.)
At the other end of the air column you have similar problems. The ground/sea warms through absorption of the shorter wavelengths of TSI (where most of the solar energy is). The heat is radiated from the ground/sea as LWIR and by contact at the boundary between earth and atmosphere. The heat must be transferred from molecule to molecule by contact or by convection. A slow process. Conduction will be enhanced by high pressure, convection will be slowed.
The radiated energy is NOT significantly absorbed by O2 N2 H2 etc. no matter what the pressure. Even a solid glass fibre can be made extremely low loss 0.2dB per km and the molecules are pretty solidly packed http://www.fiberoptics4sale.com/wordpress/optical-fiber-loss-and-attenuation/ . Without a GHG this radiation would escape without attenuation straight to space. GHGs will “absorb” this LWIR at certain frequencies and re-emit it in all directions. The time for this energy to be “reabsorbed” in another molecule is dependent on the path length which is dependent on the proximity of other GHG molecules which is dependant on the pressure of the atmosphere.
The time taken for the radiation to bounce from molecule to molecule increases the time it takes for the energy to travel from ground to space.
The energy input to the system is at a constant rate. Slow down the output and the system gets hotter. A hotter system will radiate more energy (BB radiation).
Where does the energy from static pressure difference come in to this?
We are not taking to this right level – the Quantum level where energy and photons operate.
The Earth receives 2.7 X 10+40 photons from the Sun each day (27 with 39 Zeros behind it).
The Earth emits 1.6 X 10+41 infrared photons each day to space (yes there are more of them).
The energy represented by those solar photons will spend time in about 32 billion different molecules on average before it finally emitted to space. That take TIME. A large fraction (35% perhaps) spend just a few seconds in the Earth system while a small, small fraction may take 1000 years to exit the system.
Its not solar emission, hit surface, atmospheric window IR photon emitted directly to space, 15 um photon intercepted by CO2, half back-radiated, atmospheric window IR photon emitted directly to space.
The energy represented by the solar photon is random walking around for 44 hours on average and spending picoseconds in 32 billion different molecules before it is emitted to space.
Now we are talking about truly monstrous numbers and TIME. This all happens in TIME and at the quantum level and noone has taken that into account.
shawnhet:
Concerning your post at January 2, 2012 at 8:03 am, I shall not bother to look-up your link.
Firstly, the hypothesis is NOT mine but your post repeatedly suggests it is.
And, secondly, in my above post at December 31, 2011 at 6:36 am I explained why the hypothesis does not apply to Mars, but your post uses comparison with Mars “to falsify” the hypothesis.
Hence, I suspect your post is an attempt at disruption of the thread.
Richard
Anytime I read a thread on this topic it seems there are people who get hung up, conceptually, long before they get to the math. The hang up seems to go like this, “Pressure increases can’t cause temperature increases.” When I think about the lapse rate I think of it differently because I agree that increasing pressure doesn’t ‘create’ higher temperature in anything more than a transitory manner. Sure there may be some effects from diurnal pressure changes but overall they can’t justify the observed gradients on their own, can they?
I like to think of it more like this…. Higher pressures ‘support’ higher temperatures.
If you isolate a column of air extending from the surface upwards it will have a pressure lapse rate totally dependent on mass. If you further assume that the column isn’t exchanging energy horizontally then it is solely the energy content of each, say, meter of gas that is holding up all the gas above it. From these assumptions isn’t it reasonable to assume that there is an energy lapse rate in the column that is dependent on mass? It’s also true that there is a density lapse rate dependent on mass of the column.
Now each meter in the column will always (in practical terms or at least as an initial assumption) have the same differential pressure measured on its ends regardless of its temperature. If you heat the column at the bottom, the gas in that first meter will get more energetic. It will want to increase its differential pressure but it can’t because the column will simply expand upwards. So what happens? Well its density goes down. Each meter has a constant differential pressure, a constant volume and a variable number of molecules. So this energy is transferred all the way up the column. Each one meter chunk has to expel some molecules (upward, they’re going to seek lower pressure) as they get more energetic. Each meter gets less energy than the one below it. Each meter gets lower density.
If that column had an ideal gas in it with absolutely no radiative absorbtion qualities you have little one meter chunks of constant pressure, constant volume, and a molecular lapse rate. Yielding a temperature lapse rate totally dependent on the mass of the column, no?
Changing the column to nitrogen would be a pretty close approximation to ideal and nitrogen has very low radiative absorbtion. You would still get this lapse rate as long as you keep the heat on. You do have to keep the heat on because this descriptive process is NOT in equilibrium. There’s heat being applied at the bottom all the time. Take the heat away and each meter will eventually acquire enough molecules at appropriate energy levels to level out its temps.
In fact I would conjecture that a column in equilibrium would in fact be isothermal (no temperature lapse rate) and that is a large part of why these threads go haywire. The fact that it is not in equilibrium (heat at the bottom) is what causes the mass dependent temperature lapse rate.
jjthoms:
At January 2, 2012 at 8:21 am you say:
“The adiabatic lapse rate is defined by the “gas Laws” not by gravity (other than of course high gravity gives high pressure!).
The adiabatic lapse rate requires that a fixed number of molecules be moved between pressure differences. Once at a new pressure the new temperature will stabilise to the surroundings (but that is not what adiabatic lapse rate is about).
However, for every molecule transported from high to low pressure there MUST be a molecule transported from low to high pressure. This means there is NO net flow of energy.”
That is nonsense!
There is a net upward flow of energy. It is the thermal energy in a ‘parcel’ of air being greater than the surrounding air which causes it to rise. The parcel would not rise if it did not contain greater energy per unit volume than its surroundings. And it does rise (i.e. bouyancy) so it carries its greater energy upwards.
I wonder where you obtained your strange idea; RealClimate?
Richard
We know that at the TOA there is no convection to space. Thus radiation in = radiation out.
However, lower in the atmosphere this is not true. Convection enters the equation so:
(radiation + convection) in = (radiation + convection) out
The question then becomes, what drives convection? As radiation increases the temperature of air, the air expands and becomes lighter than the surrounding air. WHY? Because of gravity. Without gravity giving weight to air, there would be no convection. This is the underlying reason why there is a lapse rate and why gravity determines temperature below the TOA.
Convection in the atmosphere is a result of gravity. The rate of convection is controlled by radiation. The more radiation, the more convection. The less radiation, the less convection. All directed at maintaining the lapse rate which is a result of gravity.