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.
I’d like to add, after more thought, a question. I don’t think of the mechanism I’ve described as convection. It’s more like a dynamic process brought about strictly by molecular collisions. It doesn’t need convection to work. In fact if you have convection in this column it’s because of air parcels at a certain height that have somehow acquired more energy than the height would ‘support’ due to the mass dependent lapse rate. Those parcels have to seek a proper level appropriate to their energy ( density) content.
Does this make sense?
Try this thought experiment yourself. Imagine one of Ira’s cylinders at the start of this post, in space orbiting the earth. These cylinders have a clearly defined top and bottom. The valve end is top.
Apply a blow torch to heat the bottom up the cylinder. In which direction will the heated air inside the container travel? Will it in fact rise to the vale end? No, it will not.
Convection in the absence of gravity does not take place. Convection is a result of gravity, plus the addition of heat (radiation). Gravity causes convection. Radiation determines the rate of convection. The more radiation, the more convection, until the rate of convection matches the lapse rate determined by gravity.
Richard S Courtney says:January 2, 2012 at 9:26 am
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!
========
I’m sure you agree the parcel that moves from zero altitude to 10km must be balanced by a parcel of the same size moving from 10km to zero?
The adiabatic lapse rate is the same in both cases. 10K/km
wiki: The adiabatic lapse rates – which refer to the change in temperature of a parcel of air as it moves upwards (or downwards) without exchanging heat with its surroundings. The temperature change that occurs within the air parcel reflects the adjusting balance between potential energy and kinetic energy of the molecules of gas that comprise the moving air mass.
Is this statement in doubt?
If so I need an explanation to be able to exist.
In my books the potential energy+kinetic energy in both parcels is the same so n molecules at 10km will loose 10km worth of “potential energy” but gain 10kms worth of “kinetic energy”.
Richard S Courtney says:
January 2, 2012 at 2:16 am
Richard, I am impressed by how you explain everything in this post. It seems like those who at first refused to even read the paper now finally understand how important it is to have an open mind about it. Even though one isnt sure about its correctness. Thanks!
When observing how some, even in the sceptic camp, refused to even discuss it, it occured to me that the IPCC might not have been any better if they had been “in charge” there, either.
Makes me wonder of it is a good idea at all to have an international body of “thruth-keepers”.
A very soviet-like idea.
jjthoms says:
January 2, 2012 at 10:08 am
Richard S Courtney says:January 2, 2012 at 9:26 am
Of course not – the handful of air that goes up to 10 km can be adequately balanced by a minuscule amount lowering of the entire rest of the atmosphere. In actuality, something in between happens, of course. A helium balloon, err, hot air balloon will rise. The upper part of the balloon will push air up and to the side, the lower part will suck (okay, the ambient air pressure of the surrounding air) will fill the space being vacated by the lower half of the balloon and gondola.
The net effect is that hot air rises, air in a surrounding cylinder will sink a variable amount as the balloon passes through.
Folks, as I watch this discussion I keep seeing people get lost in the details. Stand back and look at the big picture.
N&Z have provided a formula that appears to have predictive skill. One CANNOT falsify it by arguing the details! Sure radiative absorption and re-emission happens in a certain way. Sure convection happens in a certain way. Sure lapse rate works in a certain way.
So What?
If there is one thing we’ve learned over the last few years of the climate debate it is (or should be) that our understanding of the mechanisms and how they interact with one another is woefully incomplete. If we were anywhere near to understanding all the pieces of the puzzle and how they fit together, we’d have climate models with predictive skills coming out the yin yang. But the fact is we don’t.
I liken this discussion to being given a pail full of gravel and being asked to determine the weight of the gravel. I could thoroughly mix the gravel, extract a representative sample, weigh each rock, pebble and grain of sand, extrapolate the expected change in distribution of the rocks, pebbles, and sand from top of the bucket to the bottom of the bucket based on known paramaters for the settling of gravel over time, and from there arrive at an estimate of the weight of the gravel in the pail.
Or I could weigh the gravel and the pail, then pour the gravel out, and weigh the pail.
What N&Z are purporting to do is the latter. One cannot falsify their results by arguing about what the proper distribution of grains of sand is or how gravel does or does not settle when poured into a pail. The only way to determine if they are on to something is to weigh the gravel.
What they have said is that for a given TOA radiance, and a given mean surface atmospheric pressure, they can calculate the average surface temperature of a planet. They’ve even published their predictions for no less than EIGHT planetary bodies!
The only question we should be interested in at this point (it seems to me) is this:
Did they get the surface temps of those planetary bodies right or not?
If no, then their formulas are wrong.
If yes, then it seems to me there are only two possibilities.
1. Their formulas are correct, we just don’t know exactly WHY they are correct.
or
2. They successfully predicted the surface temps of 8 celestial bodies by coincidence.
If the latter, that’s one awfull big coincidence!
So, would it not make sense to dispense with the arguments about the life time of a photon in earth atmosphere, how convection changes with pressure, what absorption bands various gases have and just answer the question:
Did they nail the temps of those planetary bodies? Or not?
Richard S Courtney says:
January 2, 2012 at 9:18 am
I seem to have given offence, but I can assure you it was not intentional nor was I intending to “derail” the thread. Respectfully, it may’ve been helpful if you actually took a look at my link. You would’ve seen that it was talking about (Earth) air not the Martian atmosphere. I only mentioned Mars to give a context to the range of changes in cp versus atmospheric pressure provided.
Regardless of whose theory the idea that -g/cp accounts for the GH effect is, I believe that I have provided pretty convincing evidence that it cannot do so. Surely that is the core of the debate and not an attempt to “derail” it?
In any case, how about it? Why doesn’t the link I provided demonstrate that hypothesis that the GH effect is solely an artifact of the lapse rate is false?
Cheers, 🙂
Richard S Courtney (January 2, 2012 at 2:16 am):
I second your remarks regarding the”Nikolov hypothesis” (which as you rightly point out is no more than a conjecture) and AGW (which as you also rightly point out is no more than a conjecture). As neither conjecture is at this time predictive, neither can be properly labelled as a “hypothesis.”
I’d like to add a bit of detail on the processes by which a conjecture can be elevated to the status of a hypothesis and a hypothesis to a theory, as both IPCC Working Group I climatologists and bloggers in wattsupwiththat exhibit misunderstanding of these processes.
A conjecture is elevated to a hypothesis by: a) referencing the associated model to a statistical population whose elements are statistically independent events and b) adapting the model to predicting the probability of the various possible outcomes with repect to each event in the population.
A hypothesis is elevated to a theory by statistical testing in which it is not invalidated by the evidence. This can be accomplished by: a) drawing from the populationj a sample of observed events that is independent of the construction of the model b) comparing the predicted probabilities of the outcomes to the observed relative frequencies of these outcomes and c) elevating the hypothesis to a theory if the predicted probabilities match the observed relative frequencies and the model passes various other statistical tests.
IPCC climatologists and wattsupwiththat bloggers exhibit confusion of model “predictions” with model “projections.” Often in this way they reach the false conclusion that a conjecture has been elevated to a theory when in fact a statistical population has not yet been identified. In its 2007 report, IPCC Working Group I entices the readers of the report into making a false conclusion of this type by presenting a comparison of model projections of the global surface temperature to a global surface temperature time series. In truth, this sort of comparison serves neither to statistically validate the model nor to statistically invalidate it.
“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.”
Any reflected sunlight would less than one second. The energy of a photon could make coal and coal could in the ground for millions of years, is the photon which converted [or used] considered to “die” or is it going followed in whatever form of energy it becomes?
Suppose we look at a day of a rock- 3 diameter boulder, granite. Starting at midnite on earth during summer. the rock has warmed and is radiating energy. A portion of that energy can absorbed by CO2, and it radiate from the rock. How far does it get? An inch, a meter, a kilometer?
It has a 50% chance of getting some distance.
The smaller something is and the faster it goes the less chance it has of hitting anything. A proton [huge as compared to photon] can travel at the speed of light thru a human body without hitting anything- odds favor it not hitting the human body.
Is this infrared light a wave or a particle, as photon particle it’s quite small. Could it be 1/2 the time a wave or particle?
Let’s say it’s a wave:
“CO2 is an important greenhouse gas as the main greenhouse-related frequency associated with absorption is at or near the planet’s black body emission peak, that being roughly 15 micrometers.”
Compare to proton 15 micrometers is huge. Therefore maybe it has 50% chance in going 1 inch, and since so close to the rock, a 50 chance of returning to the rock. This takes how long?
It could take a 1 billionth of a second. But let’s suppose it has 50% chance emit in one second.
Maybe the time is dependent on how long it take to receive another photon.
How of these photons does our rock emit in a hour?
1.6 X 10+41 infrared photons. hmm well we have 510 million km miles, or 5.1 X 10^8 square meters. Or 5.1 X 10^12 square centimeters, therefore per square centimeter we have roughly
1.6 X 10+41 divided by 5.1 X 10^12, so zillions per second and probably at billions per second
of this particular wavelength.
This seems to indicate that even shortest distance, the time traveled will somewhere around 1 billionth of second, to go a inch and back again. And then to go again.
Hmm, I think it would nice to know how many CO2 molecules there was. So roughly 2 x 10^16.
If we were to imagine 2 x 10^16 molecules were to transfer 1.6 X 10+41 photon in one day
that mean. Well there are 86400 seconds, round to 100000 second wipes out 5 orders.
One second 2 x 10^16 molecules need to transfer 1.6 X 10+36. What is 10^20 that the fraction of second it has to do it in, one transfer, if needs bang off 32 billion molecules. It is 10*20 times 32 billion of a second. Which seems, unlikely. One 10^20 is unlikely, adding 32 billion is 32 billion times more unlikely.
jjthoms:
In your post at January 2, 2012 at 10:08 am you say;
“In my books the potential energy+kinetic energy in both parcels is the same so n molecules at 10km will loose 10km worth of “potential energy” but gain 10kms worth of “kinetic energy”.”
Yes, but so what?
The parcel that rises has more thermal energy than the parcel that replaces it by falling. So, the net result is upward movement of thermal energy.
The only reason the lower parcel rises is because it has more thermal energy. Think about it.
And, on average, parcels in contact with the Earth’s surface gain thermal energy because they are heated by conduction from the surface.
Richard
Stephen Wilde says:
December 31, 2011 at 8:02 am
“At some point someoe seems to have decided that atmospheric composition involving radiative processes makes a significant difference to the temperature set by thermodynamic and gravitational influences.”
Well … yes. Since the “radiative process” of absorption of thermal energy from IR photons by the atmosphere IS “a thermodynamic influence”, then it WILL make a difference in the temperature set by thermodynamic influences. The amount of absorption & emission is measured to be several 100 of W/m^2, so that is certainly significant.
I’m just following your own logic.
.You said “Since the “radiative process” of absorption of thermal energy from IR photons by the atmosphere IS “a thermodynamic influence”, then it WILL make a difference in the temperature set by thermodynamic influences.” Aren’t you forgetting uv absorption? Ozone is always first in our minds, but nitrous oxide also adsorbs and I’m sure there are others. We are so stuck on the ir story that we tend to forget other energetics.
davidmhoffer says:
January 2, 2012 at 1:24 am
“The atmosphere raises surface temperature by an amount dependant upon only two factors, these being insolation and mean atmospheric pressure.”
Unfortunately, this is not dispositive. It is known that there is a relationship between pressure and temperature. Formulas for the relationship can be derived using various assumptions which lead to expressions which are not extremely different from what Drs. Nikolov and Zeller have proposed.
The question, as Ira has asked, is which is the cause, and which is the effect?
I think the question is, do you need to invoke greenhouse gases to explain the retention of heat, and the inversion of temperature such that it is hotter lower down and colder as altitude increases? And, is there a dependence on density, and how does it come into play?
I think the answer is, there surely could be a dependence on density, as this quantity does figure prominently in the heat equation. Moreover, if you solve the heat equation in spherical coordinates, it is quite possible for the solution to show an inversion as a function of altitude.
So, I think you do not need GHG forcing, but that is not the same as saying it does not exist. The problem I have always had with the concept is that the absorption lines, even with Doppler broadening, are extremely narrow, and I have a hard time seeing that they can appreciably absorb and re-emit the total radiation.
Have actual experiments been conducted which demonstrate precise agreement between theory and prediction, or has everyone always assumed that, since the idea is consistent with observations, it is factual? Because mere consistency with an hypothesis is not enough for proof. It is always shocking to me when people point to consistency as proof, yet it happens alarmingly often. And, would we even be having this discussion if someone could point to actual experimental proof of the planetary greenhouse effect? How could you conduct a representative experiment, anyway?
Bill Illis
January 2, 2012 at 8:29 am:
“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.”
This is an interesting idea – would you care to elaborate a bit more? What relationship does this have to the effective height of emission, for instance?
Cheers, 🙂
shawnhet:
Your post at January 2, 2012 at 10:42 am says to me:
“I seem to have given offence, but I can assure you it was not intentional nor was I intending to “derail” the thread. Respectfully, it may’ve been helpful if you actually took a look at my link. You would’ve seen that it was talking about (Earth) air not the Martian atmosphere. I only mentioned Mars to give a context to the range of changes in cp versus atmospheric pressure provided.
Regardless of whose theory the idea that -g/cp accounts for the GH effect is, I believe that I have provided pretty convincing evidence that it cannot do so. Surely that is the core of the debate and not an attempt to “derail” it?
In any case, how about it? Why doesn’t the link I provided demonstrate that hypothesis that the GH effect is solely an artifact of the lapse rate is false?”
If your post was genuine then I apologise for my misunderstanding and consequent response.
I have been seeking a proof or disproof of the Jelbring Hypothesis since 2003 so I did look at the link you provided; i.e.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-specific-heat-various-pressures-d_1535.html
The only things I found there were an advertisement for Preston Air Con Systems together with a Table and graph showing
“Air – Specific Heat at Constant Temperature and Various Pressures
Specific Heat of air at constant temperature 20oC and pressure ranging 0.01 to 100 atm”
I fail to understand how your link provides any support or opposition of any kind pertaining to the Jelbring Hypothesis. And, therefore, I am not convinced by your saying your original post was not an attempt to disrupt this thread.
Richard
Terry Oldberg:
Thankyou for your very fine post at January 2, 2012 at 10:44 am that introduces its argument saying;
“I’d like to add a bit of detail on the processes by which a conjecture can be elevated to the status of a hypothesis and a hypothesis to a theory, as both IPCC Working Group I climatologists and bloggers in wattsupwiththat exhibit misunderstanding of these processes.”
Yes!
If you check you will find that I have repeatedly tried to explain these and similar issues on WUWT.
I write this in hope that it will encourage people to read your post and take note of what it says because I would like to think you have more success than I have had.
And I would be grateful if you were to keep providing explanations of what is – and what is not – the scientific method.
Richard
Bob Fernley-Jones asks several interesting questions:
“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?”
The difference would primarily be the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere (eg UV absorbed by the O3). This amounts to 78 W/m^2 on the relatively recent version of the Trenberth diagram I have handy. In my hypothetical transparent atmosphere, this energy would get to the surface. 161 + 78 = 239, which is close enough for our work here.
“B) So you agree that there is a lapse rate, regardless of GHG’s?”
Yes. Wikipedia shows a derivation of the the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR), getting the very simple result of DALR = g / Cp. The specific heat of air (and pure nitrogen) is very close to 1000, and g is very close to 10, so DALR ~ 0.01 K/m or 10 K/km. Changes in either the gravitational field or the composition of the atmosphere would change the DALR. Phase changes (ie condensation of H2O) will also affect the lapse rate (but then it is no longer “D” so DALR would not apply).
As I believe Joel mentioned earlier, the lapse rate should depend on the presence/absence of GHGs. “Adiabatic” specifically means “no heat transfer”, which is a pretty good approximation for heat transfer by conduction, since the thermal conductivity of air is small, and adjacent parcels of air are usually about the same temperature. GHGs can and do transfer energy among different parcels of air (via IR radiation) so the “adiabatic” approximation would be less valid. I also suspect this will decrease the actual lapse rate, but that is just a gut feeling that I have not verified.
“The difficulty I have is: what is the mechanism by which an allegedly non emitting gas loses such heat?”
When I was first coming to grips with the DALR, I imagined an atmosphere with a single molecule! Suppose the molecule is released at the surface of a warm planet. It will have some considerable average (or “typical”) kinetic energy due to its interactions with the surface. That molecule will act as a “projectile” flying upward at several 100 m/s as it leave the surface. The higher it flies, the slower it will be going as it loses gravitational potential energy. So the average KE higher up will be smaller ==> lower temperature. Of course, as it falls back downward, it will regain the KE ==> higher temperature. (The interactions with other gas molecules complicate the simple thought experiment, although the derivation at wikipedia is remarkably simple).
Near the ground: Low PE ==> high KE ==> high temperature
Higher up: High PE ==> low KE ==> low temperature.
************************************************
[IMPORTANT NOTE: Something has to determine the temperature at some elevation before you can predict any specific temperature at any specific altitude. With no GHGs, the radiation of ~ 240 W/m^s would come from the surface, leading to the ~ 255 K temperature at the surface with the lapse rate decreasing from there. If some of the radiation comes from high in the atmosphere where the temperature is well below 255 K, then some of the radiation must come from a source (the surface or clouds) with a temperature well well above 255 K (with the caveat that has been discussed numerous times that the we are averaging T^4, not T). The temperature profile between the surface and the high levels will be determined by the lapse rate.
Richard S. Courtney:
January 2, 2012 at 11:48 am
Ok, I broke down and did a quick scan of the Jelbring paper as posted on tallbloke’s website. From the abstract he says”The distinguishing premise[of this hypothesis] is that the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.” brackets added by me.
then Jelbring goes on to say that “The temperature lapse rate in our model atmosphere also has to be –g/cp, since its atmosphere is organized adiabatically. Hence, it is possible to calculate the
temperature difference (GE) between the surfaces with areas A and S in our three thought experiments. The solution is identical in all three experiments and its value is simply Dg/cp. Thus, the temperature difference (GE ) between the surfaces with areas A and S is independent of density in the atmosphere. It also follows that it is independent of the absolute average temperature of the model atmosphere since the initial constant energy content of the atmosphere can be chosen arbitrarily.”
However, the very next paragraph Jelbring says that “The greenhouse effect (GE ), expressed as temperature lapse rate per meter, in a model atmosphere postulating energetic equilibrium, is constant and independent of the radiative properties of the ideal gases. It is also independent of the density of the atmosphere and of the absolute average temperature of the same.”
Now maybe its just me but I think he describes the Greenhouse Effect in inconsistent ways in his paper. In the abstract he says that the GE depends on the surface mass density of the atmosphere. Then in the second section quoted it is a “temperature difference” but the expression for it is given as Dg/cp (I assume the D is for density). The units don’t make sense here though (so I could be mistaken what D stands for).
Finally, in the last section quoted, he claims that the GE is “independent of the density of the atmosphere” which is in direct contradiction to the abstract (by the language I use anyways 😉 ).
My verdict: TRespectfully, this paper is a dog’s breakfast: The relationships between his variables seem to be contradictory and he doesn’t do a **single** calculation to prove his points. The Nikolov paper is head and shoulders over this one. My best guess is this hasn’t been falsified because it is too big a mess to evaluate properly.
However, just in case I have missed something that puts this in context that you might understand. Can you show me algebraically how one calculates the GE under Gelbring? By that I mean can you give me an expression that would allow me to calculate the GE as defined by Gelbring? I don’t need actual numbers, just the algebra will be fine.
Cheers, 🙂
The iceman cometh @ur momisugly January 2, 1:22 am
Thanks for that, but as I understand it, emissions are partly dependent on the temperature of the subject gas, which is N2. In the terrestrial temperature range, the following graphic suggests zero or negligible emission from N2. Do you agree?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Dear Bob – you are confusing transmission with emission. Think of a glass globe filled with air here on earth, then blasted into space. It will cool to a few degrees K because the gas will radiate – it cannot conduct (except through the glass) and it cannot convect.
Our globe has a sphere of gas round it held there by the force of gravity. That gas can radiate into space just as the glass globe would. Hope that clarifies the question. You are not alone – everyone thinks of a black body as a solid and the ultimate radiator. They forget gases can radiate as well – the sun is surrounded by a gaseous photosphere and it is the radiation from that which keeps us going!
shawnhet:
Your post at January 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm is a complete confirmation of my expressed fears concerning your posts here.
You say you read the Jelbring 2003 paper posted today at tallbloke’s blog and not at the link I provided days ago in this thread.
You rant against his paper saying e.g. it is “a dog’s breakfast”.
You ask me;
“By that I mean can you give me an expression that would allow me to calculate the GE as defined by Gelbring? ”
Yes, I can, but I won’t.
Hans Jelbring is answering questions on tallbloke’s blog where you say you read his paper. Clearly, you can ask him for his equations and there is no reason for me to provide equations that I (rightly or wrongly) think he would provide.
Richard
Tim Folkerts says:
January 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm
““Adiabatic” specifically means “no heat transfer”, which is a pretty good approximation for heat transfer by conduction, since the thermal conductivity of air is small, and adjacent parcels of air are usually about the same temperature. GHGs can and do transfer energy among different parcels of air (via IR radiation) so the “adiabatic” approximation would be less valid.”
Also, from “Introduction to Space Sciences”, Haymes, 1971:
“If we make the adiabatic assumption (that there is no heat input except from the ground and that there is no heat “sink”), we may estimate what the lapse rate should be. Although the very fact that cloud formation takes place tells us that this assumption is hardly valid; considerable heat is released wherever water-vapor condensation occurs.”
He then goes on to derive the usual temperature-pressure relationship from this assumption and the ideal gas law. But, it appears to me he is acknowledging that it is not an especially rigorous analysis. So, I really want to know – is there genuine experimental proof backing all this up, or is it just seat-of-the-pants, this-is-the-way-we-kinda-think-it-should-be and observations are consistent with the idea?
“The higher it flies, the slower it will be going as it loses gravitational potential energy.”
Only if you launch it straight up, or nearly so.
Honestly, Richard, don’t be so sensitive. My last post was not a personal attack or an attempt to derail this discussion or a rant or whatever. *It was my honest opinion*. Am I not allowed to say something looks like a dog’s breakfast if I think it does?
In any case, all I was asking for was a formula. It would’ve taken much less time to provide that formula than to go off on a tangent assuming that I was planning to derail this discussion or what have you.
So, in the interests of productive debate, I ask again: Can you provide me with the formula for the GE per Jelbring?
I can’t promise will be exactly in the style or with the wording you are looking for, but I promise to do my best to give it a fair hearing.
Cheers, 🙂
>>“The higher it flies, the slower it will be going as it loses gravitational potential energy.”
>Only if you launch it straight up, or nearly so.
No.
Delta(PE) = mg(delta(y)). At any angle, the projectile gains PE as it gets higher and consequently loses KE (and temperature). If the particle goes up 1 m at any speed or angle, it will gain the same PE and lose the same KE..
davidmhoffer says:
As I have pointed out in another thread that you posted this to, they have not PREDICTED anything. They have simply done an empirical fit to the data. And, since their fit involves 6 free parameters relating T_S to P_S, it is not at all surprising that they can fit things reasonably well.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm
“Delta(PE) = mg(delta(y)). At any angle, the projectile gains PE as it gets higher and consequently loses KE (and temperature). If the particle goes up 1 m at any speed or angle, it will gain the same PE and lose the same KE.”
You are quibbling. Yes, exchanging KE for PE will always reduce the velocity at least a little. But, not necessarily by a significant fraction. Launched tangent to the Earth with enough energy, it theoretically could go all the way around before hitting the Earth again, and with very little variation in velocity.
Really, don’t bother responding to that. I’m just needling you for your imprecision in language. But, I’m far more interested in actual evidence for the “Greenhouse Effect”.