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.
other typo: rarefication (rarefaction)
“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.”
What theory is needed and for what?
I believe it would nice and useful if we had a theory allowing us to predict habitable zones
for any star system. I think if Nikolov, Zeller, or anyone else wants to apply their theory, I would like their input on modeling at atmosphere of dwarf planet starship:
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/index/
For purpose of climate policy it seems to me we enough knowledge.
We currently in a warm period. This warm period wasn’t caused by
human activity. The amount of warming caused by humans is insignificant
globally. Human activity does cause a significant amount warming
on local or regional basis. This is loosely called Urban Heat Island affect.
Human could not cause significant global warming or cooling, if they
were trying to do this. We lack the technology and wealth to cause
global warming or cooling by say 10 C. And probably unable to change
global temperature by a mere 1 C.
Due to our apparent incompetence we see ourselves in an automobile
as passenger traveling down a road-having no able to control the car,
and this causes backseat driverism.
If we can drive this car, we would not be panicking.
Fortunately, we don’t actually need to control global temperatures, but
if we did need to do this, we wouldn’t hire the current crop clowns attempting
to do this by amateur hour soapboxing.
To summarize the human species has been existing in ice age period lasting
million of years. Some theories suggest that this cold period “explains” how we
evolved as humans. But few deny we have been in this colder period for
millions of years, or that during this period there been shorter periods of
warming and cooling, which called glacial and interglacial periods.
A significant aspect involved with this cold period and it’s cyclical cooling
and warming is explainable due to the location of land masses. The slow
movement of plate tectonic relates to the millions of years of colder climate.
The short cycles are related to orbital variation- specifically earth’s axis
procession. Those affects due to plate tectonic and procession are not
wild ideas, rather they are accepted. The amount or scale of these affects
can be quibbled about, but there general dominates is undeniable scientific
facts. And one has to start with these as one’s starting point.
A very relevant fact in regard to 20th and 21st century climate is we recovering
from cool period which was probably caused by the Sun’s activity, period
is called the Little Ice Age. The LIA is clearly marked by advancement and retreat
of glaciers around the world. And generally the present global temperatures
indicate we have or nearly have recovered globally from this period of cooler
temperatures.
As a few others have stated, your analogy with a planetary system is not valid for the ideal gas law. The atmospheres of Earth and Venus are not contained in a fixed volume container. They are open to space. If you raise the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, it merely expands upward into space. The pressure will not go up as it would in a container. This is borne out in the fact that the atmosphere is far taller at the equator than at the poles, due to the increased temperature there, even though the surface pressures are the same. Some mountain climbers know this as there is far less oxygen at 20,000 feet at the top of Mt. McKinley than at 20,000 feet in the Himalayas or Andes nearer the equator..McKinley is a tough climb. Much tougher than a climb to 20,320 feet in the Himalayas.
I think that Ira has misunderstood. The cause of the heating at the surface is gravity constraining molecular kinetic energy most strongly at the bottom of the atmospheric column by creating pressure. Work is done and heat generated due to the kinetic energy fighting to overcome the gravitational and pressure constraint.
Pressure is a consequence of gravity acting on the mass of molecules and at a specific temperature the kinetic energy manages to defeat the pressure constraint and escape to space.
Adding GHGs inroduces more kinetic energy by virtue of their higher thermal capacity but if the pressure remains the same that extra kinetic energy just escapes to space faster and temperature (or rather the energy content of the mass of molecules) fails to increase.
To put that in a more general context:
i) AGW theory states that the greenhouse effect is caused by gases in the air with a high thermal capacity warming the surface by radiating energy downwards.
ii) The Nikolov paper describes the greenhouse effect in the way I have always understood it i.e. ALL the molecules near the surface (of whatever thermal capacity) jostle more tightly together under the influence of gravity (and the pressure that it induces) and share kinetic activity (provoked initially by solar irradiation but actually being a consequence of all energy transfer mechanisms combined) amongst one another until that kinetic energy can escape to space by radiative means albeit slightly delayed by all the jostling about.The delay results in a temperature rise because more energy is packed into a smaller space by the effects of gravity and the consequent pressure.
The beauty of ii) is that it decouples the greenhouse effect from the matter of composition leaving atmospheric density as the controlling factor at any given level of solar irradiation. It is the matter of composition that so distresses AGW proponents but in fact it is irrelevant. ALL molecules at or near the surface are involved whether they be GHGs or not.
There has been some confusion caused by Harry Huffman, Claes Johnson and others by virtue of their contention that there is no greenhouse effect when actually they mean that i) above is untrue whilst they accept ii) to be true (I think).
So there is a greenhouse effect but it is not significantly affected by GHGs. In so far as GHGs do have an effect it is negated by faster removal of energy to space by various means (especially evaporation on a water planet) because pressure places a limit on the amount of kinetic energy that can be retained by gases at the surface and as soon as that limit is reached the excess energy immediately leaves the system by whatever means is most readily available.
.
However all this shakes out, we’re not dealing with “simple physics.” What an absurdity.
Sorry, but the suggested logic: Accident >>CAUSES>> Traffic Jam >>CAUSES>> Police is the correct interpretation, is manifestly inadequate.
Accident >> causes >> traffic Jam A, which traffic jam has theoretical life cycle of its own.
Accident >> causes >> taffic jam A, Plus Police >> causes >> traffic jam B, which traffic jam has a unique life cycle all of its own and which may be radically different (the police certainly hope so!) than traffic jam A.
Love the WUWT blog, but have to rush off for a cold beer, as it has finally warmed a little in Sydney!!
Oh, Happy New Year everyone,
The Bear
I thought warm air was lighter than cold so how dose wamer air have a higher pressure cold.
As air warms it get ligher or have i got it wrong?.
Ira
You say:
I say:
In case (A) a PERMANENT increase in Pressure >>CAUSES A TEMPORARY>> increase in Temperature.
In case (B) a PERMANENT increase in Temperature >>CAUSES A PERMANENT>> increase in Pressure
Amounts to the same thing? Well of course, but what my statements emphasise is that in a gravitationally bound planetary atmosphere there is a balancing relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy. Note that potential energy (mgh) makes no mention of particle velocity (temperature) whereas kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) makes no mention of particle position.
Gravitationally bound planetary atmospheres store energy because the lower layers are compressed by the weight of the atmospheric mass bearing down on them from above.
Oh the gates are open, feedbacks, er no, clouds,water vapour – good, next you’ll be on about ‘hotspots’.
The Poles have higher airpressure than the equator.
Sorry, Ira, but you have constructed a straw man refutation of the Nikolov & Zeller paper by erroneously comparing a planetary atmosphere to a bounded container when it is patently not…
“…It (our atmosphere) is fully contained only at the bottom. At the top, it is partially contained by the ionosphere and then the magnetosphere. And to the sides it is partially contained by the nature of the shell.
The gas cannot escape to the side, that is, but it can more easily be deflected to the side, since only other gas is resisting it. There are no walls to the side. Unless the gas is very dense, sideways freedom is nearly infinite (as a gravitational curve). Since the atmosphere is not very dense, we may imagine that the gas is nearly unconstrained “to the side,” this “side” being a full 360 degrees no matter where in the gas you are. In this way, the atmosphere is freer to move to the side than up and down. One obvious side-effect of this is winds, which more often move laterally than up and down…”
If you want a better understanding of how atmosphere works, have a look here…
http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
The most important point about the Unified Climate Theory is that it exposes an assumption in CAGW theory that may not be true: that the mass of the atmosphere is or has been constant over geologic time. The logical source of gases that would increase the mass of the atmosphere is volcanism. About 60 to 65 million years ago, there was apparently a great deal of volcanic activity, as evidenced by the Deccan Traps. If you refer to Figure 8 in the Unified Climate Theory post, the increased volcanism evidenced by the Deccan Traps appears to have happened in the period before global temperatures increased. Whether the volcanic emissions then were sufficiently large to materially increase Earth’s total atmospheric mass is a good question. Just food for thought. Also important is the loss of atmosphere in geologic time proposed in the UCT as influencing cooling in the recent geologic past. However, loss of atmosphere would probably not be relevant at century scales of time.
This ‘new’ theory, in reality a rewrite of old theories forgotten in the route to political correct policies by governments and the scientists in their pockets. It is good to see that courage to reveal what is actually happening has overcome the norm of following everyone else down the road of lies.
There is so many research papers available pointing the way for this excellent paper to be published. Let us hope that the correct people actually read and understand it to make a difference and change all the policies riding on the back of the GHG lies.
Man, this kind of nonsense makes my head ache. When I read things like …
I defy anyone to tell me what that means. It’s not energy, just a “relative enhancement” but it “manifests itself as an actual energy in the presence of external heating”.
Say what? Do people just swallow that content-free doubletalk in one big gulp, or is it easier to keep from gagging if you down it a word at a time?
I was quite depressed to see the Nikolov claims published on WUWT, but I didn’t comment on that thread. Like I said, it makes my head hurt to read this kind of handwaving. Very bad science, no cookies.
Thanks, Ira,
w.
You’ve missed the point of the Nikolov and Zeller presentation.
The energy coming into a planetary atmospheric system is a combination of solar proximity and albedo, and is equal to the outgoing. What we and they are concerned with is not the transport of that energy, but the distribution of it within the atmosphere, as thermal energy at the surface, converting to potential energy as we go higher in the atmosphere. Thermometers measure the distribution, not the movement.
Nikolov and Zeller doesn’t have anything to do with “increased pressure” or “increased temperature” shown in your illustration and experiment. We aren’t increasing anything. Atmospheric temperatures and pressures are stable, arranged according to the lapse rate, or when upset, attempt to return to the lapse rate schedule.
Nikolov and Zeller have shown that an uncomplicated formula based on surface pressure and adiabatic lapse rates accurately predicts observed temperatures on four planets. Greenhouse gases aren’t needed.
To really raise temperatures, then, you would need not ghg’s, but either an increase in solar input, or a change in the lapse rate, which is determined by planetary gravity and atmospheric specific heat. Gravity isn’t changing on earth, and it would take much more CO2 than even Dr Hansen is contemplating to change the air’s specific heat to the point where it would make any difference in the lapse rate.
——————–
PV = nRT doesn’t work well with atmospheres because the gradual fade to vacuum at the top makes it impossible to define the volume, and the equation doesn’t take gravity into account. Even in a closed container, the gas pressure at the bottom of the container is higher that at the top due to the weight of the gas.
Ira Glickstein,
I read the “UCT” by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller in terms of a scientific paper explaining long term climatic events not as an explanation of any sort of correlations. As temperature is of consequence incurred between the processes of pressure interactions not as cause or effect, remove the result from the process and the process will still be there, I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong, I understand what your explaining and I agree, just that any measurement (such as temperature) of an on going process does not explain the process, I’d like to see less use of “temperature” in scientific papers as a cause or effect or as part of a conclusion because it is after all just a temporary aperture from the start and end point of measurement, also temperature measurements could be then used as an indicator, but only once a process is understood, but I still believe temperature can not be used an indicator for trends in long term climatic changes as it would be like trying to count all the hairs on a persons head by plucking a random amount at a time, counting them and trending the amount of hairs.
I’m a bit rushed this morning, very interesting, lots of ideas and counter debate that I could read for hours.
I wrote yesterday that this paper re-invents lapse rate heating.
3/10 for effort.
Dr. Glickstein – you state that the average temperature of the moon is 250 degrees absolute.
Dr. Nikolov and Dr. Zeller – you state that it is 150 degrees absolute.
Which is correct?
Fraizer says:
“Your scenarios A and B are not really comparable.
Scenario A is really delta n >> Causes Pressure >> Causes Temperature. The temperature would indeed remain elevated if the system were adiabatic. The overall energy of the system is increased by adding molecules.
Scenario B is just a demonstration of the ideal gas law.”
There is also another issue with the scenario A, in the way that you increase the pressure of the container. The pressure source will be at a higher pressure than the container and if it is at the same temperature as the container gas, it will lose temperature on expansion into the container. The net result is a container with higher pressure, but lower temperature.
For the sake of your argument, it would be better if scenario A increases its pressure and temperature by reducing the volume, for example a piston in a cylinder. It would also have the advantage of also keeping ‘n’ the same for scenarios A and B.
I am puzzled by the debate here about ‘creation’ of energy within the Earth system.
Surely it is obvious that when solar irradiation reacts with matter constrained within the Earth’s gravitational field there will be a conversion of some of that solar irradiation to kinetic energy (vibrational movement of the molecules) and some of that energy to heat.?
The proportions are pressure dependent.
In the absence of gravitationally induced pressure ALL the solar irradiance would get converted to kinetic energy instantly and the molecules would fly off into space.
The higher the gravitationally induced pressure the more kinetic energy is required to break the gravitational bond between the body of the Earth and the molecules of gas.Thus one observes more heat as evidenced by a higher temperature.
At Earth’s atmospheric pressure of 1 bar some goes to kinetic energy and some to heat and it is that atmospheric pressure which determines the proportions. That isn’t ‘creation’ of heat or of ‘new’ energy. It is simply an apportionment of the solar irradiation into different forms dependent on the prevailing level of gravitationally induced pressure.
That is the true greenhouse effect as I have always understood it and it is therefore pressure dependent and not composition dependent.
If the gas molecules have a higher thermal capacity then those specific molecules will accrue more kinetic energy than others and add disproportionately to the pool of kinetic energy that is available to defeat the gravitationally induced pressure which is restraining their exit to space.
However if pressure does not change then the only outcome will be more radiation to space and NOT a rise in system energy content.That increased radiation to space is achieved by energising ALL the available means of energy transfer namely conduction, convection, radiation and on a water planet the phase changes of water which greatly accelerates the efficiency of the other energy transfer mechanisms.
As Nikolov says, the effects of GHGs are thus cancelled out.
One does however observe that faster outflow of energy from the watery Earth due to GHGs in the form of a larger or faster water cycle which brings me to my broader work available elsewhere.
Nonetheless that faster outflow of energy from more GHGs is infinitesimal compared to the consequences of solar and oceanic variability as I have explained in detail previously.
R. Gates says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:04 pm
“Greenhouse gases warm the planet above a level it would otherwise be without them. The only issue is how much warming we can exspect from a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels, and the key area of uncertainty here is the full nature of feedbacks, slow and fast, and more specifically the role of clouds.”
If you took two quantities of CO2 of equal volume, both quantities had a temperature of 1°C and mixed them both together what would the temperature be as a result of doubling one quantity of CO2 with the other?
Dr. Glickstein – when a gas is heated, it tends to rise.
Gravity exerts a counter force, trying to pull it down.
In so rising, work is done.
The temperature of the gas increases.
As the gas rises, it has more room, as each succeding layer of the atmosphere has a larger dimaeter.
An expanding gas gives up heat.
Half of this is radiated out to space, half reflected back down (to simplify).
The cooled air declines and is replaced by warmer air which in turn etc etc.
Is this not why the atmosphere is warmer nearer the surface than higher up.
The circulation is a perpetual motion maching, fuelled by the incoming radiation from the sun.
So in a laboratory, a gas that has been pressured and left, will cool down again, because the work done in compressing it is ended.
In the atmosphere the process never ends.
That is why it is hotter lower down in a real world atmosphere.
Frank White says: “One example, the statement of the theory mentions that the atmosphere has little heat capacity, which is true of dry air. However water vapor is one gas in the atmosphere that stores considerable energy as latent heat that is released on condensation. ”
The atmospheric mass of earth is 5.1 x 10^18 kg with air molecules traveling at around
500 meters per second [1000 mph- each molecule travels very short distance and time before hitting another molecule. http://www.ems.psu.edu/~bannon/moledyn.html ].
Or the heat or energy required to cause 5.1 x 10^18 kg mass traveling at 500 meters per second is 1/2 mass times velocity squared.
6.3 x 10^23 joules.
So this being roughly amount energy needed to raise that much quantity of oxygen or nitrogen gas from near absolute zero to 270 K. [from gas molecules moving slow, up to speeds they are currently moving at]
In comparison the Sun’s total energy is 174 petawatts [wiki]. Petawatt (10^15 watts) and
so 1.74 x 10^17 watts. So energy needed would be 3.6 x 10^6 seconds [1000 hrs- 41 days].
So if sun defying physic become a blackhole or simply disappears, the atmosphere without considering heat capacity of land, ocean, and water vapor, and so just the air capacity would remain somewhat warm for about week- average temperature would drop at most by 49 K. So basically you have at least week before things got really interesting- by interesting I mean winter polar region having the sky collapse and liquifying and possibility of snowfall in the tropics.
erl happ says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:52 pm
“Reduce its density to non significant values and the medium can not conduct or accept radiation.So, its temperature will fall.”
The thermosphere has an insignificant density and it’s temperature is reaches into the thousands of degrees.
What’s up with that, Erl?
PLEASE do not make stuff up as you go along. THINK McFly!
Ah, the big guns of the lukewarmer camp are out in force today. 🙂
More work and more clarification of terms is definitely needed, but I sense value in the work of Nikolov and Zeller.
I wonder if we might find yet another mechanism amplifying solar variation lurking in this somewhere…
“Of course, one would expect planets and moons in our Solar system to have some similarities.”
Indeed, despite the large variation in their atmospheric compositions.
The observations of late C20th changes on Mars got the ‘we have to get rid of the medieval warm period’ treatment, but this shouldn’t be allowed to deter investigators. Neither should statements such as:
“Do people just swallow that content-free doubletalk in one big gulp, or is it easier to keep from gagging if you down it a word at a time?”
Content free condemnation has little value. I don’t have a problem understanding what Nikolov and Zeller are saying in the passage quoted by Willis. They are simply explaining why it is that in a gravity well supplied with external power, the more highly compressed gas near the surface will be warmer than expected by a gray body calc which doesn’t take atmospheric pressure gradients into account. Simples.