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.
Richard S Courtney says: January 2, 2012 at 10:51 am
“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 We are talking about adiabatic lapse rate i.e. no input/output of energy to the system
So yes the n molecules rising to 10km through convection is ok but now there are 2n molecules at 10km – something has to give or else all molecules congregate at 10km which is not sensible.
There is no change in lapse rate going up or going down it is the same (providided one considers only dry lapse rates).
From Wiki lapse rate = -dT/dz = 9.8K/km
so for every molecule at 290K assending to 10km and losing 100K in temperature to reach the temperature (190K) you claim is set by gravity at that air pressure one molecule at 190K will fall to zero altitude (to balance the molecule counts) and gain 100K to reach a temp of 290K. Where is the energy change (adiabatic – there is none by definition)?
If nobody from the “anti-Nikolov/Zeller” camp can answer my question as to experimental backing for the “Greenhouse Effect”, I will be forced to assume it is a kluge which has been used to explain a phenomenon, much as the ancients invoked Gods to explain the weather (because “we” can’t think of or won’t accept any other cause), and put it as an hypothesis on an equal footing with N-Z et al.
Anyone? Bueller?
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
January 2, 2012 at 7:52 am
////////////////////////////////////////
Ira,
From a response over at Dr. Spencer’s blog, Ned Nikolov does seem to be in agreement at least with the basic direction of the physical experiment I conducted.
With regard to the questions of blocking convection, I am suggesting that while convection cannot occur without a fluid layer, for a given gravity field the speed of convection will be governed by the density of the fluid. Our atmosphere has mass, and the speed of convection is limited by inertia and friction. “blocked” was a poor choice of word on my part, “speed limited” may have been a better description. The higher the density of a fluid, the lower that speed limit.
As to your concerns about the impact of DW LWIR, I have based this conclusion again on empirical experiment. The Trenberth / Keihl diagram makes no distinction with regard surface type for the effects of DW LWIR, however I have found that evaporatively cooled water does not have Its cooling rate significantly altered by incident LWIR.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/konrad-empirical-test-of-ocean-cooling-and-back-radiation-theory/
This would appear to be in agreement with one of your earlier posts about the Schmittner 2011 paper on multi-modal sensitivity.
Like yourself I am waiting to see Ned Nikolov’s reply paper for clarification of many points.
Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly January 2, 12:39 pm
Tim, good to hear from you again, and thanks for your interest. I thought that item A) would grab your attention, but your solution only proves that Trenberth et al can do simple arithmetic. There are some other issues as we have discussed extensively before, but let’s not go there.
I’m more interested in item B) or the implications of lapse rate. Putting aside some hesitations about whether it is adiabatic in an atmosphere with convection and whatnot going on, your explanation of KE at the surface converting to PE with altitude is good as far as molecular velocity is concerned. A key point is that you say this is a consequence of decelerating gravitational force. Other issues include that the mass per unit volume, pressure, and temperature, is greatest at the surface as a consequence of gravity acting upon the air-column above. (which seems to support N&Z)
Whilst Ira’s suggestions about cause and effect are interesting, I cannot see the value of his analogy of pressure vessels responding to foreign environments. (very different ambients to a real atmosphere with lapse rate and stuff)
To me, it seems a real possibility that Ira has confused cause and effect himself.
Can you add to this Tim?
You seem to have read my expansion on this issue in my comments to Ira here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-climate-theory-may-confuse-cause-and-effect/#comment-850340
The iceman cometh @ur momisugly January 2, 2:26 pm
Sorry pal, but there need not be any radiation from whatever gas you enclose in your glass container for its T to drop, and the allegedly non-terrestrially emitting nitrogen (N2) was the topic. At low temperatures the glass itself would be very close to a black body. (and opaque to a lot of the important longer wavelengths?). The glass would be subject to conductive heat transfer from any entrapped gas, so the gas would still get cold by that means.
I’m interested, so had a sniff around for emission spectra for N2 at terrestrial temperatures, but couldn’t find anything. Do you have something?
Joel Shore says:
January 2, 2012 at 3:28 pm
“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.”
From your lips to the climate modeler’s ears. How many free parameters in a typical GCM?
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
January 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm
I’m interested, so had a sniff around for emission spectra for N2 at terrestrial temperatures, but couldn’t find anything. Do you have something?
There’s a very weak band between 4 and 5 microns, about 10 orders of magnitude weaker than CO2.
I am hoping someone might like to help me with the following hypothetical.
I have 2 identical boxes with an identical heating device in each.
My task is to increase the rate of warming in one of the boxes (Box 1) whilst decreasing the rate of warming in the other (Box 2).
I have available to me 2 types of paint. One is a High Thermal Emissivity (HTE) paint whilst the other is a Low Thermal Emissivity paint.
Which box should be painted with which paint?
p.s. disregard conduction and convection
Bob Fernley-Jones, Nitrogen appears to have quite an extensive emission spectrum, at least according to the University of Northern Colorado (UNCO), which seems up and up but which I cannot vouch for. Their graphs shows emission at many wavelengths from 3000 to 8500 Angstrom [The
strikeoutthat follows is wrong, see note at bottom of this comment](3μ to 8.5μ), but at quite low levels compared to other gases. For example, the largest emission is 5000 “Intensity (Counts)” as compared to water vapor that maxes at around 65,000 “Intensity (Counts)”, which is 13 times higher.If the above is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, it appears that Nitrogen can emit, albeit weakly, in parts of the LWIR spectrum. So, if we were to package a large amount of hot Nitrogen in a plastic wrapper that was transparent to LWIR, and placed it in empty Space, it would not remain hot forever. Good to know.PS: I seem to remember that Nitrogen also is active in part of the UV spectrum. The UNCO results linked to all seem to be the result of measurements confined to the Mid (3μ) to Long Wave (4μ to 11μ) IR spectrum, so they have no information about possible UV spectrum for Nitrogen.[Sorry all, the strikeout portion is incorrect. Thanks to Joel Shore (January 2, 2012 at 9:30 pm) for the correction, he wrote: “Ira: 3000 Angstroms is not 3 microns. It is 0.3 microns. Hence, this chart is showing emission in the visible and very-near-infrared. One can get emission from N_2 in the mid/far infrared part of the spectrum but it occurs due to collisions and hence increases as you make the density higher. At Earth-like densities, I am quite confident that any emissions in the infrared are many orders of magnitude smaller than emissions from greenhouse gases, not just a factor of 13!” My bad. – Ira]
Am I the only one out of step, or what? My thought experiment – a thin glass globe filled with air at NTP and tossed into deep space. It will cool by radiation only. It has a low emissivity, but it will radiate. We happen to inhabit a globe where the gas is contained by gravity, but it can still emit. Jupiter is all gas, and it emits. Long live Max Planck!
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
January 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm
I’m interested, so had a sniff around for emission spectra for N2 at terrestrial temperatures, but couldn’t find anything. Do you have something?
>>
Bob, be careful what that spectrum ‘is’ once or if you ever find one. Think at a machine or instrument level what you would be looking at. The spectrums are created by instruments and they are usually at ambient room temperature I assume, and in order to even show any lower lying gray-body radiation from N2, hopefully not rarified to magnify, the instrument would need to be cooled WAY down, near zero K. (another way to put it, the gray-body portion is zero’ed out) They are made to read and display stronger emission ‘lines’, for everything in the room and the instrument itself is also radiating as gray-bodies at the same temperature and any from the N2 would be invisible.
The reason you never see one is that is that generally it is not what any experiment would ever be questioning, therefore, no experiments, and no papers, and nothing on the web.
Maybe someone not pushing AGW “science” so we could trust it could clarify if I am wrong above. I too want to know conclusively, with a real experiment and paper to back it up. I could never find one either.
Ira: 3000 Angstroms is not 3 microns. It is 0.3 microns. Hence, this chart is showing emission in the visible and very-near-infrared. One can get emission from N_2 in the mid/far infrared part of the spectrum but it occurs due to collisions and hence increases as you make the density higher. At Earth-like densities, I am quite confident that any emissions in the infrared are many orders of magnitude smaller than emissions from greenhouse gases, not just a factor of 13!
[OOPS! Thanks for the correction, I will apply it to my original comment above (at January 2, 2012 at 8:51 pm). – Ira]
So, I might as well lob this stink bomb in as long as the discussion is continuing: The Wood experiment. This guy says his results contradict it. This guy says he repeated Wood’s results. The first guy’s test seems suspect to me in that he measured very different time constants for his boxes, which appears to me to suggest the boxes did not have similar heat capacities.
An additional reason I find it suspect, and a knock on the experiment in general: As I mentioned previously, the absorption bands are really narrow. In Lebesgue terms, they have effectively zero measure. How, then, will an integral of an intercepted distribution leave you with anything but a net zero response?
Would not the key to an atmospheric Greenhouse effect, in fact, be the Doppler broadening which occurs due to the wide distribution of relative velocities of absorbing particles?
Bob Fernley-Jones:
January 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm
And along that same line of thought on N2 spectrums… think… you said it in your own words.
Getting a gray-body emission spectrum from a gas seems nearly impossible to even be performed, for the gas has to be in a glass container, and the glass itself would ALSO be radiating gray-body at whatever temperature the instrument was at. So, how would you ever separate the gray-body emissions from the glass from the gray-body emissions from the gas within? That hit my mind on the way to get some hot coffee and had to add that.
I agree that my hypothetical glass globe will be warmed by the gas and it too will radiate – but there is also the radiation that will pass through the glass (if it is transparent – of low absorbtivity) at the wavelength of the emission. And another gaseous emitter is called the sun – and its photosphere is clearly gaseous.
“I agree that my hypothetical glass globe will be warmed by the gas and it too will radiate – but there is also the radiation that will pass through the glass (if it is transparent – of low absorbtivity) at the wavelength of the emission.”
The glass globe would warm and largely control the temperature- empty globe should around same temperature as one filled with nitrogen. If filled CO2 this would also be the case.
I
Mea Culpa! I had forgotten Kirchoff’s Law – emissivity = absorbtivity, and the symmetrical diatomics like O2 and N2 don’t absorb
About saving comments, lest they disappear or get wiped while composing, two steps:
1) Use FireFox;
2) Install the Lazarus add-on.
Done.
jjthoms:
At January 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm you say to me:
“We are talking about adiabatic lapse rate i.e. no input/output of energy to the system.”
NO!!
We are talking about how a planet heated by a Sun maintains a lapse rate that always ‘seeks’ the adiabatic lapse rate. The Sun provides an input of energy to the system. And an equivalent flux of energy is radiated from the planet.
So, the Sun heats the Earth’s surface, the surface heats the air it contacts, the heated parcel of air expands so rises (buoyancy), and the parcel carries the heat up with it until the profile of the adiabatic lapse rate is recovered.
Are you trying to adopt the Joel Shore method of obfuscation: i.e. pretend an imaginary reality then claim reality must obey your imagination?
Richard
Brian H says: January 3, 2012 at 2:05 am
Install the Lazarus add-on.
You bloody beauty! Thanks!
Bart says:
January 2, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I’m not sure I saw the quote you’re referring to in Hayme’s book. (talking about obscure books to reference). Note that the book is a textbook at the graduate / senior undergrad level and its purpose is to educate, providing a survey course for space sciences. Note that Haymes was not an atmospheric specialist either (not that I saw anything wrong with his chapter on the atmosphere).
You might prefer to dig up a vintage physical meteorology textbook instead.
Bart says:
(1) The major piece of experimental evidence is that the temperature of the Earth’s surface is such that it is emitting 390 W/m^2 while the entire Earth-atmosphere system is only absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun. There is no way that I can think of to explain this except to claim that there is some huge magical source of energy OR that some of the 390 W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. And, no, the N-Z hypothesis is not on equal footing with the latter explanation because the N-Z hypothesis violates a bedrock principle of physics – conservation of energy, or at least, the proponents of the hypothesis are utterly unable to explain using any known physics how it does not violate this principle.
(2) The fact that there is no such magical source of energy is confirmed by the fact that, as observed from space, the Earth is in fact only emitting energy at a rate of ~240 W/m^2 (not the higher amount that it would emit if there was a magical additional source of energy). This demonstrates that in fact it is the absorption by the atmosphere that is allowing the surface to be at an elevated temperature. And, then you have the fact that the spectrum of the observed emissions is in good agreement with what is expected on the basis of radiative transfer calculations using the empirically-measured absorption lines of the IR-absorbing elements in the atmosphere.
(3) Finally, you also have the observed spectrum of radiation emitted by the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface.
Thanks again for keeping me on the right track, Joel.
Given the above, what would the result be if we took a large quantity of hot N2 and wrapped it in a very thin plastic bag that was transparent to visible and near IR, and placed it in empty Space far from any star or other mass. Would it remain hot forever? I don’t think so.
Assume the very thin plastic bag has negligible mass compared to the mass of the large quantity of N2, so, as a first approximation, we can ignore the radiation from the warm bag. I.e., if the material of the bag itself does not radiate, will the N2 still cool over time?
If we do not use a bag, and just dump the hot N2 into a location in empty Space, will the N2, being far from any other mass, maintain itself in a finite diameter ball shape via its own gravity?)
Richard S Courtney says:
If it does always seek the adiabatic lapse rate, it is doing a piss-poor job in the stratosphere! In fact, the lapse rate does not always seek the adiabatic lapse rate. Rather, the adiabatic lapse rate is a stability limit…i.e., lapse rates greater than the adiabatic lapse rate lead to convection, which indeed then does drive the lapse rate to the adiabatic lapse rate. However, lapse rates less than the adiabatic lapse rate are stable.
As I have noted in the other thread on Nikolov’s “theory”. Here is the correct picture of what is going on:
The adiabatic lapse rate matters but rather in sort of the opposite way as people are contending: The radiative effects are what provide the greenhouse effect and the adiabatic lapse rate is what limits the extent to which the radiative greenhouse effect can be offset by convection. So, in other words, if the adiabatic lapse rate were zero, i.e., any temperature decrease with height spurred convection, then the greenhouse effect would basically be canceled out by convection. However, the fact that the adiabatic lapse rate is non-zero is what allows the atmosphere to maintain a temperature profile which decreases with height and hence insures that the radiative greenhouse effect is not canceled out by convective effects (although its magnitude is reduced somewhat).
This also explains where Nikolov has screwed up in Section 2.1B) where he discusses convection: His Equation (4) has put in convection in such a way that it tries to equalize the temperatures T_a and T_s even if they are such that the lapse rate is less than the adiabatic lapse rate. This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
@Brian H – Just wanted to add my thanks to those who are singing your praises by making us aware of that Lazarus add-on. It’s awesome!
Ira,
I thought you did a good job explaining things here.
As for the N2, it will depend upon the T which determines the velocity of the gas molecules compared to the gravitational pull of the material, escape velocity.