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.
…and create clouds which will counteract the heating by reflecting more sunlight out. I haven’t lost my marbles by becoming a climate alarmist or anything 😉
In the spirit of jae’s comment at 7.27pm I’d like to throw in a new concept.
ANY system containing both radiative and non radiative processes is ALWAYS dominated by the non radiative processes such that the radiative processes only ever provide a mopping up activity for work that the non radiative processes fail to perform.
Let’s apply that principle to the Earth system.
Energy in equals energy out.
Non radiative processes namely conduction, convection and the water cycle do their best to achieve equality of energy in and energy out by shifting energy through the system as fast as it comes in so that ultimately it can be radiated out.
Only if the non radiative processes fail to do their job will purely radiative processes become relevant by raising the system temperature.
Heat builds up as a result of energy accumulation within the system which increases until the job is done with energy coming in equal to energy radiated out.
The interesting implication of that is that the gases around the Earth will only ever get hot enough to deal with the failure of non radiative processes to deal with any disequilibrium.
Thus the composition or thermal characteristics of the gases is irrelevant. However high the so called radiative forcing capability of any single molecule might be it will never carry more energy than is required to allow the Earth system to achieve thermal equilibrium.
Such molecules might try to achieve more but because NO additional energy is needed they will fail due to the sharing of the energy that IS available amongst ALL the molecules in the atmosphere whether GHGs or not. That sharing results from collisional activity which is density dependent hence the relationship with pressure noted by N & Z.
So the feared radiative forcing capability of GHGs is never used. They simply perform at reduced capacity like a fast car keeping to the speed limit on a motorway.
And that is why N & K are right and their equations are correct.
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly January 3, 3:57 pm
Your comments sound devastatingly good on the surface, (pun intended), however, consider this thought exercise: Place a suitable thermometer ~1.4 metres above the surface on a totally airless planet, and confirm the ambient temperature is only a few degrees. Now add a substantial atmosphere of pure nitrogen, and wait a few years. Check the temperature again, and won’t it be warmer, as Konrad and others have said? There is other stuff going on you know.
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly January 3, 3:57 pm
Yes, you have clearly shown that a planet can heat the atmosphere.
What you haven’t shown is that an atmosphere can heat the planet, as Nikolov/Jelbring claim.
w.
the heat sink doesn’t make the cpu warm? wot a concept
Joel,
I did not make that mistake. The paper was clear in that integration was over the zenith angle. They still integrate over a hemisphere not the whole sphere and it looks like there’s a 4 pi factor for a whole spherical area present. They then have the totally unreal assumption that the other hemisphere is at 0 K with no heat capacity or heat flow present.
As for the other post, the 151 w/m^2 and 33deg C rise are not really based upon any models nor are they contraversial values. 33/151 = 0.218 deg C rise per W/m^2 increase in power absorbed. Read through it more carefully. There’s not even a way to separate out the feedbacks, which are shown to be net negative since the 0.218 value is less than what a simple radiative solution would offer, 0.3 deg C rise per W/m^2.
OK, guys, let me try it this way. The Jelbring/Nikolov claim is that with a planet with no GHGs in the atmosphere, the planet will be above Stefan-Boltzmann greybody (or blackbody) temperature because of (insert handwaving explanation here about gravity and pressure induced alterations in the molecular collisions due to increased mass and viscosity and …)
Suppose we have such a planet, but without an atmosphere, in thermal equilibrium. The surface will radiate at the same rate that it is absorbing energy. Lets assume the surface is absorbing 235 W/m2. It has to be radiating the same amount, 235 W/m2.
Now, lets assume that the Jelbring/Nikolov hypothesis is true. We add an atmosphere to the planet, an atmosphere that is totally transparent to long- and shortwave. Somehow, the Jelbring mechanism warms up the surface to say 250 W/m2 or something. Note that in the entire system, the surface is the only thing capable of absorbing/emitting radiation. So when the Jelbring Mechanism kicks in and the surface warms, it starts emitting more energy than it’s receiving. And because the atmosphere is totally transparent to longwave, all that 250 W/m2 is emitted from the surface to space. [NOTE: numbers for purposes of illustration only.]
At that point … the planet is emitting more energy than it is absorbing. It’s absorbing 235W/m2, and emitting 250 W/m2.
And yet by some unknown mechanism, according to Jelbring/Nikolov, the planet doesn’t cool back down to equilibrium. Instead, presumably because the atmospheric pressure “enhances (amplifies) the energy supplied by an external source such as the Sun through density-dependent rates of molecular collision” or somesuch doubletalk, the surface stays warmer indefinitely, despite the planet emitting more energy than it is absorbing.
Anyone care to explain to me how that’s not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics? I asked Konrad, with no answer, so let me throw the question to the crowd.
If the Jelbring Hypothesis is true, and a perfectly transparent atmosphere can heat a planet’s surface so that it is emitting more energy than it is absorbing … where is the extra energy coming from?
w.
Willis Eschenbach (January 3 2012 at 10:19 pm):
Several of your contentions state false propositions.
First, That Earth is absorbing 235 W/m^2 in infrared readiation at the bottom of the atmosphere does NOT imply that Earth is radiating 235 W/m^2 in infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere.
Second, there is no violation of energy conservation in the circumstance that Earth is absorbing 235 W/m^2 in infrared radiation at the bottom of the atmosphere and is emitting 250 W/m^2 in infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere.
Third, though Earth is absorbing 235 W/m^2 at the bottom of the atmosphere and is emitting 250 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere, it does not follow that the Earth will cool.
If you need them, I’ll provide proofs.
[Reply: Provide your proofs ~dbs, mod.]
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly January 3, 9:33 pm
Hey Willis, for most people on the planet, the bit of the biosphere that they sense for hot and cold is within several metres of the surface, and then of course there is other stuff at higher altitudes that are less apparent, but very important. I don’t think people go around patting their hand on the ground to sense how cold or hot it is do they? FACT: the really important stuff in the biosphere is made warmer by an atmosphere, even hypothetically with one devoid of GHG’s or particulates.
I’ve not read the N&Z poster thing mainly for the reason that it is difficult and it seems that a more language-clear version is to appear soon in which I hope they will consider the comments made here. Are you sure that they say what you claim they say? Didn’t you also say that you don’t understand what they are trying to say? Uh?
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly January 3, 10:19 pm
Further to my response to your post @ur momisugly 9:33 pm
Very quickly, you might also care to consider this:
When you assert that the surface under a transparent atmosphere can only radiate directly to space what it receives from space, (in equilibrium), would you also elaborate how at the same time it heats a non-absorptive atmosphere? There is other stuff going on apart from radiation you know.
Terry Oldberg says:
January 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm
1.That Earth is absorbing 235 W/m^2 in infrared readiation at the bottom of the atmosphere does NOT imply that Earth is radiating 235 W/m^2 in infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere.
2. there is no violation of energy conservation in the circumstance that Earth is absorbing 235 W/m^2 in infrared radiation at the bottom of the atmosphere and is emitting 250 W/m^2 in infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere.
3. though Earth is absorbing 235 W/m^2 at the bottom of the atmosphere and is emitting 250 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere, it does not follow that the Earth will cool.
So – for the condition to met (maintaining temperature) – the ‘missing energy’ is simply absorbed and emitted by the atmosphere – considering the earth/atmosphere as a ‘whole’?
Seem logical enough to me.
Willis Eschenbach, January 3, 2012 at 10:19 pm :
I’ll have go at that, Willis, but I’ll have to dispense with the idea of a perfectly transparent atmosphere. Such a thing doesn’t really exist, and even our present atmosphere, consisting primarily of O2 and N2, manages to give us a blue sky (caused by those molecules being affected by incoming light, primarily the blue end of the spectrum, but by all other colors as well, i.e. Rayleigh scattering). We also have an ozone layer (caused by those molecules being affected by incoming light, primarily the ultraviolet portion). There’s also random junk in the air, so it’s a soup, and can’t be perfectly transparent, and neither can any other atmosphere be perfectly transparent.
One other thing: To keep it simple, I’d like to have an atmosphere consisting only of Argon, atomic weight 44, the same as the molecular weight of CO2, but with no possibility of complications due to rotational and vibrational modes.
So then, can a parcel of Argon gas emit radiation? Sure thing. All it needs to do is be above absolute zero. How much will it radiate? I dunno, but not zero. What happens when it does this? The atoms slow down and bunch up, the parcel becomes more dense, and it tends to descend from whatever height it’s at.
Next, can a parcel of Argon gas receive energy from the surface? Sure thing. All it needs to do is be in contact with it. How much will it absorb? I dunno, but not zero. What happens when it does this? The atoms speed up and spread out, the parcel becomes less dense, and it tends to rise above the ground.
All right then, we have conduction, convection, radiation, and lapse rate. The only thing missing is latent heat, but I think all the other ingredients are there, Willis.
/dr.bill
Terry Oldberg says:
January 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm (Edit)
The Earth? I made it very clear that I’m talking about a planet with no GHGs in the atmosphere … how is that the Earth?
w.
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
January 3, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Umm … by conduction? Yes, that’s it. If there are no GHGs, the planet heats the atmosphere by conduction.
But despite you saying that there is “other stuff going on apart from radiation”, a planet can’t lose heat to space by conduction. For that, there is no other stuff going on apart from radiation.
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
At January 3, 2012 at 10:19 pm you mistakenly assert:
“The Jelbring/Nikolov claim is that with a planet with no GHGs in the atmosphere, the planet will be above Stefan-Boltzmann greybody (or blackbody) temperature because of (insert handwaving explanation here about gravity and pressure induced alterations in the molecular collisions due to increased mass and viscosity and …)”
And
“If the Jelbring Hypothesis is true, and a perfectly transparent atmosphere can heat a planet’s surface so that it is emitting more energy than it is absorbing … where is the extra energy coming from?”
Sorry, but No!
The Jelbring/Nikolov claim is that with a planet with no GHGs in the atmosphere, the planet will be above THE TEMPERATURE OF A SIMILAR PLANET WITH NO ATMOSPHERE.
That is NOT the same as being “above Stefan-Boltzmann greybody (or blackbody) temperature” because both the hypothetical planets are below that temperature.
I think the basis of your misunderstanding may be in the fact that Jelbring did an analysis which considered a uniformly heated planet (which would be at greybody temperature). But that is a hypothetical limiting case which Nikolov does not consider.
I addressed this issue on the other thread where I wrote at January 3, 2012 at 5:41 am saying:
“IR is emitted as an energy flux proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of the emitting surface (i.e. the flux is proportional to T^4). And a planet has a wide range of surface temperatures.
A small change to hot planetary surface (e.g. in a tropical region) provides a large change to emitted IR (because the flux is proportional to T^4). But a large change to cold planetary surface (e.g. in a polar region) provides a small change to emitted IR (because the flux is proportional to T^4).
Atmospheric convection transfers heat from the tropics and day-time surfaces to the polar and night-time surfaces.
An average surface temperature of a planet can be obtained by an infinite number of temperature distributions over the surface. Therefore, the average surface temperature can change while the emitted flux of IR energy remains constant (and vice versa). And, thus, the equilibrium average surface temperature of a planet with an IR-transparent atmosphere is governed by atmospheric convection.”
Holder’s Inequality defines that the hottest global temperature is obtained when the planet has uniform temperature.
The planet gains temperature uniformity as a result of convective and conductive transfer of heat from it hottest to its coldest regions. And THIS RAISES ITS AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE.
There is NO “extra energy” but there is a redistribution of temperature across the planet’s surface.
And, thus, the transparent atmosphere increases the average surface temperature of the planet by reducing the temperature range of its surface and THIS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE RADIATIVE FLUX FROM THE PLANET.
I hope this helps understanding of the issues. Please note that my comment does not ‘prove’ Jelbring and Nikolov are right or wrong: it merely shows that your objection to their hypotheses is mistaken.
Richard
“Suppose we have such a planet, but without an atmosphere, in thermal equilibrium. The surface will radiate at the same rate that it is absorbing energy. Lets assume the surface is absorbing 235 W/m2. It has to be radiating the same amount, 235 W/m2.”
The energy budget must balance.
But your statement “surface is absorbing 235 W/m2. It has to be radiating the same amount, 235 W/m2.” Lacks any element of time. Let’s add some.
A surface absorb 235 W/m2 for 10 hours. The next statement is “it has to radiating the same energy, 235 W/m2 for 10 hours”. This means this surface hasn’t absorb any energy during those
10 hours.
I am going to guess what you meant to say. The sun provides 235 W/m2 for 10 hours to a surface.
This surface heat up to such a temperature so it’s emitting the same amount energy it’s receiving from the sun [it’s no longer gaining/absorbing any net energy]. Say it takes 1 hour to heat up, and doesn’t heat up for the remaining 9 hours.
After the 10 hours of day, it become nite, and it will radiate the heat it has gained during the 10 hours of sunlight. This amount of energy is 1 hour times 235 W/m2. In joules/watts it is 235 times 3600 seconds. 846,000 watts/joules.
Now how long does it take to emit the 1 hour of gained energy?
Suppose this material heated up to 300 K. We know that at 300 K it radiates 235 Watts per second. As it radiates at this temperature it lower in temperature and therefore radiate less than 235 Watts per second. So we know it loses heat over a period longer than 1 hour.
“Now, lets assume that the Jelbring/Nikolov hypothesis is true. We add an atmosphere to the planet, an atmosphere that is totally transparent to long- and shortwave. Somehow, the Jelbring mechanism warms up the surface to say 250 W/m2 or something. Note that in the entire system, the surface is the only thing capable of absorbing/emitting radiation. So when the Jelbring Mechanism kicks in and the surface warms, it starts emitting more energy than it’s receiving. And because the atmosphere is totally transparent to longwave, all that 250 W/m2 is emitted from the surface to space.”
Well, let’s use the other number you a gave: 235 W/m2, instead of 250 W/m2.
So in above it take 1 hour to warm the surface so it’s longer longer absorbing energy.
With an atmosphere to heat up, it will take longer than 1 hour to heat up. Or atmosphere slows the heating of surface, let’s instead 1 hours, it takes 2 hours.
Therefore it takes more 2 hours to lose the energy it gained from the day.
Now let’s change things, suppose the cools for whatever reason, and therefore instead of 2 hours to warm up so it’s radiating the same energy it’s receiving, it takes 4 hours to warm up to this level. At nite It’s going to lose heat the same rate- longer than 4 hours. The colder the surface the less energy is emitted.
Willisd said:
“Now, lets assume that the Jelbring/Nikolov hypothesis is true. We add an atmosphere to the planet, an atmosphere that is totally transparent to long- and shortwave. Somehow, the Jelbring mechanism warms up the surface to say 250 W/m2 or something. Note that in the entire system, the surface is the only thing capable of absorbing/emitting radiation. So when the Jelbring Mechanism kicks in and the surface warms, it starts emitting more energy than it’s receiving. And because the atmosphere is totally transparent to longwave, all that 250 W/m2 is emitted from the surface to space. [NOTE: numbers for purposes of illustration only.]
At that point … the planet is emitting more energy than it is absorbing. It’s absorbing 235W/m2, and emitting 250 W/m2.”
At its higher equilibrium temperature the planet emits exactly what it receives.
Incoming solar energy in the form of photons and fast moving particles interacts with the gravitational field and is converted to vibrational energy AT the surface AND in the non GHG atmosphere via conduction FROM the surface. The total system energy content becomes higher the more mass is present in the atmosphere resulting in a higher system temperature despite the input and output being the same.
This is how happens:
Without the non GHG atmosphere 100% hits the surface and radiates straight out. The surface temperature is what it is for the particular composition of the surface.
When you add the non GHG molecules a proportion of the incoming gets diverted to the atmosphere via conduction and for a while the amount of energy radiated out drops until the non GHG gases get as hot as the surface. So heat energy builds up in the system until equilibrium is restored and again energy in equals energy out.
At that new hotter equilibrium the surface is being supplied with the original solar incoming PLUS additional energy being returned to the surface from the non GHG gases in a constant cycling process that continues for as long as the incoming energy flow is maintained. Thus it is a permanent change all else being equal.
THAT is why the surface temperature is higher with the non GHG gases than without them for the same energy input but balance is in fact maintained albeit at a higher surface temperature.
And it is gravitational pressure concentrating the number of non GHG gas molecules at the surface which makes that possible.
What has happened is that one has simply slowed the transmission of solar energy in and out of the system which generates heat within the system exactly like the heating element in an electric bar fire.
It is an energy conversion process and not an energy creation process so no breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Gravity in the universe is analogous to an electrical resistor. Wherever there is gravity there is conversion of mass to energy because gravity acts with mass as a sort of energy exchange converting momentum (usually of photons or fast moving particles) to kinetic energy. Hence e = mc2.
And the more mass the greater the pressure hence N & Z’s results..
dr.bill says:January 4, 2012 at 12:00 am
I think Dr Bill sums it up …
…. otherwise we have a conundrum with those gaps in the atmospheric absorption spectrums …
Even just considering an O2, N2, CO2 atmosphere; and the CO2 absorption spectrum … IF those wavelengths (of outgoing LWIR) are completely absorbed in the lower atmosphere by CO2 (which according to the ‘rules’ can only emit in those wavelengths, or can only pass the energy to another molecule, 02 or n2, which according to the ‘rules’ cannot emit energy as radiation ) …… AND we know they are not re-gathering the heat ad radiating it at the TOA in those wavelengths, so THEN that energy is retained forever in the atmosphere then inevitably we have a spiralling heat problem with ANY amount of CO2 …. The heat can never escape.
Interestingly the earth goes through static or cooling phases, even though apparently those heat windows (H20 and CO2 absorption spectrums) are closed … the heat is escaping somewhere even if measures show it is not radiated in those spectrums, (it ain’t ALL going into the ocean ALL the time, especially during ice ages)… so the other gases MUST be doing their little bit of radiating.
Dr Bill learn some physics of gases, your Argon atmosphere won’t emit by virtue of being above absolute zero! Also its atomic mass is 40 not 44. So you have an atmosphere which will conduct and have a lapse rate but no absorption or emission.
“So then, can a parcel of Argon gas emit radiation? Sure thing. All it needs to do is be above absolute zero. How much will it radiate? I dunno, but not zero. What happens when it does this? The atoms slow down and bunch up, the parcel becomes more dense, and it tends to descend from whatever height it’s at.”
I think this similar to throwing a brick, and because it emits light, it will cause slow down.
If an atom of Argon could affect it’s velocity by radiating energy, it seems it has 50% chance of increasing it’s velocity.
But atoms of gas in gravity field will fall- they are bricks that lose no energy when the bounce off things which are the same temperature [velocity]. The gases in your atmosphere are traveling fast and going chaotic directions, so really for one atom or molecule the odds slightly favor falling, but other factors are also adding to the odds.
I thought EVERYTHING above absolute zero radiates energy. Just because nitrogen doesn’t capture and subsequently radiate radiant energy doesn’t mean it can’t capture energy through conduction and collisions and radiate that as infrared.
Help!!!!
Can you even have an atmosphere that is ‘transparent’ to long wave radiation? Isn’t it PART of the long wave radiation as soon as a single molecule warms from contact with the surface? Just because long waves from the surface don’t get intercepted by nitrogen doesn’t mean they aren’t, themselves, part of the long waves leaving the atmosphere.
Put a bag of warm nitrogen in orbit. Will it radiate?
cba says:
Actually, cba, they say “μ is the cosine of incident solar angle at any point,”. And, the reason that they only integrate over the hemisphere is if you define your coordinates in this way, polar angles beyond 90deg are on the dark side. I have now read 2 other papers, G&T and Arthur Smith’s who get the same result for this calculation and I am convinced that, given the assumptions, it is correct. However, I am totally with you that the assumption that there is no heat capacity or heat flow is a poor assumption…at least for a planet with any significant atmosphere or liquid water around.
Your answer provides more evidence for my point: You say, “There’s not even a way to separate out the feedbacks.” That is exactly my point: You can’t separate them out from the forcings, so you have treated them completely as forcings. That is, you have divided by 151 W/m^2 even though some of that 151 W/m^2 is likely due to a feedback, not a forcing; that is to say, if you remove just the non-condensable greenhouse gases, you will lose not only their radiative effect but also the radiative effect of much of the water vapor. Read what I have said carefully ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-climate-theory-may-confuse-cause-and-effect/#comment-852150 )and read the analogy that I have linked to in the other thread if you need to…And think about what “feedback” and “forcing” actually mean and how they depend on context. This is really important stuff and it comes up again and again.
As for why your answer is lower than the simple radiative solution would offer, I explained that too. The one feedback that you clearly are including as a feedback is the negative lapse rate feedback, because you computed the temperature change at the surface, rather than some place up in the troposphere. (The lapse rate feedback is kind of an odd-man-out in terms of feedbacks because most “feedbacks” are changes in the atmosphere or surface that change the radiative properties, like the water vapor feedback that adds the greenhouse gas of water vapor to the atmosphere, but the lapse rate feedback is just a name given to the fact that the simple radiative solution gives the temperature change needed at the height where the radiation is escaping to space and what we want to know is the temperature change at the surface.)
An even better question might be this….
Find an altitude where the temperature of the atmosphere is 273K. How much energy is being radiated by a molecule of nitrogen? How much energy is being radiated by a molecule of carbon dioxide?
“Find an altitude where the temperature of the atmosphere is 273K. How much energy is being radiated by a molecule of nitrogen? How much energy is being radiated by a molecule of carbon dioxide?”
The answer is none from nitrogen – it isn’t an absorber or emitter unless excited by energies sufficient to raise its electrons to higher orbitals, which are far higher than the energies of even ultra-violet photons. And some from CO2 – how much depends on the temperature of the environment to which it is radiating.
Mars, Triton, Europa, and Mercury have very little atmosphere, so their surface.temperature was completely determined by albedo and distance from the sun.
You have only 3 independent sources with atmospheres- Earth, Titan, and Venus.
The equation has 2 parts (K1 e^-x + K2 e^-y)
A two variable equation can ALWAYS be found to fit 3 points. We;ll have to wait until we have date on extraterrestrial planets, that may be centuries, before we can determine whether the formula has any validity or is merely curve fitting, like Mann’s treemometers.
The iceman cometh says:
January 3, 2012 at 9:46 pm
“The important question here is the one Ira is asking a few comments earlier. By what means do nitrogen and oxygen lose heat to space?” It is not an important question, because the answer is known – they can’t. I thought they could, but when I dug deeper I realized I was wrong.
The only means by which they could lose heat to space is by radiation (or by leaving the planet). For radiation, at thermal equilibrium absorption = emission, which is known as Kirchoff’s Law. Once you have differences in temperature, then heat is transferred according to T^4 law. But if you don’t have absorption, then you can’t have emission, and the symmetrical diatomic gases O2, N2 etc don’t absorb radiation – therefore they don’t heat up by radiation and they don’t cool by
radiation. I hope that answers the question.
Iceman, the N2 or O2 molecules can heat up via conduction with the surface. So if they cannot rid themselves thru radiation, as you say, of the heat then the atmosphere will continually warm? Or is convection sufficient?
I have brought this up before that we seem to ignore 99% of the atmosphere.
M Kelly said “Iceman, the N2 or O2 molecules can heat up via conduction with the surface. So if they cannot rid themselves thru radiation, as you say, of the heat then the atmosphere will continually warm? Or is convection sufficient? I have brought this up before that we seem to ignore 99% of the atmosphere.”
Heat is transferred by conduction, convection and radiation. For oxygen, nitrogen, neon, argon, helium etc in the air which are non-absorbers they can only gain heat by conduction and convection, and can only lose it by the same ways. So, yes, a heated surface of the earth will constantly lose energy to the atmosphere by conduction to the non-absorbers and radiation to the absorbers, and that energy be redistributed by convection. But when you say “the atmosphere will continually warm” I have a problem – I don’t really understand quite what you are trying to say. Energy will only pass from the surface to the atmosphere as long as the temperature of the atmosphere is below that of the surface; once they are at the same temperature there will be no driving force to transfer energy and warming of the atmosphere will cease. So it can never ‘continually warm’ in the sense that its temperature will go on rising – it will reach an equilibrium with the source of energy, the surface of the earth in this case.