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.
Willis: Another thought experiment: the pressure at the planet’s surface is built up until the layer ceases to approximate an ideal gas and finally it becomes liquid air, say 1 meter thick. The sun now passes through this layer of liquid air to strike the earth’s surface. What will happen to this liquid air. If it heats up and converts 50cm back to gas, would it not also heat up the non-ideal gas layer above the liquid? Would it not heat up the rarer gas above that. Does the heat capacity of the gas not increase as it is compressed to a denser state? I’m simply asking if an atmosphere without GHGs has zero heat capacity. If this is so, then how does one account for the chinook winds that heat up as the air flows down the eastern slopes of the Rockies and compresses. You can ride a horse across the boundary of below zero air and air well above freezing. Is it because of water vapour/ CO2 content? I believe the air is pretty dried out at the higher altitude of the mountains. Or is it because the air possesses heat according to its heat capacity?
Further to GPearse discussion on heat capacity of air- a table on the heat capacity of dry air shows it to differ with temperature (rising with temp), also, since the heat capacity is given in terms of kg of gas, it also tells us the heat capacity increases with pressure (isn’t this the central point being made by Nikolov et al?):
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=heat%20capacity%20of%20air&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
Finally, how (otherwise) does one explain the high temp of the surface of Venus – the same sun is doing the heating although at a higher wattage because of closeness to the sun. Are we arguing its in fact CO2 concentration? The only other variable of significance would be the pressure. J. Marshal on an earlier post on WUWT noted that the temp on Venus at the layer having 1 earth atmosphere was comparable (difference the higher incident energy of the sun on Venus). Convince me that the pressure does not affect warming at the surface layer.
I think that the supporters of Nikolov’s view of the GH effect need to spend some time focusing on how the atmosphere cools. The atmosphere might get warm with an increase in atmospheric pressure, but won’t *stay* warm unless the change in pressure changes how the atmosphere cools. As point of comparison, the mainstream theory of GH warming assumes that the atmosphere near the surface cools less efficiently than the atmosphere further up. Can someone give me a short statement laying out how increases in atmospheric pressure or mass affect the rate of cooling?
Cheers, 🙂
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 3, 2012 at 10:19 pm
This is an idealized scenario which neglects a number of real world conditions.
However, proponents need to move beyond handwaving and try to formulate consistent equations to support their intuition and plug in the numbers and see what results. I am by no means claiming I have done so completely and rigorously, but the sense I have gotten from playing with various formulas and the constants involved has convinced me that other effects are relatively small. I could be wrong, but somebody has to come up with numbers which prove the case for it to be accepted.
Increasing density of the atmosphere does increase heat capacity, and there will be more heat retained, but if heat content increases in tandem with heat capacity, temperature does not have to change. And, there’s that very substantial water vapor gap in the emitted radiation which has to be dealt with. Clearly, the atmosphere is absorbing a lot of the outgoing energy. Where does it go?
Willis,
You keep asking for a plausible physical mechanism to underpin N&Z and I submit to you that our current knowledge base makes this impossible.
We simply do not know enough about all the physical processes and how they interact with each other to answer that question. If we did, we would be able to build climate models that exhibit skill in both forecasting and hindcasting. I know of no such model. We can’t build such a model because we lack the detailed knowledge of science required to do so, and hence we cannot answer your demand for a physical mechanism for N&Z anymore than we can build a climate model that works.
Nor do we need to. I can build a boat out of steel and demonstrate that it will float despite being constructed entirely of materials more dense than water. I need neither an understanding of the physical processes nor the ability to articulate them in order to prove that the boat floats.
That said, I think there is an excellent article that appeared on WUWT a while ago that, while in my opinion is incomplete, makes an excellent start in terms of what the physical processes (or at least some of them) are that would lead to a stable temperature independant of atmospheric composition due to the dominance of the proposed processes over radiative transfer. I expect you’d be familiar with:
The Thermostat Hypothesis
by Willis Eschenbach
It occurs to me that there is, in fact, a nice analogue to the “greenhouse effect” in optical cavity resonators. Lasers depend on such resonators to store additional energy so as to establish the population inversion necessary for lasing.
So, I think the idea is very well established. The only question would have to be the relative magnitudes of the effects of “greenhouse” reflection versus… whatever else.
@The iceman cometh
Do you really mean that nitrogen at 273K emits NO radiation? When was that discovered?
OK, let’s accept that non-radiative dominate for the Earth, N% non-radiative, 100-N% radiative, where let us say N > 50%
Here is where I hit a block. If the gases are all non-GHG, any radiation from the Surface necessary to “deal with any disequilibrium” gets a free pass out to Space and is never heard from again. Agreed?
But, if any of the gases are GHG, some of the radiation from the Surface necessary to “deal with any disequilibrium” is absorbed by the GHGs and re-emitted and thus some of it DOES NOT get a free pass out to Space. Rather than not being ever heard from again, some of it comes back to the Surface where it is again absorbed.
If you agree that N < 100% (i.e., non-radiative effects are dominant but not sufficient), then, given GHGs in the Atmosphere, there is more radiation absorbed by the Surface than if there are no GHGs. This additional radiative energy absorbed by the Surface must raise the mean temperature of the Surface somewhat, resulting in an increase conduction and convection, but also some additional radiation.
Thus, even if non-radiative effects dominate (which is far from proven by N&Z and you), there will be some temperature effect, perhaps minor, of additional GHGs in the Atmosphere. Agreed?
I’m still not convinced. Please address my concerns given above. advTHANKSance
Richard S Courtney says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:20 am
Richard, sorry for my lack of clarity. I said “Suppose we have such a planet, but without an atmosphere, in thermal equilibrium.” I assumed that when people read that, they would think I was talking about, well … as you put it, they would think I was talking about THE TEMPERATURE OF A SIMILAR PLANET WITH NO ATMOSPHERE.
I then compared it to a planet with an atmosphere.
C’mon, guys, this should not be hard. Imagine a planet with no atmosphere. At equilibrium, it emits exactly the radiation it receives from its sun, whatever that might be.
Then a perfectly transparent atmosphere, no GHGs, is added to that planet. You guys claim the surface will warm. I say no.
I say no because if the surface warms, since the surface is is the only thing in the system that can absorb or emit radiation, it will be emitting more energy to space than it receives from its sun.
Where is that extra energy coming from?
How about somebody trying to ANSWER MY QUESTION, instead of answering a bunch of other stuff?
w.
PS—Actually, Stephen Wilde tried to answer the question, so he gets points for that. Unfortunately, he said:
“Interacts with the gravitational field and is converted into vibrational energy”? He loses points for that, although he gains plenty of points for imagination and his hand-waving style. I would like to get an answer, however, from someone who seems to understand that energy cannot be either created or destroyed …
“I was talking about THE TEMPERATURE OF A SIMILAR PLANET WITH NO ATMOSPHERE. I then compared it to a planet with an atmosphere. C’mon, guys, this should not be hard. Imagine a planet with no atmosphere. At equilibrium, it emits exactly the radiation it receives from its sun, whatever that might be. Then a perfectly transparent atmosphere, no GHGs, is added to that planet. You guys claim the surface will warm. I say no.”
I agree with you. What happens when you add the gas (a non GHG gas) is that you disturb the equilibrium; the new atmosphere picks up heat by conduction and convection from the planet and so the planet cools. Then the system moves to equilibrium as the planet picks up heat from the “sun” (the irradiating source of first instance) which it will do because it is slightly cooler than before, and you will end up with the planet at the same temperature as before and a warm atmosphere. Is that the answer you sought?
davidmhoffer says:
January 4, 2012 at 9:03 am
Well, heck, if it’s that easy then just build a planet and demonstrate that it will heat despite not having any GHGs in the atmosphere …
You can’t build a planet, you say? Yes, that’s why your analogy with boatbuilding doesn’t work.
So what we are left with is an unknown physical mechanism causing an unseen phenomenon that no one can show exists, a phenomenon that thermodynamic considerations show to be impossible.
Science at its finest.
w.
“Incoming solar energy in the form of photons and fast moving particles interacts with the gravitational field and is converted to vibrational energy ”
If a package of mass (say a photon) enters a gravitational field the field slows it down in the same way as an electrical resistor slows down an electric current. In the process the momentum of the photon is partially converted to kinetic energy (heat) just like the process that occurs within the element of an electric bar fire.
So if one slows down the passage of solar energy by running it through a planet with an atmosphere then the mass of the planet AND atmosphere will together provide the necessary resistance by way of the gravitational field that they generate.
Part of the momentum of the solar energy is converted to kinetic energy in the molecules of the surface and of the atmosphere so the temperature of both rises.
Elementary particle physics as I recall though my description might be a bit rusty.
No extra energy is created. Some of the energy is converted to heat. The Laws of Thermodynamics are complied with.
Note that solar energy reaches the Earth as a range of wavelengths, some of which are very energetic. But the whole lot then departs as much less energetic longwave.
In the process of being converted from solar shortwave radiation to outgoing longwave radiation momentum is lost by the incoming solar shortwave. The energy of that lost momentum turns up as increased kinetic energy (heat) within the Earth system.
This was all basic physics in the UK Grammar Schools of the 1960s.
davidmhoffer says:
January 4, 2012 at 9:03 am
Willis,
“You keep asking for a plausible physical mechanism to underpin N&Z and I submit to you that our current knowledge base makes this impossible.”
It’s not that it is impossible, its just that we refuse to educate ourselves.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-climate-theory-may-confuse-cause-and-effect/#comment-847814
THANKS Willis for being a major voice of scientific reason in this thread.
I’ve been trying to come up with a rational reason for a dense but non-GHG atmosphere causing a planet to have a higher mean temperature than it would absent that non-GHG atmosphere, and for the mean temperature increase due to the atmosphere being a function of the density.
Say a no-atmosphere planet has at a mean temperature Tno. If the planet rotates like the Earth, the day side is warmer than the night side, and the late afternoon is warmer than the morning, etc. So the no-atmosphere planet has a high temperature (at the equator, late afternoon) of TnoHi and a low temperature (at the equator, some time before sunrise) of TnoLo.
OK, dump a thick N2 atmosphere on that otherwise barren planet. (Just in case real N2 radiates, assume a special kind of N2 that is absolutely non-radiative.) According to the “gravitational component or effect” proponents, the N2-atmosphere planet has a mean temperature Tn2, which is greater that the no-atmosphere planet mean of Tno. And, the more N2 we have dumped, the greater will be that effect.
Could this be true? Well, perhaps. Let us see.
The surface temperature on both day and night sides of the no-atmosphere planet will be well above 0 K, due to heat storage and conduction through the ground, so say it has a mean of 250 K, like our Moon. After we dump the thick N2, and things equilibriate, the N2, by conduction, will gain energy from the surface and thus warm up. The N2-atmosphere will conduct, convect and mix the heat energy through much of the atmosphere. Since our N2 is absolutely non-GHG, it will neither emit nor absorb any radiation, so the only way it can lose that conducted surface energy is to conduct it back to the surface.
OK, assume the 6AM surface is exactly at the same temperature as the 6AM near-surface N2-atmosphere. There will be no conduction of heat energy since conduction (unlike radiation :^) is only possible from warmer to cooler materials. The rate of conduction is the temperature difference squared, I believe. As the day wears on, the surface warms from absorbing sunshine, and, by conduction, some of this absorbed energy is taken away in warming the thick N2-atmosphere. Thus, throughout the day, the surface of the N2-atmosphere planet is at a lower temperature than the no-atmosphere planet. So, we have shown that Tn2Hi < (less than) TnoHi. And, the more N2 we have dumped, the greater will be that effect. HMMM!
After sunset, 6PM, the surface will receive no more sunshine, and will begin to cool. At this point, the N2-atmosphere will start to become warmer than the surface, so heat energy will begin to flow from the N2-atmosphere to the surface, Thus, throughout the night, the surface of the N2-atmosphere planet is at a higher temperature than the non-atmosphere planet. So, we have shown that Tn2Lo > (more than) TnoLo. And, the more N2 we have dumped, the greater will be that effect. HMMM!
It seems undeniably true that this N2-atmosphere has managed to store energy during the day and return it at night. That will moderate the temperature on the N2-atmosphere planet. It will not get as hot during the day nor as cold during the night. Now, L&K and “gravitational” advocates, please convince me that this temporary storage and return has increased the mean temperature of the planet. It seems to me that MEAN Tno = (exactly equal) MEAN Tn2. So, this aspect of the L&K argument (if indeed it is their contention and not simply that of some of their proponents), does not convince me (yet).
PS: As I said above, with financial malfeasance, FOLLOW THE MONEY. With Climate Science theories, FOLLOW THE ENERGY.
Gary Pearse says:
January 4, 2012 at 6:51 am
Thanks, Gary. To answer your questions:
1. Yes, all gases have heat capacity.
2. Yes, a denser gas has more heat capacity than a less dense gas.
But none of that warms the surface. On a rotating planet with a non-GHG atmosphere, the only way for the atmosphere to gain or lose energy is to/from the surface. During the day the surface heats the atmosphere. During the night, the atmosphere loses that same heat back to the surface. Once the system is in equilibrium, the amount gained and lost daily will be exactly equal. It has to be equal, or the atmosphere would continue to warm (or cool) indefinitely.
But that’s a zero sum game. Doesn’t matter about the atmospheric density. That just changes the amount of energy gained and lost daily. That makes no difference to the balance. At equilibrium, the amount gained still has to equal the amount lost.
w.
pochas says:
January 4, 2012 at 10:54 am
pochas, how about answering my question above then?
w.
The iceman cometh says:
January 4, 2012 at 8:12 am
“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…”
You are correct I should have caveated my “continually”. However, it will be the temperature of the tropics and will take years to reach equalibrium. Given an atmosphere of none radiation absorbing gases.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 4, 2012 at 10:16 am
“Then a perfectly transparent atmosphere, no GHGs, is added to that planet. You guys claim the surface will warm. I say no. I say no because if the surface warms, since the surface is is the only thing in the system that can absorb or emit radiation, it will be emitting more energy to space than it receives from its sun.”
Radiation depends on temperature at the surface. What is the surface? The surface of the planet? An effective surface at some altitude within the enclosing gas? What are the effects of the interface, the boundary between planet and atmosphere, which inserts a discontinuity into the equations? Which variables are continuous across the boundary, and which suddenly shift?
I think it is a kluge to apply the S-B equation for such a problem, and it is not the same as the idealized circumstances for which the equation is formulated. If the atmosphere is able to soak up energy from the surface, then total energy retained within the system has increased. The question is then, does that increase in retained energy increase the temperature of the surface? I believe it must. But, I do not think it is by much.
Stephen Wilde says:
Stephen, you are just flailing about here in a way that is particularly painful to watch. We are already accounting for the energy contained in the radiation when we talk about the incoming insolation in W/m^2 and the outgoing radiation in W/m^2.
I am reminded of the Rich Little sketch where Brinckley interviews Reagan and after Reagan explains in a long soliloquy how he will balance the budget by analogy to an apple pie, Brinckley responds something to the effect, “But, Mr. President, your pie has three halves and a real pie has only two halves.”
Ira Glickstein said:
“given GHGs in the Atmosphere, there is more radiation absorbed by the Surface than if there are no GHGs”
and
“Thus, even if non-radiative effects dominate (which is far from proven by N&Z and you), there will be some temperature effect, perhaps minor, of additional GHGs in the Atmosphere. Agreed?”
Not if the GHGs share their energy promptly with the non GHG molecules around them by collision and conduction there won’t.
The thing is that all the molecules appear to be at much the same ambient temperature at a given height whether they are GHGs or not so conduction is in command not radiation. Any radiation that is emitted downward by the GHGS is at no different a temperature than the temperature at which the conduction is operating so there is no temperature effect due to the different mechanism.
In fact the GHGs should have less effect on surface temperature than non GHGs because half of their radiated energy is going upward and out to space whereas ALL the energy of the same temperature non GHGs is going back down to the surface by conduction otherwise it has no means of escape (unless one does accept some radiative properties for non GHGs but that is a seperate issue)
Furthermore even the downward portion gets radiated out to space faster because it gets back to the surface faster and the surface then radiates it back up again whilst the conducted energy from the non GHGs is playing catchup.
Energy will always take the easiest route and with well mixed GHGs and non GHGs it appears that conduction and convection between individual molecules are favoured over radiation across distances such that the radiation has no greater power than the conduction process that it is competing with and probably has less because of the upward component.
Willis Eschenbach:
I am extremely disappointed in your answer to my post at January 4, 2012 at 2:20 am.
Your answer at January 4, 2012 at 10:16 am. completely ignores my point.
My post said and explained why;
“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.”
You have completely ignored that and its explanation.
Instead, you say;
“C’mon, guys, this should not be hard. Imagine a planet with no atmosphere. At equilibrium, it emits exactly the radiation it receives from its sun, whatever that might be.
Then a perfectly transparent atmosphere, no GHGs, is added to that planet. You guys claim the surface will warm. I say no.
I say no because if the surface warms, since the surface is is the only thing in the system that can absorb or emit radiation, it will be emitting more energy to space than it receives from its sun.
Where is that extra energy coming from?
How about somebody trying to ANSWER MY QUESTION, instead of answering a bunch of other stuff?”
I DID answer your question.
I explained that there is NO “extra energy” but there is an increase to the planet’s average surface temperature.
And I explained WHY there is no “extra energy”.
How about addressing my argument instead of ignoring it?
Years of interaction with you have led me to expect much, much better from you.
Richard
Stephen Wilde says:
January 4, 2012 at 10:48 am
“If a package of mass (say a photon) enters a gravitational field the field slows it down in the same way as an electrical resistor slows down an electric current. In the process the momentum of the photon is partially converted to kinetic energy (heat) just like the process that occurs within the element of an electric bar fire.”
Photons have no mass. Absent absorption in the atmosphere, they speed up, their paths get bent, and they get redshifted to balance everything out.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:02 am
“pochas, how about answering my question then?”
Sorry, Willis. I never should have made that comment. Any response would be futile.
“We are already accounting for the energy contained in the radiation when we talk about the incoming insolation in W/m^2 and the outgoing radiation in W/m^2”
Nothing I said is inconsistent with that.
The incoming shortwave that is converted to heat by the gravitational field ultimately leaves the system as longwave radiation to preserve the balance between insolation in and longwave radiation out with both being measured in W/m2.
Bart says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:06 am (Edit)
Of course the surface of the planet.
There are no GHGs, so there is no “effective surface”. There’s just the surface.
You are way over thinking it. None of that matters to my question.
We are discussing a thought experiment using idealized gases and surfaces. How is this not the “idealized circumstances for which the equation is formulated”?
Energy retained has increased … but we added atmosphere, so we added mass. As a result, no net surface temperature change.
Here’s the problem. Even if it is only by one watt/m2, your hypothesized surface temperature increase still ends up emitting more energy than it is absorbing, so my question is the same:
Where is your hypothetical additional energy coming from?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 4, 2012 at 10:59 am
“Once the system is in equilibrium, the amount gained and lost daily will be exactly equal. It has to be equal, or the atmosphere would continue to warm (or cool) indefinitely. “
The key phrase there being “Once the system is in equilibrium”. The question is, how is the equilibrium affected by the presence of an atmosphere?
Joel Shore says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:12 am
“But, Mr. President, your pie has three halves and a real pie has only two halves.”
But, the pie can be made bigger. Grow it 50%, and you will have three halves of the original pie.
“Stephen, you are just flailing about here in a way that is particularly painful to watch. “
If it pains you, don’t watch.
Bart says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:27 am
“…they speed up…”
Well, they accelerate, which is not the same thing.