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:
“What you haven’t shown is that an atmosphere can heat the planet, as Nikolov/Jelbring claim.
w.”
That is NOT what they claim (or SHOULD be claiming). They are just sayin’, as I have been for several years, that you simply CANNOT have an atmosphere with the properties of ours, unless it has enough energy to exhibit the properties that ours has. Sorry to be so vague, but I don’t know how else to explain it. You simply cannot have our system without the temperatures that we have, as provided by the Sun.
I know, no comprehendo….
If anyone knows where to find a better graph of actual measurements of radiative emissions, I would appreciate being directed to it.
dr.bill says:
>The momentum and energy of a particle are inextricably linked,
Certainly: KE = p^2/m
>and I mentioned neither IR nor vibrations.
But you should have. Thermal IR radiation from molecules comes from vibrations within the molecules. With no vibrations, there are no IR emissions. The speed/momemtum/KE of the molecule cannot directly produce thermal IR radiation.
>Where, for example, are molecular vibrations involved for the case of a
>monatomic gas (such as Argon)?
There ARE no molecular vibrations, which is exactly why they do not emit thermal radiation (in any appreciable quantities).
>Masses can gain or lose energy simply by gaining or losing ordinary speed.
>The gains and losses can involve radiation of any wavelength.
Only when there is a net charge involved. For example, accelerating electrons can produce synchrotron radiation, but accelerating neutral atoms would not. Neutral atoms in the atmosphere would not radiate when they accelerate.
>That’s how we measure the “temperature” of the cosmic background,
>a very long wavelength indeed, right?
The CMBR is indeed a rather long wavelength (compared to thermal IR at least), but I am not sure what your point is. Perhaps you can clarify.
Dr. Tim
oops — that should have been KE = p^2/2m of course.
Bart says:
Yes…There is reason t pick the surface: That is where the emission is coming from. The surface is nearly a blackbody emitter and hence it is emitting about 390 W/m^2. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, none of this 390 W/m^2 would be absorbed (also, the atmosphere would not be emitting greenhouse gases) and hence all of it would escape to space.
You are right that in an atmosphere WITH greenhouse gases, the total (spectrally-integrated) emission as seen from space behaves as if the emission is not from the surface but from some level up in the atmosphere where the temperature is about 255 K. Of course, in reality, what is happening is more complicated: The surface is still emitting about 390 W/m^2 but the atmosphere is absorbing most of that and then emitting some itself. That, as you note, is seen in the emission spectrum, which is not similar to that of a 255 K blackbody, but rather of a warmer blackbody with “bites” taken out of it.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Thanx Tim, at last an answer.
Just to be clear, the “box” is warmer than the “room”. Lets say the “room” is near absolute zero.
So what you are saying is the box painted with the Low Emissivity Paint (LEP) will end up being warmer than the box painted with the High Emissivity Paint (HEP) simply because the HEP will radiate away the warmth provided by the internal heater of the box quicker than the LEP would.
I agree with that. I wonder if anybody disagrees?
Tim Folkerts;
Agreed!
I used an extreme example to illustrate the issue, and I made a couple of mistakes along the way. Better would have been (using round numbers here just to simplify things) if I’d supposed insolation to be 1000 w/m2 after albedo, the scenario would look more like this:
“Average” insolation = 250 w/m2
“Average” insolation at tropics = 500 w/m2
“Peak” insolation at tropics = 1,000 w/m2
“Average” insolation at poles = 0
(because my pretend rock has no inclination to the orbital plain. Since it is MY make believe rock I can give it any inclination I want 😉 )
“Peak” insolation at poles = 0
This would provide for a power curve of “average” insolation of 250 w/m2 at the tropics that declines with altitude until you get to the poles where it is zero. It wouldn’t be a linear decline since my rock has a curved surface, but the exact power curve isn’t important in terms of understanding the concept.
However, “peak” insolation would be 1,000 w/m2 at the tropics, and decline to zero at the poles. This brings up a series of concepts. While the poles would obviously trend toward an equilibrium temperature of zero, calculating the equilibrium temperature of the tropics is not so straight forward. At night, insolation is zero, and so the tropics would cool toward zero at night. Assuming a 24 hour day, they’d never get anywhere near zero of course, the sun would rise long before that could happen. So what equilbrium temperature do the tropics tend toward in the day?
If we assume that P starts at zero, peaks at 1000 at noon, and then falls back to zero in evening, we could justify a rough estimate of 500 w/m2 average which would yield via SB Law an “average” temperature of 33.4 C. But for over half the daylight hours, insolation would actually be more than that. Briefly at noon, insolation would be at 1,000 w/m2 which would translate to 91.4 C. Of course it would never get to 91.4 C anymore than it would get to zero at night. The point being that the 250 w/m2 = -15.3 C is no more accurate than 500/33.4C or 1000/91.4 C. You’d have to integrate across the daylight curve to arrive at the equilibrium temperature for the tropics, and it would NOT be the same as what one would get by simply calculating from the “average” insolation.
With that in mind, let’s throw in an non absorbing non emitting atmosphere. What happens?
In my illustrative comment above, I invented some equilibrium temperatures at poles and tropics and tried to show what would happen if the processes of conduction and convection moved 50 w/m2 away from the tropics and to the poles. That’s not realistic of course. A better model would be that considerably more than 50 w/m2 would be removed from the tropics.
Again, just to illustrate the concept, I’m picking numbers here. Since the temperate zones and arctic zones are far cooler than the tropics simply due to angle of inclination to the sun, the atmosphere has little choice but to warm by conduction and convect. The warm air must rise, pulling cold air beneath it from the poles. The hot air rises to some height, then spill toward the poles.
Now we have a whole bunch of things happening at the same time. For starters, we can now suggest that the “average” temperature of the tropics themselves would be higher than without an atmosphere, and that not one single extra watt is required to accomplish that.
Since the atmosphere is warmed by conduction during the day, at night, it must give back by conduction. But because P varies with T^4, the number of degrees that the atmosphere “gives back” is greater than what what it took in the first place. The tropics have no choice but to warm the atmosphere, which then redistributes the energy absorbed in two ways. One is via convection which drives energy toward the poles, and the other is conduction BACK to the tropics as soon as night time temperatures fall below the temperature of the atmosphere.
So again, I’m making up rough numbers to illustrate the point that there is in fact a mechanism for a non absorbing, non emitting atmosphere to raise surface temps without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Suppose for argument’s sake that the atmosphere removes an average of 100 w/m2 from the tropics during the day. It must distribute that energy absorbed in two ways. Convection forces some energy to be distributed toward the poles, and the night/day cycle means that some gets sent back to the surface at night time. For illustrative purposes, let’s suppose that 25 w/m2 of the 100 w/m2 get redistributed via conduction back to the tropics when they cool off at night.
So… the target equilibrium P during the day for the tropics with no atmosphere might have been 500 w/mw, but with an atmosphere it is only 400 w/mw. From SB Law:
500 w/m2 = 33.4 C
400 w/m2 = 16.8 C
The atmosphere reduces the “target” equilibrium temperature by 16.6 degrees. But what happens at night when the atmosphere “gives back” via conduction, 25 w/m2?
0 w/m2 = -273 C
25 w/m2 = -128.1 C
See what happened? Moving 100 w/m2 away from the tropics during the day reduces the equilibrium target temperature by 16.6 degrees, but taking just 25% of those watts/m2 back at night increases the night time equilibrium temperature by a whopping 144.9 degrees! All we need do is average the tropics night time and day time equilibrium temperatures to see that a miniscule 25 watts moved by conduction via the atmosphere to the night time results in a massive temperature increase without any change in the energy balance at all. But I said the atmosphere would in this example move 100 w/m2 away from the tropics in day time, and I only sent 25 w/m2 to the night time, let’s figure in them other 75 watts.
Convection ensures that warm air moves toward the poles, heating the earth below via conductance. The night time “temperature boost” applies across all latitudes. The day time temperature boost is lowest in the south temperate zones, higher in the north temperate zones and highest (on a degrees per watt/m2 basis at least) in the arctic zones. Surface areas being different, angle of incidence varying, and so on, we can actually say that our remaining watts/m2 are going to be distributed in a fashion that adds up to 75w/m2. Unless of course my invented rock has surface area irregularities that result in this being the case. Since it is my rock that I invented, and I’m way too lazy to do the math properly, I’m going to go with that.
Suppose that our south temperate, north temperate, and arctic zones each get a 25 w/m2 boost from conduction from the atmosphere, and that the areas equal out such that the square meters match that of the tropics (I know, rather addly shaped rock, but just ignore that and stick with the arithmetic).
The night time temperature boost of all three zones (the target equilibrium temperature they would now tend toward, though they would be unlikely to actually get there before sunrise) would be plus 144.9 degrees. The 100 watts/m2 we liberated via conduction from the tropics in the first place only dropped the temperature of the tropics by 16.6 degrees!
The day time equilibrium temperature of the arctic (previously with zero insolation) would now also be higher by 144.9 degrees. The temperature boost in the temperate zones would depend on what their “average” temperature without an atmosphere would be. Let’s guestimate that the “average” P of the south temperate zones was 300 w/m2 and the north temperate zone 200 watts/m2, and that each get a boost of 25 w/m2 from conduction from the atmosphere.
300 w/m2 = -3.3 C
325 w/m2 = 2.2 C
“warming” = 5.5 degrees
200 w/m2 = -29.3 C
225 w/m2 = -22.0 C
“warming” = 7.3 degrees
So we now have a planet that fluctuates between day time warming and night time cooling. Each day the warming tends toward the equilibrium high, but never makes it before cooling sets in. Each night, the cooling tends toward the equilibrium low, but never makes it before sunrise and warming starts again. In return for reducing the day time equilibrium high of the tropics by just a few degrees, the night time low equilibrium point of the entire planet increases by over 100 degrees. The equilibrium day time highs of the south temperate, north temperate and arctic zones also increase, collectively “on average” more than what the tropics lost, even though the tropics lost 4 times as much in watts/m2 as the other zones gained.
I’m getting bleary eyed and I’m pretty certain I’ve got some messed up math in there on all sorts of issues, but I think by now the mechanism that everyone is screaming cannot exist without breaking the laws of thermodynamics, does in fact exist, and need not add or substract a single joule of energy from the system to still arrive at higher surface temperatures, and without emitting or absorbing a single photon.
Which has what to do with surface pressure? Glad someone asked. I’ve made up the numbers to illustrate how surface temperatures can be increased without adding or subtracting energy from the system. But how much conductance actually occurs for any given atmosphere.
Well, that’s dependant upon one thing. The density of the gas. Which is dependant upon…
mean surface pressure. Exactly how N&Z have said it.
Joel Shore;
What you have just shown is why the vast majority of climate scientists talk about the “surface temperature enhancement” being 33 K and not 133 K (as Nikolov et al say it is): Those scientists understand that you can get different values by having a different temperature distribution.>>>
Nope. What I have just shown is that the majority of climate scientists get +33K by starting with an “average” surface temperature calculated from an “average” insolation. By taking an “average” insolation of 240 w/m2, they get an “average” black body T of -18 C and an “average” surface T of +15 and conclude GHG’s account for +33. Nonsense!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AVERAGE T AGAINST WHICH TO DO SUCH A CALCULATION!
The ONLY way to caclulate is to take the average of T^4th of both scenarios. When you do that, you absolutely will get a number on the order of 133K!
You cannot advocate averaging T to calculate that number while still agreeing that P varies with T^4!!
If P varies with T to the 4th, then averaging T to calculate average P is good reason to have your degree revoked as it appears you didn’t make it past high school algebra.
Seriously Joel, do the arithmetic.
davidmhoffer:
You think wrong: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-climate-theory-may-confuse-cause-and-effect/#comment-853398
You have created a strawman of our arguments. The question is not whether you can change the average temperature without changing the power output by changing the temperature distribution. Everybody KNOWS you can do that. The question is whether you can ever find a temperature distribution such that the average temperature is above 255 K when the emitted power is 240 W/m^2. And, the answer to that question is NO.
Joel Shore says:
January 4, 2012 at 7:00 pm
“Yes…There is reason t pick the surface: That is where the emission is coming from.”
Uh-uh. The surface is in contact with the atmosphere. There is conduction and convection going on there at the interface. Ergo, it does not satisfy the requirements of a black body radiator with anything like the conditions for which the S-B equation was derived.
If you’re going to attempt such a kluge, the effective radiating surface has to be somewhere up above the solid surface.
Tim Folkerts, January 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm :
Tim: Regarding the microwave background, I made a too-hasty comment there, and I stand corrected. My mind was thinking of the 21cm line of Hydrogen, which is produced by neutral atoms, but my evil fingers got off on another tangent.
Regarding the rest: Any time two atoms or molecules collide, there is a short-lived change in the distribution of charge within the atoms, even in mono-atomic ones. This gives you the dipole or rotations or vibrations you’re looking for, and depending on the nature of the collision, can produce radiation with a wide variety of wavelengths.
The point that I have been trying to make is that you don’t need multi-atom molecules, nor rotational and vibrational modes, to produce radiation. I am, however, tired of flogging the whole thing, and it isn’t likely contributing anything useful to the discussion of Nikolov and Keller anyway.
/dr.bill
Bart says:
Are you under some misconception that the existence of conduction and convection at a surface changes the rate of radiative emission? The rate of emission is determined by the area of the surface, the temperature, and the emissivity. Whether or not there are other forms of heat transfer occurring is irrelevant.
davidmhoffer: You are getting bogged down in irrelevancies, probably because they are the only thing that can possibly save you fat this point. You can argue all day about how averages should or should not be done.
But, you are avoiding the substance: A surface of emissivity 1 that emits 240 W/m^2 cannot have an average temperature higher than 255 K…End of story.
Back in March Dave Springer and Tom Folkerts pointed me to an excellent book by Petty that included a few actual graphs based on measurements.
A link to the book and a few curves may be found at my posting on Emission Spectra . Scroll down to the following graphs:
Looking down from Space – Top of the Atmosphere from Satellite Over Tropical Pacific [Caption from Petty: Fig. 6.6: Example of an actual infrared emission spectrum observed by the Nimbus 4 satellite over a point in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Dashed curves represent blackbody radiances at the indicated temperatures in Kelvin. (IRIS data courtesy of the Goddard EOS Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) and instrument team leader Dr. Rudolf A. Hanel.)], and
Looking Up from the Surface – Bottom of the Atmosphere from Surface of Tropical Pacific (and, lower curve, from Alaska). [Caption from Petty: Fig. 8.1 Two examples of measured atmospheric emission spectra as seen from ground level looking up. Planck function curves corresponding to the approximate surface temperature in each case are superimposed (dashed lines). (Data courtesy of Robert Knutson, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.)]
Enjoy!
Joel Shore;
What you have just shown is why the vast majority of climate scientists talk about the “surface temperature enhancement” being 33 K>>>
What I have just shown is that calculating surface temperature enhancement from an average of T is mind bogglingly wrong.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
January 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Thanks, Ira!
Joel Shore says:
January 4, 2012 at 8:35 pm
“Are you under some misconception that the existence of conduction and convection at a surface changes the rate of radiative emission?… The rate of emission is determined by the area of the surface, the temperature, and the emissivity.”
I am under no misconception, but yes, it absolutely does. SB is an idealization. It is an expression for a volume with enclosing surface which has no way of dissipating energy other than radiation, and in which the energy states have settled out to a characteristic steady state distribution. When you start influencing those energy states externally, you change the distribution.
At best, SB serves only as an approximation for a surface which is capable of dissipating energy through other means than radiation. So, what surface are we talking about? One which substantially has only one outlet for energy dissipation, that outlet being purely radiative.
Calculating an equivalent flux based on temperature at the surface is a little like saying resistors in series must combine not by addition, but by the value of whichever one is closest to ground. Why? Because if you remove the others, the voltage across that one will be the source voltage, and since the voltage drop across the combination cannot be greater than the source voltage, the others can have no effect.
You can’t just wing these things. Formulas derived under specific conditions only hold precisely under those conditions, and approximately in conditions “near” those, and you have to verify whether it is “near” before you use it. I see no reason to believe that a surface through which massive non-radiative heat exchange is taking place would bear a close relationship with a formula derived under the assumption that there was no such outside influence.
The iceman cometh says:
January 4, 2012 at 9:45 pm
“I made the same mistake – but what happens in deep space to your box of gas is that the gas conducts heat to the box, and the box then cools by radiation.”
Are you responding to this?
dr.bill says:
January 4, 2012 at 8:31 pm
“Any time two atoms or molecules collide, there is a short-lived change in the distribution of charge within the atoms, even in mono-atomic ones. This gives you the dipole or rotations or vibrations you’re looking for, and depending on the nature of the collision, can produce radiation with a wide variety of wavelengths.”
Collisions do often produce radiation. That much is true.
Richard S Courtney says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:22 am
Richard, my bad. I couldn’t believe that you were seriously proposing that as the effect that either Jelbring or Nikolov were talking about, and not merely because they said nothing about it.
I couldn’t believe it because the effect you are talking about, although real, cannot warm a rotating planet even up to the blackbody temperature. Thus, there’s no possibility that it would warm a planet above the blackbody temperature..
For those not following it, here’s how it works. I’ll use day/night variations as an example. A planet with variations in temperature emits more radiation than a planet at the average of the daytime and night-time temperatures. This is because radiation varies as the fourth power of temperature (T^4), so increases in temperature have more effect than decreases. As a result, a planet with day/night temperature variations will run cooler than one without those variations. This, for example is the reason that the average temperature of the moon is so low—because the temperature swings are so great.
Richard’s point is that an atmosphere will serve to ameliorate the day/night variations. As a result, the average temperature of the planet will be slightly warmer than it would be without the atmosphere. And he is correct.
How big is the effect? Well, the maximum effect depends on the swings in temperature. The increase in radiation (in percent) from a temperature swing of plus/minus dT is equal to 6 * (dT/T)^2, where T is the average surface temperature (in kelvins) and dT is the amount of change up/down from that average. You can plug in the numbers.
In any case, Richard, thanks for raising that issue. However, it can’t be what Nikolov or Jelbring are talking about. At least as I understand it, they are discussing some mechanism by which a planet is warmed above its blackbody temperature.
The phenomenon you point to, on the other hand, can only warm a planet up to its blackbody temperature (in theory), and in practice cannot do even that, as the atmosphere cannot completely smooth out the day/night variations.
So it can’t be the phenomenon that Nikolov / Jelbring are discussing.
Thanks,
w.
Konrad says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Konrad, I’m still waiting for an explanation of how it is supposed to work. Until then, how can you possibly test it with an experiment? What will you test, what experiment can you possibly do, if you don’t know how the warming is supposed to occur?
w.
Joel Shore (Jan. 4, 2012 at 11:58 am):
The contention the 150 W/m^2 is “missing” without AGW is false. If you claim it is true, please supply logical proof.
The energy balance is such that (eneryg in = energy out + energy retained by the system). In the case of a planet wih atmosphere, or a dammed river, the (energy in = energy out) only when no charging or discharging is taking place.
Changes to an atmosphere can cause charging or discharging. Therefore the fact that a planet with atmosphere changes temperature compared to it’s black body equivalent seems reasonable. If a planet starts with no atmosphere, and slowly accumulates an atmosphere, then the charging or discharging of energy will continue until an equilibrium is reached.Clearly, changes to the atmosphere will cause changes to the energy flow as charging and discharging takes place.
A planet could emit more energy than it receives from the Sun in the sense of a discharge. It is of course stored energy that came from the Sun, but for a certain time the outgoing energy can be higher than the incoming, just as at one time the incoming was more than the outgoing. This charging and discharging is taking place every day and night, at most location of the Earth, and the average over 24 hours may be positive or negative. On a planetary scale, it would be suprising if this averaged out to zero over any timesacale. With the number of variables in the system, trends up and down have to be expected.
For me the only question is whether the CO2 increases of recent years can have any significant effect on the overall system.
Joel Shore:
Your post at January 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm is a ‘bait and switch’.
You and Willis each claimed that a planet would have the same temperature
(a) with no atmosphere
and
(b) with a transparent atmosphere.
I explained how and why addition of the transparent atmosphere DOES raise the planet’s temperature.
You now say to me;
“You are correct that the some of the 133 K deficit that Nikolov et al identified in Section 2.1A) of their paper is fictional in that you can get a higher surface temperature simply by moving heat around so that the surface temperature is more uniform.”
Good, you are now admitting the truth (instead of showering me with untrue insults as you did on the other thread); i.e. you now admit “you can get a higher surface temperature simply by moving heat around”.
So, I am right and you were wrong. But you then try to switch the subject saying (presumably of the real Earth);
“However, the highest temperature that can be obtained by doing this is 255 K, which is the temperature at which a spherical surface with a uniform surface temperature would be emitting ~240 W/m^2.”
In that case either your sums are wrong or you now need to address the question that you and Willis keep posing; viz.
“Where is the extra energy coming from?”
You are saying that
energy distribution in the atmosphere by radiation does raise the temperature above 255 K
but
energy distribution in the atmosphere by convection and conduction cannot raise the temperature above 255 K.
Please explain why.
Richard
Willis:
Thankyou for your reply to me that is at January 5, 2012 at 12:16 am.
Please see my reply to Joel Shore that is at January 5, 2012 at 2:35 am and especially its conclusion which says;
“In that case either your sums are wrong or you now need to address the question that you and Willis keep posing; viz.
“Where is the extra energy coming from?”
You are saying that
energy distribution in the atmosphere by radiation does raise the temperature above 255 K
but
energy distribution in the atmosphere by convection and conduction cannot raise the temperature above 255 K.
Please explain why.
Richard
Something to throw out there.
In terms radiation, there isn’t a huge difference between 10 meters under water and above the surface. You could have garden and grow plants from natural sunlight. This garden could be native underwater plants. Or you could make an artificial environment- a greenhouse that can withstand 14.7 psi of water pressure. It not a good idea- there much easy ways to farm. And light levels would be reduced. It might be easier to put 10 meter water above you on some land location.
And you could do the same thing on the Moon [put 10 meters of water above you]. On the Moon
the water would weigh less [1/6th of 14.7, so 2.45 psi]. And on the Moon this might even have some practical value. Such as one would have safe levels of radiation. You need air pressure more than 2.45 psi for animals including humans to breathe. Etc.
And In terms of radiation there isn’t a huge difference between being under 14.7 psi of atmosphere and being in space. The sunlight levels are lower and harmful radiation is reduced significantly. And difference in all respects between being on the surface earth and being on the Moon with 10 meter of water above you are slight. You could live underwater on the moon in similar manner that live under water on earth. Fish could not feel the the difference- they live in weightless environment on earth and would so on the Moon. If you had deep water on the Moon, it would technically be easier for human to function under water because there is less problems due to high water pressure. on the Moon a human in scuba gear could dive 1000 feet under water. Etc.
My point in terms of radiation you are in the space environment- the difference is. There is gravity on earth, and one is in air which conduct heat better then a vacuum. Without gravity or with less gravity, air has no or less bouyancy- this affects the transfer of heat.
That amount of technology that would not work because one lacks gravity, is somewhat large.
Your car could modified to work [in terms of the engine] but driving it wouldn’t work. A gas stove, water heat, or furnace wouldn’t work. Fire doesn’t work- Combustion can work but man’s first “invention” doesn’t work. A refrigerator needs modification- needs a fan to blow warm away from radiative tubing. Electrical devices would generally work. As does the natural technology of living creatures- at least in short term, less than a year. But living without gravity on permanent basis, can’t done at the moment. and affects of living on low gravity worlds are not known either. Bone loss is known problem of living long term without gravity.
Joel Shore said:
“Yes, to PRESSURIZE a system, you have to perform work, i.e., you have to input energy, and as a result the pressurized system has higher energy. However, the atmosphere of the Earth isn’t being pressurized.”
A gravitational field exerts constant force akin to the constant pressurisation of a container.
No one knows what gravity is, or how or why it occurs but it does.
In a sense a gravitational field is a breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics because it appears to create a force from nothing.
However its existence is well established and it is an integral part of Einstein’s equations which have never been falsified.
So, a gravitational field exerts a constant force on the mass within it so as to constantly alter the momentum of that mass (work) and heat energy is released via conversion of momentum to kinetic energy.
Thus it is that within a gravitational field mass acquires kinetic energy and heats up and the more mass that aggregates the stronger the gravitational field and the more heat develops.
It affects ALL mass within the gravitational field regardless of the thermal characteristics of individual molecules .
It is a density and pressure related production of heat and is completely separate from any radiative phenomena.
That is why planets with atmospheres are hotter than those without regardless of the composition of the atmospheres.
Radiative greenhouse effects may be imposed on top of that gravitatonal greenhouse effect but the equations and observations appear to show that the radiative component gets negated by negative system responses.
I should just add that the heat generated is dependent on continued energy input such as from a nearby star and the exit of that energy back to space needs to be slowed down by an atmosphere.. Otherwise the heat energy just dissipates to space straight away as with any lump of rock floating through space beyond the solar system.