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.
“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.”
Convection (and evaporation) affect the rate of radiative emission, because they change the temperature of the surface.
Richard asks
At the most fundamental level, the answer is that radiation can interact with the rest of the universe, but convection and conduction cannot. Radiation is NOT simply “energy distribution in the atmosphere” but it is ALSO “energy distribution to the rest of the universe”. That makes radiation have a much more dramatic effect on a planet’s overall temperatures than convection or conduction by themselves can.
Stephen Wilde says:
No…It is not a breach of thermodynamics. A gravitational field can do work on the system but conservation of energy still has to be obeyed. In order for the gravitational field to be a source of thermal energy, one would have to have a net reduction in gravitational potential energy….i.e., one would have to be converting gravitational potential energy into thermal energy. This can occur, for example, in a ball of gas undergoing gravitational collapse. However, we know this is not happening for the Earth and its atmosphere.
Furthermore, we know that the solution to our conundrum is not that there is a magical source of energy providing 150 W/m^2 because we know from satellite data that the Earth as seen from space is not emitting 390 W/m^2….It is only emitting about the same amount of power as it absorbs from the sun.
You are just floundering around, Stephen. Don’t you have any self-awareness of this?
Richard S Courtney says:
I never denied that. However, I always pointed to Holder’s Inequality as limiting the extent to which the temperature can be raised. And, it is you who showered me with insults for saying this.
davidmhoffer says:
Not a particularly new concept given that I said up-thread (in this or the other thread) that probably the best way to express things is by calculating the surface emission enhancement, i.e., the ratio of the amount that the surface emits to the amount that is being received by the Earth-atmosphere system from the sun.
However, you seem to think that Nikolov’s way of calculating the surface temperature enhancement is more correct…perhaps because it looks like he is averaging the power and not the temperature. However, what he is averaging is the local insolation at the surface, not the local power that the surface is EMITING due to its temperature. For a planet with almost no atmosphere at all and no liquid at the surface, there is little heat conduction or storage and hence the approximation that the local surface emission is equal to the local insolation is not bad. But, for a planet like Earth, as it current is, the approximation is a horribly bad one. The local emission bears very little relation to the local insolation and, in fact, a much better estimate of average temperature is obtained by just assuming that the temperature distribution is uniform.
Furthermore, Nikolov’s calculation leads one to assume that there is this huge surface enhancement of 133 K that needs to be explained. However, the fact of the matter is that we know the explanation for 100 K of it…I.e., we know that the explanation is simply that if you move heat around, the surface can still be emitting 240 W/m^2 from the surface when its temperature is 255 K. What we can’t explain, without invoking a greenhouse effect, is why the actual average surface temperature is 288 K (and the surface emission is ~390 W/m^2).
David, you are re-discovering things that nearly everyone else has already known and then coming up with incorrect and grandiose interpretations of what they say.
I love that this site challenges me to think and perhaps no one so much so as Willis. Thank you for that. I’m still struggling with how you could get a surface temperature increase in the absence of GHG. It also seems my thinking was wrong on radiation of energy by nitrogen so taking that into account I will throw out another conjecture….
With an atmosphere free planet (grey body) incoming shortwave radiation is partially reflected and partially converted to long wave radiation through the process of heating the surface. Temperature will increase until such time as the surface gets hot enough to create enough escaping long wave energy such that it, in combination with the reflected shortwave energy, matches the incoming shortwave energy. Equilibrium.
Stated more generally, any mismatch between incoming energy and outgoing energy creates an energy imbalance that will be made up by increased surface temperature which leads to increase in long wave out until balance is achieved.
With a GHG component in the atmosphere you have a mismatch in energies induced by the GHG. The GHG ‘captures’ some of the surface long wave, shoots it back to the surface. The surface heats up creating more long wave, etc. Temperature goes up, no magic required.
The Willis challenge is; how does a GHG free atmosphere cause surface temp to go up? For surface temp to go up it is only necessary for the system to prevent some of the absorbed incoming energy from leaving as long wave. In a nitrogen (only) atmosphere, nitrogen will be heated at the surface and since the energy ‘robbed’ from the surface by this conduction can’t then radiate (ever) it will migrate throughout the nitrogen column. Absent anything else happening this would go on forever (almost). There would always be theft by conduction, creating the radiative energy imbalance. Temperature would increase constantly until there was enough energy in that column to blast it off the planet.
Long before that happens though, something else happens. Weather! All that hot nitrogen would get busy moving around beyond its internal kinetic energy and as soon as it does, the kinetic energy of the system increases, limiting the amount of internal nitrogen energy.
So Willis, here’s what I would conjecture. Any kinetic energy (induced by incoming radiation) in a planetary system ‘robs’ energy from what would have been the planet’s long wave emission, resulting in increased surface temperature to re-balance things. I’ve never seen it mentioned here but it seems to me there is a huge amount of solar induced kinetic energy on earth. Ocean currents, ocean waves, ocean circulations, hurricanes, thunder storms, evaporation, wind everywhere, and warm atmosphere, all have kinetic energy that (as far as I’ve seen in energy budgets) is ignored.
What is the contribution of all this mass moving around to energy balance?
Paul Bahlin:
By coincidence, I was just reading the part of Ray Pierrehumbert’s textbook last night that made this comparison. And, the answer is that this contribution is quite small in comparison to thermal energies. After all, if you work out the thermal energies for the atmosphere, you’ll get speeds on the order of 500 m/s. This is very large in comparison to typical wind speeds. Even in a major hurricane, wind speeds we are talking about are maybe 45-70 m/s…and clearly averaged over the Earth as a whole, wind speeds are much less. And, kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity.
However, there are more problems with your conjecture. It is not an issue of how much energy is stored in this mass moving around. In order to fix the violation of Energy Conservation, you would have to propose that this contribution is continually decreasing with time!!!!
Furthermore, as I have noted, we know that in fact the Earth is not emitting 390 W/m^2 as seen from space. It is only emitting what it is absorbing from the sun. Hence, we know without a doubt from empirical measurements what the answer to our conundrum is: the atmosphere is absorbing some of the 390 W/m^2 that the Earth’s surface is emitting. We call this “the atmospheric greenhouse effect”.
David M Hoffer brought up some interesting points. We need conceptualized frictionless surfaces to understand Newton’s theory of motion even though there’s no such thing as a frictionless surface in the real world. Cars don’t stay in motion without burning extra gasoline, they gradually roll to a stop. Just as there’s no such thing as a frictionless surface in the real world, there’s no such thing as a blackbody, though we need to understand the concept to tackle real world problems.
A blackbody radiates away heat at the same rate that it is receiving heat.
A blackbody earth would have a temp of (1368/390.7)^0.25 * 288K= 394 K at the equator at noon, and a temp of about 2.7 K- the amount of radiation we get from the “big bang” at night.
As Mr Hoffer pointed out, an atmosphere reduces the day-night temperature difference through convection. The thicker the atmosphere, the less the tropics-poles difference in temperature and the less the day-night difference in temperature.
Some posters have stated that nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases, but this is like treating an icy surface as a frictionless surface. Just as there are no frictionless surfaces in the real world, there are no NON-greenhouse gases. EVERY gas will radiate in SOME frequencies,
In the case of Oxygen and Nitrogen, that radiation is insignificant in computing earth’s radiation balance, but it’s there.
In sum, a thicker atmosphere will increase surface temperature, though maybe only a small amount. More importantly, a thicker atmosphere will distribute equator-pole and day-night temperatures more equably
Since radiation is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, a surface with
constant temperature T will radiate away less energy than a surface with the same average
temperature distributed differently.
T^4 < 1/2(T+X)^4 + 1/2 (T-X)^4
That balancing out of temperature difference by a thicker atmosphere DOES have a greenhouse effect, lowering the loss of radiation to space.
Having said all that, the "Unified Climate" hypothesis is a case of curve fitting. You have only
3 independent cases, Earth, Titan , and Venus, and an equation
T= e (k1 e^X1 + k2 e^X2).
with only 3 independent data points, Earth, Titan, and Venus, you are GUARANTEED to be able to find a two part equation k1 e^X1 + K2e^X2 to fit that equation.
“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.”
Repeat your claim:
“A planet with variations in temperature emits more radiation than a planet at the average of the daytime and night-time temperatures.”
No, it doesn’t. That isn’t a rule.
The Moon with Bond albedo of 0.11 absorbs less energy than earth.
An airless world same size as earth with Bond albedo of 0.11 absorbs
less solar energy than earth does. It reflects less solar energy.
A world with same Bond albedo could have a difference of
how much solar energy is adsorbed.
One could make 100 meter square section on the Moon [or on earth]
absorb more solar energy than compared any other 100 meter square
section of land. And this section of land could the same Bond albedo
as average area.
Create a “natural lunar swimming pool”. Take a crater, coat surface so
waterproof- use a clear glue. Put clear lid on it- say 1 inch thick glass.
Fill it with cool water. All swimming pool to be in sunlight for 100 hours.
Lunar day is 28 days times 24 divide by 2= 336 hours, Therefore
100 hours is about 1/3 of a lunar day.
How warm will water be which started at say 10 C in 100 hours near
noon sunlight be?
So it’s 100 by 100 meter area and say 10 meters deep.
Look at one sq meter 10 meters deep. It receives 1300 watts of
sunlight and say absorbs at least 50% of that energy.
So 650 watts for 100 hours or 360,000 seconds
Which is 234 million joules
To warm one cubic meter of water 1 C requires 4.18 joules per gram
4180 joules per kg and 4.18 million joules per tonne- 10 tonne
41.8 million joules. And so after 100 hours I get water temperature
increase of 5.59 C.
Which was less than thought it would be, but anyhow. So my natural pool after
100 hours of sunlight is 10 plus 5.59 C or 15.59 C.
And natural terrain around it is somewhere around 100 C.
The swimming pool is obviously radiated less energy than the surround terrain-
and has less than Bond albedo of 0.11. Not because of it’s color but because it’s
radiating less energy.
Now, was counting only a 1/3rd of the day, let’s give it another 100 hours.
so it’s now, 11 C warmer than 10 C, so 21 C.
And of course by this time the surrounding terrain would still around 100 C.
The rest of the lunar day I would will not include- the sun’s is lower in morning and
lower toward evening, and who want to bother with the math. Sufficient to say the
total energy for be a bit more than the 200 hours- plus swimming would probably
absorb higher the 50% of the solar energy.
As the Sun goes down the lunar terrian temperature would drop significantly and after the sun goes down at some point the lunar will drop below the swimming pool’s temperature.
Because of it’s cool temperature, the swimming will warm less as sun goes down, and only start to cool went sunlight is fulled blocked [nighttime].
So beginning of nite the pool could be about 21 C. And as wild guess at same time, terrian could be 60 C.
The terrian will cool to 100 K during the long lunar nite.
The question is how cool would the swimming pool get?
How many watt per square meter will 21 C radiate into space.
One could make his more complicated by dealing heat loss of warming the ground around the swimming pool, but in way this has already been counted in the 50% efficiency of heating the pool- ground around it would have warmed. And because it’s such a large mass any of this cooling is rather insignificant. Or basically it is well insulated.
The most energy it could radiate is if it had emission of 1, if the swimming was a black body without energy being added. Some people may imagine it’s very close to a black body- it isn’t, but to kept everyone happy will think of it as a black body.
As black body it radiates, temperature in K.
Which is 294 K
Let’s get watts radiated for
294, and 283 [10 C the starting temperature]
So, 294 times 294 times 294 times 294 times .0000000567 [5.67 x 10 -8] is:
423 watts
And 283 is 363 watts
The average of 423 and 363 watts is 393 watts per square meter
Now I adsorbed 50% of solar energy of 2/3rd of lunar day
And will see what if radiate on average 393 watts for entire nite
Or 30% of of the intensity solar energy of 1300 watts per square meter.
1300 times .5 times 2 divide 3 is 433. Day: get 433 per watt and
for nite lose less than 393 watts. Resulting in water being warmer than it started.
So, that much water would not get cooler than 10 C and would get higher than
21 C – and this is assuming it radiated as a perfect emitter of radiation.
As swimming pool warmed over the years, it might reach say 26 C, but would
not get as cold as 10 C. Or the range of nite time low to daytime high could increase
from above 21 C to warmer than 10 C [11 C difference], it might be say around 12+ C
difference. If you increase the depth of the pool, you have less difference between
day and nite
But once it achieved this highest temperature, that swimming pool
would radiate the same amount energy on average as the rest of the planet.
A deeper pool would require longer to reach this state.
A shallower pool takes shorter time and has lower nite time temperature.
Extending this global over the moon- say pools depth being more than 10 meter deep.
One would get the temperature profile of earth- more than 15 C at tropics, cooler as one goes towards the poles. But more than half the Moon section near tropics: 80% of moon could have average temperature above 15 C. And radiate same energy as it does now.
Oh let’s do 100 C which daytime surface temperature:
373 K: which is 1097 watts per square meter. Since lunar can
higher than 100 C it’s absorbing around 20-30% of the solar energy.
Alan D McIntyre says:
Alan,
But here is the basic flow of what is being said:
Climate scientists: The Earth has a 33 K greenhouse effect.
Nikolov: No, if I make this (hokey) assumption about the temperature distribution, I see there is a 133 K surface enhancement.
Alan McIntire, David Hoffer: And, look, we can raise that average temperature up from what Nikolov has computed by moving energy around so that much less than the 133 K surface enhancement is actually attributable to the radiative greenhouse effect.
Joel, Willis, Tim, etc: Yes, if the surface is emitting 240 W/m^2, you can raise it up so that the surface temperature is 255K and hence the amount attributable to the radiative greenhouse effect is 33 K.
So, in other words, after going around and around on this, we have arrived back where we started: There is a temperature enhancement of 33 K that can’t be attributed to anything else except the radiative greenhouse effect.
By the way, to be fair, I should note that Nikolov’s assumption of the temperature distribution is hokey for the Earth. It is not hokey for planets with essentially no atmosphere. For those planets, the approximation that the local temperature is determined by the local insolation can be pretty good.
“A gravitational field can do work on the system but conservation of energy still has to be obeyed. In order for the gravitational field to be a source of thermal energy, one would have to have a net reduction in gravitational potential energy….i.e., one would have to be converting gravitational potential energy into thermal energy.”
There is no need to convert gravitational energy into anything. The gravitational field causes a slowing down of the photons that enter the gravitational field of the planet and the energy released by that loss of momentum is converted into kinetic energy with no breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The force of the gravitational field is just there as a fact and as a constant. It doesn’t change unless one changes the amount of mass within it.
In this case we are concerned about the kinetic energy of each individual molecule of the atmosphere not the kinetic energy involved say in a gust of wind.
Joel:
How about ocean currents? Gulf stream alone in the Florida Straits moves sea water at the rate of 30 million cubic metres per second at about 6 KmH. That’s a lot of KE. Where does it come from? Is KE included in the LW radiation budget somehow? How about the Pacific Gyre? Lots of water there too. How about the water in the Amazon river? It seems to me there are boat loads of KE floating around that are utterly ignored in energy budgets.
All the fluids in our system are moving as a result of the solar insolation aren’t they? How does energy get conserved when taking these energies into account.
Which emits more long wave energy, a resting bar of steel at 288K or the same bar at 288K moving at 100 m/s? Which one has more kinetic energy?
“How about ocean currents?” Yes, and how about tropical cyclones. Take a little one, say 5km radius with a 0.5km eye and winds accelerated to 120km/h before rising to 1km. It dissipates energy at something like 250TW even without taking the latent heat of water into account. Now do the same calculation for a Katrina, and you soon discover where some of the energy goes!
Tim Folkerts said:
“At the most fundamental level, the answer is that radiation can interact with the rest of the universe,”
Yes, but the reaction of the universe to the radiation flowing around and through it is via gravity.
There are two varieties of radiative process being conflated here.
The gravitational greenhouse effect is also radiative at base because it involves an interaction between solar photons and molecules held within a gravitational field.
In my view it is the gravitational process that is the cause of the atmosphere being warmer than it otherwise ‘should’ be.
The evidence is that Nikolov’s calculations have predictive skill without including a factor for the GHG induced radiative effect.
The iceman cometh says:
January 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm
“Nitrogen or oxygen or argon or other symmetrical diatomic gases really do not emit. Read Phil’s post on the subject – I cannot express it better. It came as a surprise to me, but they are as absolutely transparent to radiation as you could wish. And what doesn’t absorb cannot emit (Kirchoff). So my hypothetical planet which suddenly acquires a nitrogen atmosphere will only lose heat by radiation once it is equilibrated with its new atmosphere, and its new atmosphere will not lose heat by radiation. Hope that helps.”
I am reasonably sure that Nitrogen and Oxygen do not have an emissity of 0, but let’s assume they do just so I can follow your logic here. Given a completely nitrogen atmosphere then and a surface temperature of T, the surface will heat the air to T correct? Regardless of the processes involved you can’t heat to something more than T by using convection and conduction with a surface of temperature T. Further, if the atmosphere doesn’t radiate at all, how does it ever lose energy?
Cheers, 🙂
Hi, shawnet
“I am reasonably sure that Nitrogen and Oxygen do not have an emissity of 0, but let’s assume they do just so I can follow your logic here. Given a completely nitrogen atmosphere then and a surface temperature of T, the surface will heat the air to T correct? Regardless of the processes involved you can’t heat to something more than T by using convection and conduction with a surface of temperature T. Further, if the atmosphere doesn’t radiate at all, how does it ever lose energy?”
Answering one by one:
1) I have really looked hard at the N2/O2 story, and on absolutely fundamental grounds I can assure you their emissivity is so low as to be negligible.
2) Yes, the surface and the ‘new’ atmosphere in the thought experiment I proposed will equilibrate and reach the same temperature, although heating up the new atmosphere will draw some energy from the surface, so initially the surface will be <T
3) Eventually both the planet and the atmosphere will reach T (and realize we are talking averages here – I don't want to wander into diurnal/seasonal/equatorial-polar stories at this juncture, to keep it simple). If at any stage the atmosphere needs to lose heat, the process will reverse – it will heat the planet, and the planet will do the radiation.
Happy?
Stephen Wilde says:
Frankly, this is nonsense. You can’t get more energy from the photons than the energy that they have, which we are already accounting for. [Besides which, the general relativistic effect of a gravitational field such as the Earth’s on the wavelength of the photons is miniscule.]
Moreover, we know your answer is incorrect because we know for the fact that the Earth is emitting 240 W/m^2 as seen from space. It is only the surface that is emitting 390 W/m^2.
No…They do not have predictive skill. They are a 5-parameter fit and there is good reason to believe that in general the surface pressure enhancement will be positively correlated with surface pressure for the following three reasons:
(1) Pressure causes a broadening of the absorption lines of the greenhouse gases, increasing the greenhouse effect.
(2) Atmospheres with higher surface pressure have more of all substances that they consist of…and hence will tend to have a larger amount of greenhouse gases if any significant proportion of the atmospheric constituents are greenhouse gases.
(3) Since Nikolov has chosen to measure surface temperature enhancement by considering T_sb to be determined by the approximation that the local insolation determines the local temperature (no heat flow or storage), most of the “surface temperature enhancement” will occur due to the fact that larger atmospheric pressures means that the atmosphere will have more heat flow and heat storage in it. For example, Nikolov says the Earth’s temperature is enhanced by 133 K but we in fact know that the greenhouse effect only is responsible for 33 K. The other 100 K comes from the more uniform temperature distribution that results when one has a significant atmosphere and is most certainly correlated with pressure. In fact, of the 8 bodies considered, I think that the “surface temperature enhancement” only has any significant component due to the greenhouse effect in 3 of them (Earth, Triton, and Venus) and probably only in Venus is it the dominant component of the so-called “surface temperature enhancement”.
I hadn’t mentioned (3) before but in fact it is probably the most important reasons why there is a strong correlation between surface pressure and “surface temperature enhancement” defined as Nikolov has defined it.
Sorry, that should have been Titan, not Triton, in my last post.
Life would be so much easier if we started using the term “effective temperature” instead of “average temperature.
The effective temperature of a body such as a star or planet is the temperature of a black body of the same size that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation. The effective temperature of the earth is T(Eff) ~ 255 K. End of story.
***************************************
A vital point is to realize what “surface” we are discussing. Specifically, “surface” in this case means “those parts of the planet that emit radiation to space”. For the non-GHG atmosphere, the “surface” will always be ground level (or sea level). There is nothing at higher altitudes that can radiate (to any significant degree). So T(Eff) for the ground level will be 255 K. (and the “average temperature” at ground level would necessarily be below 255 K).
But when we add a GHG atmosphere, then part of the “surface” is several km up in the atmosphere because part of the emitted radiation comes from there. The “average altitude of the radiating surface” will clearly be somewhere above the ground level. This fact, along with the lapse rate, allows average temperature at “ground level” to be above the “effective temperature”
Tim Folkerts and Joel Shore:
Joel Shore and Willis Eschenbach had each claimed a planet would have the same temperature
(a) with no atmosphere
and
(b) with a transparent atmosphere.
After much effort I finally managed to get them to admit they were wrong.
But Joel Shore then tried to change the subject by saying;
“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.”
And I replied saying:
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?”I then asked them:
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.
The answers I have obtained so far are from Tim Folkerts and Joel Shore.
Tim says at January 5, 2012 at 5:15 am:
“At the most fundamental level, the answer is that radiation can interact with the rest of the universe, but convection and conduction cannot. Radiation is NOT simply “energy distribution in the atmosphere” but it is ALSO “energy distribution to the rest of the universe”. That makes radiation have a much more dramatic effect on a planet’s overall temperatures than convection or conduction by themselves can.”
And Joel says at January 5, 2012 at 5:32 am:
In the case of our current Earth, we have the surface at a temperature where it is emitting 390 W/m^2, which is considerably more than it receives from the sun. The reason radiation is the only solution is that the ONLY way this can be happening is if something in that atmosphere absorbs some of the 390 W/m^2, preventing it all from going out into space.
On a more philosophical “big picture” level: Convection and conduction move heat around within the earth-atmosphere system. It is only radiatively the system communicates with the rest of the universe. So, indeed, radiation is special in that way.”
OK, taking the point that you both present first, your comment that “It is only radiatively the system communicates with the rest of the universe” is meaningless verbiage that explains nothing (unless you are saying astrology applies).
And Joel Shore again demonstrates his prejudice when he writes:
“The reason radiation is the only solution is that the ONLY way this can be happening is if something in that atmosphere absorbs some of the 390 W/m^2, preventing it all from going out into space.”
No!
It is the “ONLY” way Joel Shore is willing to consider.
The radiative GHE warms the lowest part of the atmosphere (almost all the IR from the surface that O2 and H2O can absorb is absorbed in the lowest 100m of the atmosphere). This warming of the atmosphere in contact with the surface inhibits heat loss from the surface (by radiation, and – more importantly – evaporation and convection).
But the conductive/convective GHE also warms the atmosphere near the surface and, therefore, raises the surface temperature for the same reason as the radiative GHE (but not as much).
Simply,
1.
I have managed to get Joel Shore to admit horizontal atmospheric heat transfer changes a planets average temperature and
2.
I now have to get him to renounce astrology and admit vertical atmospheric heat transfer changes a planets average temperature.
Richard
OOps That should have been
“CO2 and H2O”
not “O2 and H2O”.
Sorry,
Richard
As a conservative process, gravity cannot heat things up. It can and would only influence energy flow by retaining energetic particles. It can pull energetic particles in so that they will collide with other particles which it has trapped, exchanging energy which is then retained in the system.
I am wavering a little. My discussion with Joel re the alteration of the energy distribution of the planetary surface via conduction and convection has led me to question, what if the energy distribution is altered such that it just happens to dip in (particularly) the H2O region of the spectrum? Is it possible that water laden air would tend to affect these particular energy states preferentially? And, is it possible that gap in outgoing radiation, rather than being wholly intercepted on the way out, is in fact broadcast at a lower level from the surface ab initio? How would we know? Do we have any data measuring emission at different altitudes, and seeing where the gap starts to grow?
“Oh let’s do 100 C which daytime surface temperature:
373 K: which is 1097 watts per square meter. Since lunar can
higher than 100 C it’s absorbing around 20-30% of the solar energy.”
What is highest temperature at earth distance and 1361 watts per square
meter as indicated using calculation of Stefan–Boltzmann constant?
Seems like interesting trivia question. Who knows the answer
without first doing the calculations?
I don’t, but nice to know, so,,, the answer is..
well got to be higher than 100 C or 373.
400 K is 1451.5 watts per sq meter
Now 1361 is average solar energy, it swings from 1.321 kW to
1.412 kW/m.
So sun never at earth distance cause something to heat up
more than 400 K [127 C or 261 F] anywhere within 1 million km
of earth from sunlight and without reflector or lens to amplify
the sunlight. It needs to more than 1451.5 watts per square and
it isn’t.
395 K is 1380 watts per square meter. And so 395 K is possible
according to Stefan–Boltzmann constant if not in earth atmosphere
and when sun is strongest.
390 K is 1311.7 watts sq/meter.
In Earth atmosphere generally the most one can get is 1000 watts.
That is a rough number- clear day, sun at noon. But with different
conditions and locations would could get higher.
It wouldn’t impossible to get say, 1050 watts per meter.
And so 370 K is 1062 watts
370 being 97 C or 207 F
Since one needs about 180 F to fry eggs, it should possible to
fry eggs on a sidewalk.
360 K being 180 K and 80 C
Which is 952 watts per sq/m
Let’s see you need something with low emissivity.
Concrete has 0.85-0.95
and silver has 0.02
According to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emissivity
And mild steel has 0.12
Different place:
Stainless Steel, polished 0.075
Silver Polished 0.02 – 0.03
Aluminum Highly Polished 0.039 – 0.057
Gold not polished 0.47
Gold polished 0.025
Copper Polished 0.023 – 0.052
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
I’m thinking copper or silver, because they conduct heat well- or gold, but
silver or gold fairly costly. And easiest would copper pot upside down.
Obviously using reflectors is cheating.
Let’s see if temperature was 165 F 347 K it could not work, so
350 K is only 850 Watts per sq/m
So:
somewhere around 1062 watts is most one could expect: 207 F
952 watts per sq/m give max of 180 F
850 Watts give no chance- but getting more than 850 should any day in summer.
Hmm
JOEL SHORE
1. Do not draw the conversation into snarky witticisms. You are poorly equipped to compete with me in that regard. My mother taught me not to fight an unarmed man, but I think she will make an exception in this case. I suggest you stick to science.
2. There is no need to demonstrate a mechanism by which the average surface temperature of earth could exceed the black body temperature of earth. All that is required to support N&Z’s hypothesis is to demonstrate that there is a mechanism by which the average surface temperature of a planet could be increased by the presence of a non radiative atmosphere WITHOUT changing the EFFECTIVE black body temperature odf the planet. Not only I have I done so, but I have done so in language that should be comprehensible to anyone who passed high school algebra.
3. Your suggestion to Ned Nikolov that he should give his head a shake because the consensus amongst climate scientists is in disagreement with him is spurious. The fact that his writings have sparked spirited and intense debate in this and other forums amongst highly qualified scientists with PhD’s in a variety of directly and indirectly related fields while all we hear from the climate “scientists” is the sweetness and harmony of consensus should give you pause.
4. Your contention that Ned Nikolov’s background in forestry somehow undermines his credibility is egregious. If you cannot discredit him through science alone, then it matters not if his education ended with a hundred PhD’s or if he quit school in grade 2.
5. If you continue to contend that Ned Nikolov’s background in forestry discredits his opinion on climate issues, then I ask that you stick to your position and publicly ask Mssrs Briffa, Mann and Jones to withdraw their work on global temparature reconstructions from tree ring data on the basis that they have no background in forestry.
Regards,
dmh
Richard S Courtney
Just wanted to say that you’ve clearly backed Joel Shore into a corner, just as you said in your last comment. He’s gone from refuting the need to average T^4 instead of T to claiming that “everyone knew that” and attempting some mental gymnastics to claim that there needs to be some mechanism to raise earth surface temperature higher than the black body temperature to support N&Z. Since he cannot refute what amounts to high school algebra, he’s asserted a need to prove something that not only could not be proven, actually has nothing to do with the issue at hand!
Going back to my bucket of gravel analogy, we’ve been asked to determine the weight of the gravel. Joel Shore et all seem determined to take a sample of the gravel, determine the distribution of sand, pebbles, and rocks in the sample, calculate the expected values for settling of the various components when poured into the bucket, and then extrapolating to arrive at an estimate of the weight of the gravel.
N&Z have simply weighed the bucket with the gravel in it, poured the gravel out, and weighed the bucket, then subtracted that from the weight of the bucket with the gravel in it.
Joel Shore now wants to persuade the rest of us that their results cannot be correct unless they can show a mechanism by which the potential weight of the gravel could exceed the capacity of the bucket! (and yes Joel, that is EXACTLY what you are demanding!)
Tim Folkerts
I like your idea of referring to “effective” temperature instead of “average” temperature! Unfortunately the casual reader would be completely lost by that referance and would most likely simply interpret it as “average” unless a concise definition was easily available.
MODS ~ this and the other threads are getting WAY too long. Loading a single new comment takes an extraordinary amount of time. Could we perhaps write lock the threads where this discussion (war?) is taking place and start a new thread that is the consolidated continuation of the rest of the threads?
willis
the energy to give the molecules more kinetic energy in the lower atmosphere does not come from the earths surface now i have read the post again it comes from the sunlight before it reaches the earths surface,it could be that this energy is accounted for in the Earths radiation budget and energy in equals energy out , a planet with no greenhouse gases would still have a warmer lower atmosphere though.