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.
“Do you mean the mass of the atmosphere rather than the gravitational field? ”
Sorry, yes. Getting tired.
The solar radiation reacting with matter held within a gravitational field slows down the transmission of energy through the planetary atmosphere generating heat from momentum in the process.
I said previously that this is very old knowledge for me and my terms of expression are a bit rusty but the principles are clear and were once well known.
“and gas pressure is meaningless outside of PVT=PVT. raising p does not raise t.”
Hmm. I seem to recall Nikolov saying that temperature causes the increase in density at the surface but not sure so I’ll look into that.
It would make sense if the temperature rises first from the gravitational effect.
It would be heat released first then pressure increase from the greater kinetic energy in the molecules inside the same volume then a bit of atmospheric expansion but not enough to exactly compensate for the energy increase because the gravitational field would act against the expansion thus density would remain higher than before.
That could do it.
Stephen Wilde:
“Remember that a non GHG atmosphere cannot radiate out.
If one introduces GHG molecules then suddenly it can radiate out.”
Even assuming that there is an atmosphere that cannot radiate out, the surface would still have to radiate out. However, when the atmosphere contains GHG energy hits the surfaces and radiates bouncing back down to the surface and then slowly making its way in 5 steps forward – four steps back type fashion effectively slowing down the amount of time energy stays in the atmosphere. The net effect is 0 (from a certain POV) – the total energy in = the total energy out.
“The solar radiation reacting with matter held within a gravitational field slows down the transmission of energy through the planetary atmosphere generating heat from momentum in the process.”
This is interesting. Are you talking about blueshifting here?
Cheers, 🙂
Phil. says:
January 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm
“It heats up to a maximum of Ts,day during the day and is cooled by the surface to Ts,night during the night.”
Ok, I agree that this will have a slight increasing effect on temperatures. If the solar heating goes on in a non-emitting atmosphere, there will be warming phases (during the day or in the spring/summer) and cooling ones(at night or in the fall/winter). In warming phases some of the solar energy goes into heating the environment (either the air, ground or water) and in cool ones some of the energy from the environment goes into the surface. This will tend to produce more uniform temperatures and a higher overall average temperature. However, this won’t get us to the 33K difference in Earth temps.
Cheers, 🙂
I have been convinced that for a planet surface to warm above the incoming solar energy value it must have an effective temperature at some elevation above the surface. Otherwise, you run into the problem Willis put forth.
However, if we ignore the GHG-less planet for a moment, why does the interchange of energy have to be through radiation? If the lapse rate is what causes the temperature differential then could gravity itself be a bigger part of the size of that differential? IOW, while you need GHGs to create the altitude of the effective temperature, they may not be cause of the surface temperature which is due to the lapse rate. In addition, that height may not vary significantly with changes in GHG concentration once “enough” GHGs are present.
There are all kinds of possible contributors to the lapse rate including conduction, convection and radiation. But, what if they are all small potatoes compared to gravity?
This would mean the effective radiation altitude would be almost completely independent of the amount of GHGs (as long as you have “enough”). It could be another way of thinking about Miskolczi’s ideas of a constant optical depth as well. That is, the density of the atmosphere controls the effective radiation height, not the amount of GHGs.
Just some food for thought …
Stephen says:
Well, I’ll give you 50% credit on that one, since you are half right: That is indeed (at least more or less) the reason why GHGs have zero net effect as per the Nikolov Equations: if you set convection so that it drives the atmosphere to an isothermal state with height then indeed that is exactly what you get, i.e., a net effect of zero on the surface temperature.
Alas, in the real world, convection only drives the atmospheric temperature to the adiabatic lapse rate. With an atmospheric temperature that decreases with height, the greenhouse effect is not canceled out.
Bob Ferley-Jones:
Yes, because it is much better to arrogantly think that you know more than all the scientists in the field. It allows you to come up with the sort of brilliant insights that we see from Nikolov and Stephen Wilde. Whole new avenues of physics open up when you don’t need to worry about silly distracting details like energy conservation!
gnomish says:
January 5, 2012 at 3:39 pm
if you are talking about a solid, then density has nothing to do wth temperature.
if you are talking about a liquid, then density has nothing to do with temperature.
>
I haven’t read all pertinent comments around your statement on density but be careful making such absolute statements. You must have meant P0V0T1=P1V1T0 and of course density has to do with temperature in a gravitational environment, but as compared to gases, that relationship is many magnitudes smaller, without digging I’d guess 4 to 5 or more. Those only manifest in solids and liquids at the planetary of stellar scale but they are there.
What all of this is saying is in a local lab or on the international space station all unperturbed volumes of matter has a constant relationship with space (meters) of locality. Not so of locality across a varying gravitational field as you go deeper and deeper into or out of a gravity well. If going into the potential energy will convert to kinetic and that increase in temperature WILL NOT, I repeat WILL NOT, go away without some OTHER cooler matter lowering its energy back to what it had further outside the gravity well. Don’t think that the increase in temperature is going to magically change by itself. Another good way to look at this is by keeping perfect account of the energy DENSITY within the matter under observation. An even better way is to track the mean molecular velocity of the molecules, for that is one aspect that does not change as you move in or out of a gravity well, the density does, the pressure does, but not the mean molecular velocity. Thermodynamics usually does not delve into that aspect directly. That’s the problem in current climate science in a nut shell.
pressure is an attribute, not a force. pressure is a static observational measure, not a cause.
now if you meant to say compression – that would actually be decipherable. i mean to say, you aren’t even using english properly – the definitions of the terms you are using are completely disregarded, context is dropped, cause and effect are reversed, imaginary forces are conjured.
well, don’t worry about the monster under your bed. i have a fresh can of Nouminex – guaranteed to exterminate all noumenal entities, social shibboleths and platonic essences like pressure heat, warmcold, co2 pollution.
language is your tool of cognition – for thinking,. sloppy tools make sloppy jobs.
one is not doing thinking if the words one uses have no precise definitions. one is not even speaking – one is barking. u can’t make a sense pie with mud. don’t be surprised it’s gritty.
I am so glad many here are getting acclimated to astrophysics at the planetary level, gravity, gravity, gravity… after all, it does affect our atmosphere. Having problems making the jump? GOOD! I had problems acclimating from astrophysics to climate and atmospheric physics… so here it is right back! ☺
Our new theme song… GRAVITY! (John Mayer)
Stephen Wilde says: “I just realised why …”
I admire your tenacity and imagination, and your new “half up + half down = net effect of zero” hypothesis is interesting (but wrong for many reasons).
Brilliant new ideas certainly do happen in science. But usually these insights happen to well-educated, highly intelligent, exceptionally well trained individuals. It reminds me of a quote from Louis Pasteur: “Chance favors the prepared mind.”
And another quote that pops to mind is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. You are making the extraordinary claim that thousands of trained scientist are wrong and that an idea that you “just realized” is the mistake they have all been making for 100+ years.
Set up even the simplest thought experiment you can where one “introduces GHG molecules”. Show how much energy is transferred to and from the ground-level/sun/space/atmosphere both before and after this introduction.
Until you can provide even “ordinary evidence”, will follow David Hume’s advice: “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence”.
Ha:
“Willis Eschenbach says:
January 5, 2012 at 12:24 am
Konrad says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 3, 2012 at 3:57 pm
“Couldn’t disagree more. First I need a crystal clear explanation of what you call “the mechanism”. Only then can I design an experiment to determine if said mechanism works”
>600 comments on this thread alone and the issue is still unresolved. This is why empirical experiments are required. Forget “crystal clear explanations”, it clearly time to get some IR transparent pressure vessels, sunlight, thermometers and a compressed air source and start testing.
I say that my initial tests indicate that Nikolov and Zeller may be correct. For those saying they are incorrect my simple question is –
“What empirical experiments have you conducted?”
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.
LOL, Willis, you are going to be called a “truther,” or something, if you keep this up.
These discussions again show that we have gone absolutely nowhere for 4-5 years now. Joel and the other AGW fanatic ilk pushes the same completely unproven, undocumented nonsense, as always. Too bad they are losing the fight, big time!
The “experiment” is actually ongoing, consistent, and easy to understand, as I have been saying for those 4-5 years:
IF the “radiative greenhouse effect” actually had some credibility, THEN peak temperatures in Miami would be hotter than peak temperatures in Phoenix during the year, since Miami has 4-5 times as much “GHGs” as Phoenix (same latitude and elevation, those sites). But the EMPIRICAL FACTS agree that even on a perfectly clear day in Miami, the temperatures get nowhere near those on a clear day in Phoenix (Same at night, BTW; please don’t fall for the “cold desert night” crap).**
The “atmospheric radiation GHE” is now dead, not only because of physical considerations, but because of observations.
Of course, another observation is that the temperature of the Planet is not increasing, despite ever increasing levels of the terrible GHG, OCO!
**I used to be able to link to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s repository for these data to prove my point, but, FOR SOME REASON, I cannot find it anymore. Hmmm.
Taking my previous comment and applying it to the N/Z proposal leads to an interesting thought. Since all the planets they viewed had “enough” GHGs to kick start the lifting of the effective radiation height, you would be able to compute the temperature from only the factors they used.
Essentially, the composition of the atmosphere is only relevant to a certain point and then the IDL takes over.
Here is the closest I can come to the data now: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/HTML/redbook_HTML_index.html
Notice that you cannot access the actual data any more. Can someone help?
“I admire your tenacity and imagination, and your new “half up + half down = net effect of zero” hypothesis is interesting (but wrong for many reasons). ”
I haven’t seen anyone offer a hypothesis on this thread. Instead we talking about Nikolov hypothesis. And btw we promised a more complete version which is apparently forthcoming.
What is wrong about “half up + half down” is the greenhouse gas doesn’t cause the surface to emit IR.
But if IR is emitted from collision with a gases which don’t emit [or emit less], then however much that is going on, means to that extent that those greenhouse gases are causing cooling- “half up + half down”. Though if these collision are occuring higher in atmosphere- say above 1/2 the atmosphere or +5 km, then more than 1/2 of energy is going into space.
But in general I don’t think any vibrating molecules are dealing with much energy. CO2 in the atmosphere is about meter pure CO2 at 14.7 psi. We suppose to believe a weak amount energy- 400 watts per square- is going that somehow “powerfully” excite a cubic meter worth of CO2 [or about 1-2 kg of the stuff per sq meter of earth entire surface].
I believe there may be an error in your thinking. You seem to believe that ALL the radiation from earth leaves via the greenhouse gases. There is a large window from about 14 to about 8microns where most of the radiation from the surface of the earth passes straight to space, and that is where we discharge most of the incoming energy that reaches the surface. Hope that helps!
JAE,
No one is claiming the GHGs are the ONLY factor. You could perhaps argue that it is “dead” as the primary factor, but that is a far cry from your (apparent) claim that it is not a factor at all.
PS I assume you mean Atlanta, not Miami. Even then,
1) Atlanta is considerably lower elevation. It appears the highest spot in Atlanta is still below the lowest spot in Phoenix
1) there are many OTHER factors in play besides GHGs (like cloud cover) that are significantly different. Simply finding two factors that happen to be the same does not make all other important factors the same.
2) it is not simply the amount of GHGs, but the location and the mixture of GHGs that matter.
PPS “Same at night, BTW; please don’t fall for the “cold desert night” crap)”. Data here http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Georgia/Atlanta/ and here http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Arizona/Phoenix/ shows that the difference between monthly average highs and monthly average lows is consistently greater in Phoenix (21 to 23 F) than in Atlanta (18 to 20 F), refuting your claim that Phoenix does not cool more at night.
Also http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcolddesert.htm and http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_cold_in_the_desert_at_night and the personal experience of many readers.
So everyone, please don’t fall for the “please don’t fall for the ‘cold desert night’ crap)” crap.
Typo …. Obviously the Ideal Gas Law should IGL.
Now, is there a physical reason the IGL should set a limit on the greenhouse house effect? Maybe some of you physicists can help me out.
Stephen Wilde, you are correct. The non-GHG atmosphere, in and of itself cannot radiate out. RIGHT! All it can do in the energy economy is exchange energy with the surface by conduction. The surface below a non-GHG atmosphere can and will radiate to Space without obstruction (in accordance with surface temperature per SB) with absolutely no restrictions. The surface can also, without obstruction, receive and absorb radiative energy coming through the non-GHG atmosphere from the Sun.
If energy was money, Mr. Sun passes dollar bills freely through Ms. Atmosphere to Mr. Surface. Mr. Surface, being kept totally honest by his accountant Stefan Boltzmann, passes an exactly equal amount of coins back out to Ms. Space, who always keeps any coins she gets, and keeps them forever.
So, this would be like interaction with a dollar bill changing machine, with Mr. Sun putting the dollar bills in and his wife, Ms. Space, getting the coins.
Whenever Mr. Surface has more money in his account than Ms. Atmosphere, he must pass coins to her, and vice-versa. But Ms. Atmosphere cannot spend the coins in her account. All she can do is keep them until her account is higher than than that of Mr. Surface, at which point she must pass coins back to him.
Mr. Sun only passes dollar bills during the day, during which time Mr. Surface is rolling in money, his account growing so much that Stefan Boltzmann makes him pass a small amount of coins to Ms. Atmosphere. At night, not receiving dollar bills from Mr. Sun, Mr. Surface is a bit needy, so Ms. Atmosphere passes a small amount of coins back to him. These side transactions slightly reduce the maximum money Mr. Surface would otherwise have during the day, and slightly increase what he would otherwise have at night. Thus, Ms. Atmosphere moderates the swings in his account.
Continuing with Stephen Wilde’s comment:
Yes to the first and second, but no to the third. Yes, the GHGs in the Atmosphere can radiate out, but they put obstructions in the path of outgoing radiation from the Surface to Space. Instead of all of it being lost to Space, some is redirected back to the Surface. Once equilibrium is reached, you are correct that the net effect from the point of view of Sun and Space is zero (radiative energy into the Earth/Atmosphere/GHG system equal to radiative output to Space). However, the situation within the Earth/Atmosphere/GHG system is quite improved from what it was prior to addition of GHGs. The net effect is to increase the mean temperatures of both the Surface and the Atmosphere.
If energy was money, Ms. GHG would be an efficiency expert, living as a guest in Ms. Atmosphere’s home. Ms. GHG stops waste and saves money for Mr. Surface. Mr. Sun continues to pass dollar bills without obstruction through Ms. Atmosphere to Mr. Surface, and Mr. Surface, being kept totally honest by his accountant Prof. Stefan Boltzman, attempts to pass an equal amount of coins to Ms. Space. However, Ms. GHG steps in and allows only about half the coins to get to their destination.
So, this would be like interaction with a dollar bill changing machine, with Mr. Sun putting the dollar bills in and his wife, Ms. Space, getting only half the coins because the machine has very high transaction charges. (Ms. Space seems to have reason to complain about being short-changed, but Ms. GHG, the efficiency expert, has a plan to make her whole again. Be patient.)
Mr. Sun only passes dollar bills during the day, during which time Mr. Surface, getting income from two sources (Mr. Sun and Ms. GHG) is rolling in even more money than he was getting before Ms. GHG showed up. His account grows so he passes more coins than he used to Ms. Atmosphere, enhancing her account. At night, not receiving dollar bills from Mr. Sun, Mr. Surface’s account begins to dwindle, so Ms. Atmosphere, having a higher account than she did before Ms. GHG showed up, passes more coins than she used to back to Mr. Surface. Ms. Atmosphere also hires Stefan Boltzmann as her accountant, and he orders her to pass some of her growing account to Ms. Space and some back to Mr. Surface.
As Mr. Surface’s account grows, his accountant Stefan Boltzmann orders him to pass more and more coins to Ms. Space until he is sending about twice the value of the dollar bills Mr. Sun is passing to him. Of course, Ms. GHG is still on the job, so she steps in and allows only about half to get through to Ms. Space. At this point, Ms. Space is getting an amount of coins that are exactly equal to the dollar bills put in by Mr. Sun, so she is happy with the arrangement.
So, that is how the accounts of both Mr. Surface and Ms. Atmosphere increased over what they were before Ms.GHG showed up, and how Mr. Sun and Ms. Space lived happily ever after with a totally honest dollar bill changing machine.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm
‘I just realised why GHGs have a zero net effect as per the Nikolov equations and observations.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If Nikolov and Zeller are correct then the effect of CO2 on temperature may in fact be negative. The effect of intercepting and re radiating 15 micron LWIR emitted from the planets surface has an inverse logarithmic relationship to rising CO2 concentrations. However the ability of CO2 to radiate energy obtained through conduction from the surface and conduction from nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere should continue to rise in a linear relationship with increasing CO2 concentrations.
Richard S Courtney says:
January 5, 2012 at 9:41 am
Horizontal atmospheric energy transport will marginally affect the temperature of a rotating planet. The same is true of atmospheric thermal mass, which is small, but the bottom of the atmospheric mass has to be heated/cooled each day/night cycle. Both will slightly reduce the cooling that results from the planetary rotation.
But you misrepresent what that means. All that either of them or both together can do is keep the rotation from cooling the planet quite as much. Neither one of those phenomena can stop the rotation from cooling the planet.
And more to the point, NEITHER ONE CAN WARM THE PLANET ABOVE BLACKBODY. Since the Earth is well above blackbody, it cannot be as a result of the phenomena you mention. I reject your idea that this is the mechanism proposed by Nikolov, I see no evidence for that at all.
To date, no one has explained to me how Nicolov says that gravity can warm a planet with a transparent atmosphere above the corresponding blackbody temperature. Richard, to get past your objection let us suppose that the planet is rotating very rapidly, so that there is no rotational cooling effect.
What in the Nikolov hypothesis will take it above blackbody temperature?
And if something did, how would that not be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics?
w.
Baa Humbug says:
January 4, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Thanks, Baa. Because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, when the temperature is changing with time (or location) the average temperature is not the average radiation. As you discuss in your post, this means that the planetary surface is cooled by rotating it. It is also cooled (on average) when the poles are colder than the equator. For the earth at present conditions, the polar/equator differences plus the annual differences add up to just over a degree C difference between the annual global temperature average and the annual global radiation average.
Anything that reduces those daily/annual temperature swings (or constant equatorial/polar temperature differences) will perforce reduce the cooling that results from such differences.
But that cannot be what Nikolov and Jelbring are talking about. They say that the planet is warmed above blackbody by their mechanism, whatever it might be.
But the mechanism you propose can only limit the cooling below blackbody. It can never warm the planet above blackbody.
Regards,
w.
Konrad says:
January 5, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Konrad, here’s what I would expect to find.
The basic equation relating energy input and temperature change is as follows:
∆T = Q / (m * c)
where ∆T is temperature change, Q is energy , m is mass, and c is the “specific heat” of the substance being heated.
I am not clear what you are calling “energy retained”. Do you mean “temperature rise”?
Let me suggest gently that if you increase the mass “m” of whatever is being heated and keep everything else the same, you will reduce ∆T, the amount the gas will be heated. So I would expect that you would find the compressed gas warmed up slightly less than the uncompressed gas.
w.
Joel Shoe, after my missive to you @ur momisugly January 5, 3:43 pm
You responded with:
And, I in turn I responded with:
Then you to me @ur momisugly January 5, 6:13 pm
Have you just accused me of being arrogant? Hey listen sunshine, that’s not a good touché. I’m just suggesting that you ought to do some divergent thinking once in a while, rather than faithfully follow the dogma of the Church of Climate Calamity, including your great prophet Pierre’. I’ve previously stated that I’ve not properly read the N&Z poster thingy, primarily because I await their anticipated improved presentation, hopefully with more thought to the semantic issues raised here etc. It seems to me that they have a good point WRT the gravitational effects on the atmosphere, although I’m currently startled with the numbers that they allege. I suspect that they are only half-right, in that significant gravitational influences are additive to GHE, and that thus (NET)GHE may be even less trivial than already argued elsewhere. (but less than they claim)
If you don’t understand the following simple statement quoted from other comments above, and its implications, please ask:
I really think my idea of a modified UCT solves almost all the problems presented so far. The findings of Nikolov and Jelbring are essentially based on the fact that multiple planets show the same basic warming profile which appears to be based on the IGL rather than on the current greenhouse theory. If we think of the theory as only being valid when a sufficient amount of GHGs are present in the atmosphere then we eliminate the concerns raised by looking at a GHG-less planet. All the correlations still hold.
From a skeptics viewpoint this has some nice features. We no longer need to discard all the work of climate scientists. Instead we add one new feature, a limit on the GHE, and we have a solution that fits all the evidence. The question is then … what causes this limit.
One possible thought is we reach a certain limit on the GHE when the footprint of GHGs reach a certain level. GHGs that end up higher in the atmosphere have a cooling effect. At some concentration it might just work out that additions balance this cooling effect with the well known warming effect (yeah, this is just a WAG).
In any event, I’d like to see some discussion.
Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly January 5, 1:16 pm
Tim, I also much prefer your definition of; ”effective radiative temperature” rather than the simplistic lay comprehension of “average T”. However, neither of them satisfies me as being meaningful.
So the great prophet Trenberth does a surface S-B calculation on 288K.
How meaningful is that?
Willis Eschenbach:
Thankyou for your reply to me at January 5, 2012 at 9:17 pm.
Unfortunately, it does not answer the question which you first posed and I put back to you;
viz. where does the extra energy come from?
Instead, it poses more questions for me.
Please note that I am not claiming I know if the Jelbring and/or Nikolov hypotheses are right or wrong. You, Joel Shore, et al. are claiming you know it is wrong, and I am demanding that you justify your claims.
But all I get is assertions like dominoes in a row; I knock down one assertion and another assertion is put up that I am expected to knock down. That is not how science and logic work: those who make an assertion are required to justify it.
Your latest post to me says;
“Horizontal atmospheric energy transport will marginally affect the temperature of a rotating planet. The same is true of atmospheric thermal mass, which is small, but the bottom of the atmospheric mass has to be heated/cooled each day/night cycle. Both will slightly reduce the cooling that results from the planetary rotation.
But you misrepresent what that means. All that either of them or both together can do is keep the rotation from cooling the planet quite as much. Neither one of those phenomena can stop the rotation from cooling the planet.
And more to the point, NEITHER ONE CAN WARM THE PLANET ABOVE BLACKBODY. Since the Earth is well above blackbody, it cannot be as a result of the phenomena you mention. I reject your idea that this is the mechanism proposed by Nikolov, I see no evidence for that at all.
To date, no one has explained to me how Nicolov says that gravity can warm a planet with a transparent atmosphere above the corresponding blackbody temperature. Richard, to get past your objection let us suppose that the planet is rotating very rapidly, so that there is no rotational cooling effect.
What in the Nikolov hypothesis will take it above blackbody temperature?
And if something did, how would that not be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics?”
So, you have posed two more questions.
Question (n+1)
What in the Nikolov hypothesis will take it above blackbody temperature?
Answer (n+1)
The blackbody temperature assumes the planet is heated on one side (i.e. a quarter of its surface area) and loses heat over all its surface area. But the presence of an atmosphere distributes the heating to over all the surface area. This distribution reduces effective heating of the ‘hot’ side and provides effective heating of the ‘cold’ side while reducing heat loss over the entire surface.
Therefore, the ‘blackbody temperature’ is an effect of the geometry of the heated and cooling surfaces. The atmosphere changes that geometry.
Question (n+2)
And if something did, how would that not be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics?”
Answer (n+2)
The changed geometry violates nothing except the prejudices of those who have imagined certainty about how the climate system operates.
Richard
PS I will not be able to respond to further comments for a few days. Sorry.