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.
Ok Ira, I have noticed that you have a bit of trouble reading “between-the-lines” of another person’s written words, especially when their words gets in the area of physics. So here is what I read within their text after applying everything in context.
You read it as:
I read it as:
According to Nikolov, the pressure of our Atmosphere at the surface
Something close to that.
Maybe you should take a course in how to apply context when you read such deep material. I saw the same flaw in your understanding in radiative energy transfer within our atmosphere in your previous posts months ago.
The gas cannister example is just wrong. The “unified” theory may have holes but I’d be careful of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 30, 2011 at 1:03 am
“I think that Ira has misunderstood. The cause of the heating at the surface is gravity constraining molecular kinetic energy most strongly at the bottom of the atmospheric column by creating pressure. Work is done and heat generated due to the kinetic energy fighting to overcome the gravitational and pressure constraint.”
I think you misunderstand what “work” is, Stephen. If work can be accomplished merely by being located within a static gravity field at a constant location we’re talking abouty a perpetual motion machine. Ding ding ding. Red flag! No free lunches. The only way to get useful energy from gravity is to move through the field towards the center of mass. It takes energy to move away from the center of mass. If you think you’ve found a way to get around that then you’re wrong and need to think again. Think again, Stephen. You’re smarter than that.
I’m not too convinced by the thought experiment in the above post.
PV = nRT
After you have compressed the air in the container, n is constant. Therefore n, R and V can form a constant of proportionality, k = nR/V, and
P = kT
When you allow the container to cool in the fridge, there is an energy transfer which drops T (proxy for kinetic energy in the molecules) and therefore P will reduce. The latter point seems to be overlooked and the analogy may be misleading.
A different thought experiment is to start with n molecules of air just above the atmosphere, at a place where P and T are small, but not zero (avoid the singularity). R and n are fixed, so the constant of proportionality is K=nR, and
PV = KT
Assume the molecules are thermally insulated (no heat transfer from surrounding gas). Move the parcel of molecules down to the surface with minimum work on the molecules (there has to be work because their kinetic energy is increasing as pressure increases and volume reduces). At the surface, P = 10^5 Pa, so there is considerable energy in the parcel. T must have increased because specific volume of the parcel at the surface must be consistent with ambient pressure (the reduction in V is not enough to hold T at its starting value).
When the parcel reaches the surface, it is at the same pressure as the rest of the atmosphere, but that should also mean the same temperature, if the air is close enough to an ideal gas. Further changes in temperature or pressure as this would involve further work or heat transfer, but there is no analogy for these.
Isn’t the second thought experiment more closely aligned to the arguments in the original post?
This does not resolve why T is where it presently sits at the surface (there are different reasons for surface temperature – not limited to radiative physics). But it should be possible to postulate a relationship between P and T so that some general trend in surface T ought to br confirmed by a trend in P if surface air behaves approximately as an ideal gas.
tallbloke says:
December 30, 2011 at 4:07 am
“Ah, the big guns of the lukewarmer camp are out in force today. :)”
Yeah, funny how that happens when cranks get published on high profile skeptic blogs. This is what gives us a bad rep.
“More work and more clarification of terms is definitely needed, but I sense value in the work of Nikolov and Zeller.”
Well isn’t that just special. Is that like sensing a disturbance in the force, Obi Wan?
Or maybe it’s like the bobbies sensed clues in your router.
For crying out loud. Just because you like the conclusion doesn’t mean you need to agree with the source. Even Willis called it the right way this time.
Man, this kind of nonsense makes my head ache. When I read things like …
Atmospheric Near-Surface Thermal Enhancement 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 Standard Planetary Gray Body. Pressure by itself is not a source of energy! …
It is saying, pressure is not source of energy.
Which is obvious as is higher pressure will be higher temperature, but doesn’t add energy.
You pump up a tire [and this is different cause you are adding energy and atmosphere isn’t like a container or tire] it cools off but is under higher pressure [once cooled off]
That pressurized air will higher density but molecules will be going slower [it’s same temperature
as room temperature but in terms molecule speed it’s colder- it’s lost energy.
Higher pressure gas at room temperature is colder, it’s what makes a refrigerator able to cool.
To continue the quote:
“….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.”
Not saying much. Another way say it differently: the higher pressure gas [it’s not like a container but is “contained” by an atmospheric gravity gradient is “amplified” due to increased density.
Or all the gases are going roughly the same velocity- one has a biggest traffic jam nearer the surface of planet. [and traffic jams don’t in any way, slow down gas molecules].
The article states “While it is true that rising CO2 levels do have a positive feedback that contributes to slightly increased Temperatures” – but it is not true and we have now moved beyond this. Back radiation has been proven to have no warming effect. See: http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html
Hence, since both your theory and the “Unified Climate Theory” incorporate a false concept, the remaining logical fails.
One of the best examples of the failure of carbon dioxide to have any effect can be seen in Arctic temperature records which show (a) higher temperatures in the 1930’s and early 1940’s than at present and (b) a huge rise prior to 1930. Yet carbon dioxide is supposed to have its greatest effect in the Arctic. Also Northern Ireland records from 1790 show a long term linear trend of 0.6 deg.C per century with absolutely no hint of a hockey stick. (See links and plots at http://climate-change-theory.com )
So we know that carbon dioxide is not the cause of any warming. But in addition, we now have Prof.Claes Johnson’s proof that backradiation cannot warm the surface and Prof Nasif Nahle’s experiment (soon to be plural) confirming it..
So, without any warming effect at all for any trace atmospheric gas, or water vapour (a bit of a mouthful now that we need to refrain from using the term GH) the power source is switched off and those “models” grind to a halt, while the so-called “greenhouse effect” crumbles into tiny little pieces. I never knew I was so sadistic.
The average temperature of an airless Earth is a big deal. We can look at the average temperature of the Moon to get some idea of what it would be.
The above quote has the average surface temperature of the moon as -75 to -80 deg. C. So, what is the average temperature of the Earth?
If we assume that the Moon is not generating its own heat, we could argue that its average temperature is -35° C. (We can’t make that assumption about Earth because it does generate its own heat.) That implies that the Earth is at least 50° C above what it would be without an atmosphere. If we look at the surface temperature, based on the above quote, the average temperature of the Moon could be 90° C below the surface of the Earth.
There is good reason to believe that the temperature increase due to the Earth’s atmosphere is greater (perhaps much greater) than the value usually given. Proving the 133° figure is probably worth a PhD thesis though. 😉
The causation chain B makes sense, but the causation chain A seems contrived (Frazier above touched on this). Work has to be expended to add delta n moles to the cylinder. The pressure and temperature do not wait for each other as to who goes first. To shoe-horn it into a linear causation chain with ione branch is a bit much.
And Willis, please do write a response to the original post of “Unified” theory. I usually enjoy your insight. But your response here is just hit and run and does not become you.
They now exit the woodwork while too close fails to describe
==============================================
(how’s that kim?☺)
“I think you misunderstand what “work” is, Stephen. If work can be accomplished merely by being located within a static gravity field at a constant location we’re talking abouty a perpetual motion machine.”
The molecule is not static. It is constantly in motion as it vibrates with kinetic energy. The gravitational field is constraining that energy so work is being done via the constant interaction between the two forces involved.
Ira, did you unplug the refrigerator in trial A and if the refrig is perfectly insulated would Tr not increase permanently to Tr+?
A couple of questions regarding pressure. Will a faster rotating planet have less atmospheric pressure than identical one spinning more slowly? Centrifugal vs gravitational forces. What effect does solar wind fluctuations have on atmospheric pressure?
Let’s take the example of a lone Brown Dwarf star – a star too small to initiate hydrogen fusion – a star light-years away from the nearest fusion star – generally less than 5% of the Sun’s mass.
These lone stars/objects will still heat up so that their cores get up to 7 million Kelvin. Surface temperatures can be up to 2000K. The lone Brown dwarf will still emit 90,000 W/m2 of near-infrared light – that’s without receiving energy from a fusion Star.
Now over billions of years, the dwarf will cool off but it will never reach the cosmic background radiation temperature of 3K.
Particle physics has some unusual characteristics when it comes to mass, energy and gravity.
I propose an experiment…
Go outside, place several 1 meter tall closed glass cylinders on a black surface. Start with the following contents:
Nitrogen at 1 bar
Nitrogen at 2 bars
CO2 at 1 bar
CO2 at 2 bars
Measure the gas temperatures. Refine the experiment based on what you learn. Repeat.
When you learn something, write a paper.
This may be one of the poorest articles I have ever seen at WUWT. I am shocked it was posted with such obvious flaws in logic as demonstrated in figures A and B. I realize that there is not alot of editorial oversight but this article screams out for an editor.
OMG, sharing a blog with `Tallbloke’.
What an honour!
And nice to be able to deduce the British constabulary did not take all of his computers!
Cheers,
The Bear
Willis, I have huge respect for your “Earths Thermostat” hypothesis. It actually provided me with a clear mechanism for how the atmosphere is not static as per the GHG hypothesis, but dynamic. That alone convinced me that the enhanced warming due to CO2 would likely be so small as to not be measurable. Now the”unified” hypothesis adds classical fuild dynamics.(Boyles Law). The proof is its ability to explain temperatures on other solar planets.
Together with your hypothesis I get sweet music. Finally!
Please don’t get put off by the very confusing fluid dynamics concepts. During my university time, It was very very tricky stuff for me to grasp. You are much brighter than I am, so I expect you will make quicker work of it.
I don’t expect you to play every instrument in the orchestra, but knowing you, I suspect that you will end up doing just that.
I sure am enjoying the music!
Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along says:
December 30, 2011 at 4:21 am
“Yeah, funny how that happens when cranks get published on high profile skeptic blogs. This is what gives us a bad rep.”
Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along, for all I know, you have just popped into existence – I would remember a person or thing called Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along had I encountered it before. So, Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along, you have NO reputation by now. And, may I say that, Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along, somebody who calls himself Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along goes right into the “obnoxious” bin for me.
“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.”
On the contrary, I would strongly disagree with it. At least the way you have set it up- In case A you are talking about the state of the gas in the cylinder (Tc, Pc) with a constant ambient temp (Ta). In case B you are talking about the pressure in the cylinder, but you are changing the ambient temperature. In other words, if you just changed the temperature in the cylinder (with a fire perhaps) but left the ambient the same the plots would look identical.
Ira says:
“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.”
This is not right. They don’t deny the radiative heating of the surface due to heat trapped and re-emitted by greenhouse gases. In fact their equation (3) describes the effect for the one layer model they start with. However they claim that this radiative heating of the surface is entirely offset by convective cooling – and they give a pair of equations (4) modifying (3) to include an additional term for convective cooling. They also claim: “This decoupling of heat transports is the
core reason for the projected surface warming by GCMs in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. Hence, the predicted CO2-driven global temperature change is a model artifact!” That is the GCM’s solve equation 3 and then (I assume) handle convection separately instead of using their equation (4). This is actually a pretty extraordinary claim!
My own concern with this is that the extra term introduced into equation (4) is hardly explained at all. The term it looks like cp * rho * (Ts – Ta) * gbh and the value of ‘cp’ is not given and gbh=0.075m/s is not supported. Still it’s only a poster so work in progress and quite likely the interpretation is well-known!
Another thing is that the one layer model is an approximation – to overthrow the existing theory you would certaily need to work it though using a continuous thick model of the atmosphere.
I’ll study it some more because it is the first thing I have seen since Svensmark to offer a different view of long term climate change. And it is pretty accessible too. They should not call it UTC though because those letters are taken for Universal Coordinated Time!
In the Gas Law PV = nRT the ‘n’ stands for the number of moles of the gas not the number of molecules as Ira said.
This integral giving 133K is wrong. If you create a spreadsheet under excel to approximate this integral, in which you cut the earth surface in parts, and calculate temperature for each part using the black body…the average is about 250K and is consistant with average temp of the moon.
Another way to look at it is that if you change the ambient pressure, the temperature rise in the cylinder would be permanent, similar to case B.
Glad to see Ira debunk the UTC proposed. FWIW, radiative physics as describes our atmosphere over long time periods (millions of years) is CORRECT. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the climate theory or basic models. The error is the application of these oversimplistic climate models to shorter time periods (decades) and, given such broadbrush assumptions, to a ridiculous degree of accuracy (a few degrees) and without any proper way to account for albedo changes (clouds) and the completely childish assumption that there is such a thing as a global mean temperature when the water cycle, ocean currents and winds are creating havoc with regional surface temperatures as heat is moved around continuously.
Anyone who is real scientist or a real engineer can see that the whole global climate Modelling effort to a is just childish STUPIDITY. It is akin to studying “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”, there simply is no answer…
Generalizing, it sounds like in addition to cause and effect juxtaposition, the argument is between atmospheric pressure/heat generation in the UTC paper versus atmospheric density/heat retention in the Glickstein paper.
There are still so many variables and interpretations preventing “settled science” from breaking out.
In our area the ground temperature 2 or 3 meters below the surface stays at a fairly constant 10 degrees Celsius, and rises as the measurement goes deeper ( to a few thousands of degrees below the crust, not millions as Algore estimates. LOL ). This in spite of atmospheric temperatures of +35 or -15 degrees C.
Our planet still contains a vast amount of slowly decreasing internal latent heat caused by gravitational pressure/friction during planet formation, and radioactive decay. I haven’t seen an energy balance equation that accounts for the dissipation of this energy. Surely it’s not constant, and has an impact on the atmospheric and oceanic energy balance.