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.
Phil. says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm
“The gaps are solely the result of GHG absorption, check out MODTRAN to see, for example.”
You haven’t been following the discussion. There is no contention (on my part) against the proposition that GHGs can and should intercept radiation in a particular band. The questions are A) whether that band is active in the first place, and B) whether GHGs make a significant difference in surface temperature which is not, in some manner, significantly nulled out by feedback effects.
If you check out Joel’s link, you will find that the main H2O band is, in fact, already sharply attenuated in the emission spectra of many terrestrial features (particularly grasslands and sea water). Furthermore, as I noted, emissions in the primary CO2 band at TOA showed negligible change between 1970 and 1997, over an interval in which atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increased more than 12%.
Computer models can never be used as proof. They only can show consistency between your model and the real world. But, consistency as proof is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Unless the system is uniquely observable given the set of measurements, it is always possible to find a model to replicate the results selected from an infinite set of models which agree with the real world on the observable subspace, but can otherwise be completely out to lunch. As an evenhanded aside, this is also why finding a relationship between pressure and temperature does not invalidate the GHG hypothesis.
These are not just nit-picky, insignificant hurdles I am insisting must be surmounted to complete a rigorous theory. This is the kind of introspection I have to satisfy before I publish any of my papers, ruling out any possible chink in the armor of my proofs. Because nature is pernicious, and will use any chink to slip in and spill your guts. If you went to a good school, that is the kind of training your PhD adviser’s drill into you, by demonstrating to you how easily your intuition can go awry, and insisting that you build a solid case for whatever it is you are trying to establish.
“Conduction and convection changes the temperature of the surface and therefore the total emission…”
And, the distribution of energy states. This is not a single dimensional problem. Temperature does not uniquely determine the energy of the emissions. This is, again, a problem of observability.
“… read any undergraduate text on heat transfer.”
I’m tempted just to say “stuff it” to that type of throw-away line. What is the point of rereading the words you just stated? I live in the real world, and I’ve had to grapple with it to the point that I am all too aware how simplified and idealized many statements in my undergraduate texts were.
Joel Shore @ur momisugly January 7, 5:37 pm, and Tim Folkerts @ur momisugly 5:48 pm
Yes sorry guys, I was distracted by the shape of the curve, thinking it was far from any Plankian relationship, and might be part of the story of the bites seen in the spectra of MODTRAN modelling etc.. Pity I didn’t look at the Y axis scale. BTW, in my long career as a mechanical engineer, I may have made or used more graphs than you Joel might think. How about a little less superior-arrogant sarcasm next time from you, if you want to gain respect?
Bart says:
January 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Phil. says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm
“The gaps are solely the result of GHG absorption, check out MODTRAN to see, for example.”
You haven’t been following the discussion.
On the contrary I’ve been following very closely , I was answering the question you asked here!
Bart says:
January 7, 2012 at 12:06 pm
1) are those gaps solely the result of interception of radiation by GHGs, or do those gaps already exist in significant form in the surface radiation profile?
Focus!
Bart says:
January 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm
“Conduction and convection changes the temperature of the surface and therefore the total emission…”
And, the distribution of energy states. This is not a single dimensional problem. Temperature does not uniquely determine the energy of the emissions. This is, again, a problem of observability.
“… read any undergraduate text on heat transfer.”
I’m tempted just to say “stuff it” to that type of throw-away line. What is the point of rereading the words you just stated? I live in the real world, and I’ve had to grapple with it to the point that I am all too aware how simplified and idealized many statements in my undergraduate texts were.
It’s not a ‘throwaway line’ it’s a serious suggestion because your knowledge of radiation heat transfer is severely lacking.
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
Sorry, point taken but can you understand how it might be frustrating for us after a while around here!?! People do seem to be looking for every way possible to discount what goes against what they want to believe and every way possible to believe what they do want to believe.
Joel Shore says:
January 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm
“Good God, folks, please learn how to read a graph! The entire y axis of that graph is from 0.96 to 0.995!”
True enough. I mistakenly thought I was looking at a plot of the entire spectrum, not just the multiplicative deviation from the Plank curve, and did not look at the scale on the Y-axis.
But, so what? These emissivities were measured in the lab, not on the open sea with wind and waves.
Furthermore, there are some plots which show significant gaps even in idealized laboratory situations.
“What energy distribution?”
That is just painful to read, Joel. It shows that you have not delved deeply into the subject. The Planck distribution, Joel, the Planck distribution. That is the distribution which begets Stefan Boltzmann. And, if it is not there, then SB doesn’t hold.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 7, 2012 at 5:48 pm
“SB gives the power emitted as a function of the temperature of the object, whether or not it is in equilibrium with other objects around.”
You’re breaking my heart, Tim. If you are not at thermal equilibrium, you do not generally have a Planck distribution. That is the distribution to which the energy states of objects with expansive absorption spectra converge in the steady state. If you do not have a Planck distribution, you do not have radiation described by the SB relationship.
Something which might help people familiar with statistics – the Planck distribution is sort of like the Normal distribution in the Central Limit Theorem. It is the distribution of energy states to which a pan-absorptive surface converges in the steady state with purely radiative heat transfer.
If, however, you have dissipative processes which attenuate a significant portion of those energy states on a continuous and persistent basis, then you are going to converge to something other than a Planck distribution. And, the SB relationship will not hold.
“If, however, you have dissipative processes which attenuate a significant portion of those energy states on a continuous and persistent basis, then you are going to converge to something other than a Planck distribution. And, the SB relationship will not hold.” Yes, assymetrical gases will only emit in various allowed bands, but that is what the discussion is all about!
Joel Shore says:
January 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm
“People do seem to be looking for every way possible to discount what goes against what they want to believe and every way possible to believe what they do want to believe.”
Agreed. But, I don’t want to believe anything. I do not care if the GHG hypothesis is right or wrong. You, however, do.
I do, however, demand rigor, and not a bunch of handwaving and consistency “proofs”.
Phil. Says @ur momisugly January 7, 4:49 pm
Phil, you wrote in part concerning “bites” out of the emission spectra:
That sounds a bit authoritarian to me. You seem to assert that MODTRAN modelling defines the absorption in discreet spectra as caused entirely by GHE. What gives you the absolute confidence that there can be no other factors? Oh, and BTW, I’ve asked before on an earlier thread of the experts there, if they understood the MODTRAN modelling techniques, and there was a defining deafening silence.
Bart says:
Bart: That dip for dry grass down to an emissivity of 0.9 occurs at about half the wavelength of the peak of the terrestrial emission spectrum. Near the peak of the spectrum, it is 0.96. But, heck, let’s assume that the whole earth, including the oceans, turns into dry grass and that, by some magic, it turns out that the relevant emissivity is 0.9 instead of the more realistic 0.96. Even with all of those ridiculously-unrealistic assumptions in your favor, I have still only managed to raise the average temperature of an Earth emitting 240 W/m^2 from 255 K to 262 K (and that is assuming a perfectly uniform temperature distribution, with any non-uniformity making the average temperature lower).
Bart says:
Bart, nothing in the world that I know of is truly in thermal equilibrium. Therefore, I guess all the Laws of Physics that involve temperature just can’t be applied…And yet, they manage to work just fine in practice. So, can you give us any estimate from anywhere that tells us how large your “not in thermal equilibrium” effect is going to be on actual emission spectra? You know, there is a whole field of remote sensing that is based on actually looking at the emissions from the Earth’s surface.
Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts, & Phil,
Look, I’ve already apologised for only looking at the shape of that famous emissivity curve of seawater, but I’ve noticed something a bit strange. You all claim that the average emissivity is 0.98, which by the way is about what I thought it should be, rather than Trenberth’s 1, before this distraction/mistake of mine.
However, it seems to me that maybe you have taken the simple average of the Y axis range, (= 0.795), and called it 0.8. I don’t think I have Alzheimer’s yet, (in my 70’s), and if I do an eyeball of the area under the curve, the mean looks a bit lower than you claim. How did you come up with that average?
I tried to find the root directory for that graph without success. Does anyone have a link to show how the data was established?
Pressure Broadening of CO2 Spectral Lines Enhances GHE
THANKS Phil. If there is anything that relates the Atmospheric pressure of non-GHGs (with GHGs) to temperature enhancement, it seems to me it will relate to the pressure-broadening of CO2 spectral lines.
In other words, as the graphs you linked to show, given the exact same mixture of N2 (a non-GHG) and CO2 (a GHG), the spectral lines of the CO2 will be more dense as pressure increases. In a low density atmosphere, such as Mars, the relatively high CO2 concentration has very limited GHE. That may be because, given low atmospheric pressure, there are multiple “windows” in the portion of the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum that allow LWIR to have a free pass out from Surface to Space. As the Atmospheric pressure increases to the level of our Earth, those “windows” may close up, absorbing more and more of the LWIR spectrum, and emitting it in all directions, about half downward towards the Surface.
Perhaps L&Z will invoke that spectral line broadening to explain what they seem to be saying about pressure enhancement. Namely that adding more N2 to an atmosphere with a given quantity of CO2 will make that CO2 more effective as a GHG. The 33K GHE warming (from the SB 255K that corresponds to 240 w/m2 to the actual mean Earth Surface temperature of about 288K) may be understated since it seems to assume the same Atmospheric pressure with and without GHGs. Still, I do not see how the pressure effect can increase the 33K to as high a value as 133K.
I do not know what N&Z will say when they publish their clarification paper here at WUWT, but I suspect pressure broadening of spectral lines will be mentioned, because that is the only way I can imagine that pressure could enhance the GHE.
-Ira
Sorry, Bart, but just to clarify: When you talk of deviations from the Planck distribution, are you talking of deviations other than those that are expressable in terms of a wavelength-dependent emissivity? Tell us exactly what it is you are talking about, approximately how large you expect this effect to be, etc.
Bart says both:
“These emissivities were measured in the lab”
and
“I do, however, demand rigor”
This seems rather inconsistent. You dismiss extensive, repeated, rigorous measurements made under lab conditions, yet you demand rigor.
Ira says:
Not to get on this hobby-horse too often, but I think it is really important to recognize that we KNOW where nearly all of the “enhancement” seen by N&Z comes from for 5 of the 8 planets and most comes from in the other two, and it has nothing to do with the radiative greenhouse effect: It comes from the temperature distribution on the planet’s surface becoming more uniform when any sort of atmosphere is present.
Look at the case of Earth: N&Z claim a 133 K enhancement. Conventional analysis will tell you that the radiative greenhouse effect on Earth is only 33 K. The other 100 K comes from the fact that there are very different temperature distributions that all give you an average of 240 W/m^2 of emission from a blackbody and the one that N&Z take for their T_sb is an extremely non-uniform temperature distribution where the local temperature is simply proportional to the local solar insolation at that point, hence ignoring all energy storage or motion.
There seems to be a profound misunderstanding about what N&Z are even showing in their plot that is related to the definition that they have chosen for what they call T_sb. (Another interesting quirk of their definition of T_sb, by the way, is that in computing it, they assume that all planets would have an albedo of 0.12 (and an emissivity for emission of 0.955). Their rationalization for this is presumably that since they are interested in the effect of removing the atmosphere completely, they want the albedo without clouds and, lacking any other data, they set it at about what the albedo of the planetary SURFACES we know of seem to be. But, it is important to remember that they are doing this, particularly for the bodies like Venus, Europa, and Triton that have much larger actual albedos.
TIM>> SB gives the power emitted as a function of the temperature of the object,
TIM>> whether or not it is in equilibrium with other objects around.”
BART> If you are not at thermal equilibrium, you do not generally have a Planck distribution.
You are talking about something different than I am. “Radiative equilibrium” would typically mean that two (or more) objects emit equal EM radiation to each other, which is NOT a requirement for SB. All that a SB calculation requires is a defined temperature of an object (and the emissivity), not that the object is in equilibrium with its surroundings. For example, the sun is definitely NOT in radiative equilibrium with its surroundings. But the surface can be described quite well by SB calculations because it has a (relatively) uniform temperature.
Joel Shore @ur momisugly January 7, 6:49 pm
Thank you Joel for some recognition of that point, but just because you are devoted to your point of view, (I suspect from a long career in academia), it does not mean that sceptics are inferior. Show a bit more consideration and respect to contrary considerations, particularly from disciplines outside of yours, such as geology and engineering, that can reveal new thought processes, and you would earn points in respect and credibility.
Oh, and BTW us sceptics can get frustrated too.
Thanks for your comment. When we invoke the conventional 33K number, it seems to me we are comparing (or should be comparing) an Earth with the same Atmospheric mass, but substituting N2 (or other non-GHG) for all the GHGs (water vapor, CO2, CH4, … even O2 which has some GHG effect), and then “painting” the Surface to get the albedo up to the real Earth 0.3. As you point out, such an Atmosphere would result in a temperature distribution that is more uniform than one like our Moon blown up to Earth size.
You say L&Z assumed “an extremely non-uniform temperature distribution” that does not account for heat storage and other effects that would be present even on a planet with no atmosphere, and that is how they get their extra 100K enhancement. Yet, on the original Uniform Theory of Climate topic, it seems to me I saw a post by Nikolov that questioned the supposed 250K mean Moon surface temperature, and based that on a combination of measurements and estimates, and not on th obviously erroneous assumption that the night side of the Moon was near 0 K in surface temperature.
Please clarify the 250K estimate for mean Moon temperature. Do you accept it as near the truth?
Back to the main point of the comment by me that you replied to, do you think N&Z will invoke pressure broadening at all in their coming clarification topic?
Tim Folkerts,
You presume that all lab measurements are equally rigorous. That’s just rhetoric; trying to defend the indefensible. In fact, some measurements are rigorous – but many are not. And Joel Shore is still floundering around as usual, in essence arguing that the planet isn’t doing what he wants to do. Earth to Joel: the planet itself is falsifying the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture. What better Authority do we need? Or should we listen to the payola-driven UN/IPCC, and its apologists: the self-serving Mann/Jones clique?
The climate alarmist crowd is Lost In Space if they think rational skeptics believe in the CO2=CAGW cattle manure. Intelligent folks are beginning to see the grant driven climate scare, and we are tired of having your cotton-picking fingers always in our wallets. Try making it on your own, without taxpayer subsidies, and see how far you get in the real world.
Further to my admonishing of Joel Shore for elitism @ur momisugly January 7, 8:28 pm:
Some decades ago, I seem to recollect that cross disciplinary cooperation in science was considered to be good. No more it seems!
Joel, Willis, et al,
I think we’re saying some of the same things but in different ways. In answer to the charge made by both willis and Joel, I agree that there is no way to come up with a temperature distribution that uses 240 w/m2 as an input and arrives at an average T that exceeds 255K. that does NOT however mean that the surface temperature average (as measured) of 288K is due to GHG’s. The fact of the matter is that 33K is not NEARLY enough of a temperature boost to get is to 288K
Presume a spot on earth that sees an “average” of 240 w/m2 on a daily basis. Presume that there is ZERO for conductance, convection, and GHG’s, amd so we can calculate a “temperature” based on blackbody SB Law. Presume 12 hours of zero insolation (all night) followed by a steep rise to 850 w/m2 and a fall back to zero during the day. I made up a curve like that for illustrative purposes, starting at midnight and with hourly insolation as follows:
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 150, 350, 650, 800, 850, 850, 800, 650, 350, 150, 100, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Average it out, and that will give you 241 w/m2.
Now convert each of those to temperature (for that hour) based on blackbody only and SB Law:
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 205K, 227K, 280K, 327K, 345K, 350K, 350K, 345K, 327K, 280K, 227K, 205K, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Now take those “equilibrium” temperatures and average them. What do you get?
144.5K
Uh oh. Where’d 255K go?
It isn’t that you cannot get higher than 255K with an average of 240 w/m2, itz that based on the normal distribution of insolation over the course of a day, you can’t even get CLOSE to 255K! And that’s using an insolation profile (admittedly made up) that would be reasonably indicative of the tropics. An insolation profile at say 45N latitude would have a peak of about HALF that, and hence and black body “equilibrium temperature” of even less than that.
Which is why calculating the black body temperature of earth from the average insolation over a curved surface spinning in space such that only half is ever presented to the energy source at any given time is pure and utter nonsense.
Of course the earth doesn’t hit zero degrees K at night anymore than it hits 350K at noon in the tropics. Over a few billion years, latent heat builds up in the earth crust and in the oceans. Conduction and convection move energy around the planet, making the temperature more uniform. As do GHG’s. The “temperature” at any given point cannot ever get even close to the black body temperature expected based on SB Law. It fluctuates around a mid point between zero (the theoretical night time low) and 350K (day time high in my example) but the actual fluctuation is on the order of 20 to 30 degrees per day. In other words, 10 to 15 degrees above and below the “mid point”.
The “average” temperature based on the values arrived at from fluctuating around a mid point +/- 10 degrees or so provide us with an average temperature ABOVE the “equilibrium blackbody average”. That’s how we get to a surface temperature average of 288 (although I would dispute that number as well for various reasons).
So, the “average temperature” we measure has NO direct relationship to “average” insolation and “equilibrium temperature” as calculate by SB Law! Add in the wild changes in insolation one can expect from high latitudes compared to low latitudes, and winter versus summer, and trying to come up with a meaningfull number based on “average” insolation and equilibrium temperature calculated via SB Law is, in my opinion, just a buncha numbers.
FURTHER, while I made that insolation distribution up, it would be a pretty reasonable approximation of a typical day in the tropcs. That would leave us looking for a temperature boost not of 33K to get to earth “average” but more like 140 degrees. Actually more because the tropics don’t average 288K they are closer to 300K.
So we’re looking for mechanisms that boost temperature from “average blackbody equilibrium” of 140K to 300K, a jump of 160K. This leaves the 33K number we hear quoted ad naseum that is calculated by 288K – 255K = 33K looking pretty silly. THERE IS NO 255K ON EARTH!
A big factor of course is latent heat. Given a few billion years, the earth crust and oceans heat up. At night, we don’t descend to zero degrees K because the earth itself just can’t cool that much in 12 hours. Plus, we have conduction, convection, and GHG’s moving energy from the hottest parts of the planet to the coolest in various ways that tend to make the earth’s temperature more uniform.
How much is GHG’s?
How would I know? It could very well BE 33K! But that would be pure coincidence. One simply CANNOT calculate an “average” insolation of 240 w/m2 = an “average” temperature of 255K and attribute the difference between that and the measured “average” temperature to GHG’s!
Taking all of THAT one step further, let us presume for sake of argument that 33K is right (by collosal coincidence) and we instantly remove all the GHG’s from the atmopshere. Does “average” surface temperature suddenly drop by 33K? NOT A CHANCE!
You can’t have an action without a reaction!
Remove those GHG’s and everything else stays the same? LOL. Not! If the GHG’s moved some energy (for example) by absorbing it during the day and then re-radiating it 24 x 7, that means that night time surface is getting energy from the GHG’s. Suddenly that resdistribution goes away. What is the impact? Well, day time surface temperatures go down. Night time surface temperatures go WAY down. What drives redistribution of energy via conduction and convection?
Temperature differential!
By removing the redistribution effect of GHG’s, we must see an INCREASE in temperature differentials which in turn means an INCREASE in energy moved about via conduction and convection. So, the impact of reducing the amount of energy being moved around by GHG’s must logically result in an INCREASE in the amount of energy moved around by conduction and convection.
Will they wind up cancelling each other out?
I dunno.
But probably pretty close.
And if that turns out to be the case…
why them L&Z are on the right track.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 7, 2012 at 8:10 pm
“This seems rather inconsistent. You dismiss extensive, repeated, rigorous measurements made under lab conditions, yet you demand rigor.”
Because the measurements are not being taken in the environment in which extensive conduction and convection to the atmosphere occur!!! It’s like saying Indy cars can’t go over 50 mph because we went out on a city street and didn’t find one exceeding that speed.
“All that a SB calculation requires is a defined temperature of an object (and the emissivity), not that the object is in equilibrium with its surroundings.”
NO IT DOES NOT! What you are claiming is that an object’s environment has no effect on its energy states. Then, I guess refrigerators are the biggest appliance scam ever. Ovens can’t possibly work. And, microwave ovens? Hah! Hell, the guy who invented fire is the greatest scam artist of all time! Look how long he’s gotten away with it!!!
Are you and Joel being purposefully dense just to annoy me? I sure hope so.
Joel Shore says:
January 7, 2012 at 7:48 pm
“Bart, nothing in the world that I know of is truly in thermal equilibrium.”
Yeah, and there are no frictionless surfaces. But, that doesn’t mean we can use frictionless equations to describe the motion of a cinder block on cement.
I’m not going to argue the SB with either of you any more. If you really don’t get it, then you have identified yourselves. Sheesh. What is wrong with you people?
I put up a post in anger, and it hasn’t appeared. Probably for the best. Tim and Joel are being purposefully dense just to annoy me. At least, I hope so.
Jeez, the information I am imparting can be found even on Wikipedia. It takes all of a couple of minutes to find it:
The iceman cometh @ur momisugly January 7, 10:56 pm, (and 11:05 pm?)
Hey look, you make some good points, but I did not run the full gamut of crap in the Trenberth cartoon, but just considerations around the hemispherical isotropic emission from the surface and how that reacts with an absorptive atmosphere. Let’s not go back there because it would drag us off-topic here.