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.
“predicting a planet’s mean surface temperature as a function of only two variables – TOA solar irradiance and mean atmospheric surface pressure”
But is the mass (and density) of the covering blanket more important than its composition? The alarmist industry is based upon a specific gas in the mix, while this formula is less sensitive to the composition of the atmosphere. However, a blanket of wool may behave differently than a blanket of aluminum with the same mass and density.
sorry for all of the posts but now that I look closer your case A cannot satisfy the ideal gas equation and therefore must be false- assumming n,V and R are constant, T and P simply MUST be proportional or you are not in a gaseous system. or, you have disproven the IGE which would be quite remarkable.
the exception here would be for a liquid-gas system, like in a propane tank, where the IGE does not apply.
I guess I answered my own question. Latent and Radioactive heat dissipation is 1/10,000 of solar irradiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
Heat flow
Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the earth is 44.2 TW (4.42 × 1013 watts).[12] Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.[12] This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,) but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by convection such as along mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes.[13] The Earth’s crust effectively acts as a thick insulating blanket which must be pierced by fluid conduits (of magma, water or other) in order to release the heat underneath. More of the heat in the Earth is lost through plate tectonics, by mantle upwelling associated with mid-ocean ridges. The final major mode of heat loss is by conduction through the lithosphere, the majority of which occurs in the oceans due to the crust there being much thinner and younger than under the continents.[12][14]
The heat of the earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW.[15] The global geothermal flow rates are more than twice the rate of human energy consumption from all primary sources.
Excellent intro (will go back and finish reading in a bit, but had to get this thought down). “Something”>>>Temp>>>CO2. And that “Something”=Energy.
I mean duh. The problem with the green house gas theory (if you want to turn it on its head) is that GHG is similar to H20, in other words they both play temporary heat sink. The GHG does not for-all-time trap thermal energy, any more than H2O does. It holds it up for a while.
As I noted in the unified climate theory, you have to look at:
(1) the different mechanism and surface area for energy loss (and please don’t forget ‘work’)
(2) the actual total solar and core energy flux value (the solar is only coming in on a fraction of the hemisphere at full strength, the rest attenuated by the angle of incidence)
(3) the physical structures doing the absorbing and emitting in layers (beginning with oceans and land, going to atmosphere and finally dealing with the radiation and plasma belts).
All of these factors hold some solar energy from direct re-emission into space and provide a Tc baseline (temp of core) that gives us our balanced climate.
This is so obviously the case given the seasons! While all the factors on the Earth are the same (core temp, ocean volume, air mass, radiation and plasma belts) what happens is the solar flux is reduced as the angle of incidence increases in the NH winter, and increases at the same time as the solar angle of incidence increases in the SH. What drives this change in basic atmospheric. SST and land temps?
Solar flux. If there was going to be a heat trap that effected temp it would be the oceans first, by a couple billion tons. CO2 – by mass – cannot compare to the Earth’s water in terms of trapping energy. It is so obvious it is still hard to believe people have not worked it out.
Look at the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and compare it to the mass of H2O in the atmosphere and the oceans, and then do some computations on how much stronger a heat sink CO2 would have to be to overwhelm the mass of Earth’s water. You will quickly find yourself in science fiction land.
Your relationship goes Solar Flux>>Regional Temperature>>CO2, which when integrated over many years and significant changes in the solar flux being emitted at the source (or getting through the barriers of Earth’s atmosphere) you will see global changes on long time scales.
Best laugh for ages!
The comments here and the whole of
Unified Theory of Climate
There is just too much non science to even go about debunking in a comment!
Still, it can always be turned into a learning exercise
Damn it, I even agree with Willis!!!
I was looking for more of what Nikolov and Keller had done in the past and ran into something odd.
Google nikolov keller and check out the 3rd link from the bottom of the second page of hits.
There have been many interesting blogs and comments on this issue. However, the physics is actually fairly straightforward for the basics of the so called planetary greenhouse effect, and Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller and Ira got it part right and part wrong. The actual uncertainty in the whole issue of importance is not the basic greenhouse effect, but on the cause of the albedo variation, and on effects of storage and movement of surface energy (cosmic rays, clouds, aerosols, wind and ocean currents). Some of these may be part of a feedback to increased greenhouse gas levels, and this feedback may modify simple analysis.Those are not discussed here and so the present discussions are off base.
Lord Monckton had the basic greenhouse discussion basically correct even though he uses overly simplified models. Long wave absorbing gases and aerosols and clouds move the average location of outgoing thermal radiation to a greater altitude above the surface. The lapse rate does the rest. Increasing the altitude of average outgoing radiation with more “so called” greenhouse gases (this is a misleading term, and just refers to the absorbing gases, but it is used commonly) increases the temperature by simple virtue of setting a temperature on the lapse rate gradient at a higher altitude. Thus total atmosphere pressure (which is a measure of total mass) does affect possible temperature, in that it allows the level of outgoing radiation to be at a higher altitude due to a taller atmosphere, but the absorbing gas is necessary to move this level up. An example is Venus, where the high mass of its atmosphere AND presence of greenhouse gas and aerosols make the altitude of outgoing radiation very high (about 50 km). The lapse rate than results in the high temperature.
Please look up in google what the lapse rate is and where it comes from. It is a GRADIENT not a level of temperature. The gradient is only dependent on gravity and the specific heat of the atmospheric gas (but can be modified by a condensable gas such as water vapor to give a wet lapse rate rather than dry lapse rate). Locking any point on the gradient to a particular temperature then defines the entire temperature variation. With no absorbing gas or aerosols or clouds, the curve is locked to the ground. With absorbing gases or aerosols or clouds, it is raised up in altitude. The average level where outgoing radiation equals incoming absorbed solar radiation defines the temperature at that point. It is true that actual radiation leaves from many altitudes (including some directly from the ground), but an average level can be obtained.
The processes of evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting control temperature and the rate of loss of energy to space. Water vapor does not behave as a perfect gas. Think wet adiabatic laps rate. Water vapor is lighter than air and transports the energy gained in evaporation upward to condense into clouds, further transported upwards to freeze near the TOA where the energy radiates to space. Also, these processes transport CO2 up to the TOA by absorption in clouds and being released as the water freezes. Think about radiation as “line of sight and speed of light”. These other processes are slowing down the rate of energy loss.
Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along says:
December 30, 2011 at 4:07 am
What are you? Shy? Or have you forgotten the name that you posted under last time?
If you can’t engage in the discussion why not entertain yourself somewhere else where your magisterial pretensions might be, (hard to imagine) less of a burden.
You say: “The thermosphere has an insignificant density and it’s temperature is reaches into the thousands of degrees.”
The thermosphere is energized by very short wave radiation from the sun. The lower atmosphere is energized by long wave radiation from the Earth, contact with a warm surface or release of latent heat. Are you suggesting that long wave radiation from the Earth (or its atmosphere) is responsible for the temperature of the thermosphere?
Willis…..”your response here is just hit and run and does not become you.”
I don’t think of it as hit and run. You are avoiding the issue. Does the relationship between planetary surface temperature and atmospheric pressure hold up or not?
Is your conviction that GHG influence surface temperature just too hard to shake?
Now, where are the rest of the lukewarmers?
Chris B says:
December 30, 2011 at 5:50 am
“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.”
Rocks are such good insulators the rate at which internal heat leaks out to the surface and the rate at which it dissipates once it reaches the surface makes it negligible for most purposes. It averages 65 milliwatts/m2 for continental crust and 100 mw/m2 for oceanic crust.
On Venus it’s a different story. The top of the rocks there are blanketed with CO2 at 1400psi surrface pressure. CO2 has a strong absorption band at 4um and the surface temperature of Venus happens to be 900F which has a peak thermal emission frequency of 4um. The high insulation coefficient of rock doesn’t end at the surface on Venus. 90 bar of CO2 with thermal emission right in its absorption sweet spot makes it a highly effective insulator. This is why the surface temperature of Venus is so high. The temperature gradient from molten core of the planet to top of the crust isn’t as steep as it is on the earth because there’s a continuing layer of very effective insulation on top of the rocks on Venus where on earth the insulation is very poor after the rocks stop.
Dennis Nikols said …..”I think this discussion is valuable and important if for no other reasons then it illustrates or reminds us that we know far less then any of of think we do.” And I hope that all such work in the future keeps reminding us of this fundamental point and the need for humility. I wonder what the scientists in the year 2222 will be saying about us all/
peter2108 says:
December 30, 2011 at 5:38 am
“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.”
There’s a fixed number of molecules (or atoms) in a mole called Avagadro’s Number which is something you learn in the first week of chemistry class in high school. So N actually is the number of molecules but the units are, as you said, in moles. The distinction is pedantic in nature IMO.
[SNIP: Someone who posts under an anonymous handle and who supplies a false e-mail address has no right to belittle other commenters. Supply a valid e-mail address and maintain civility or you will not be permitted to post again. -REP]
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.
Ah, another badmouther who doesn’t address the scientific content.
Next!
The theory might be wrong but not for the reasons stated in the post. I think Ira misunderstood the basic logic of the paper as did about half of the commenters.
The use of the word pressure is the key to this misunderstanding. The change in mass of the atmosphere which changes the surface pressure is the effect that causes the new equilibrium temperature at the specified energy input from all sources.
It’s simple to understand this premise. A low mass atmosphere with trace pressure has no greenhouse effect. The higher the pressure (gravity vs mass) the stronger the greenhouse effect. An infinite mass atmosphere would capture 100% of the energy and never release it. Think of the entropy on the moon vs a black hole.
I’m not endorsing the paper but using fixed volume gas calculations on an open top container does not debunk this paper.
jorgekafkazar,
I’ve never seen Jupiter’s excess heat being attributed to radioactivity before – there’s an awful lot of it. It’s commonly blamed on “contraction” which I assume is fuelled by gravity and the same process that gives birth to stars.
Good work, Ira.
I’ve been teaching physics for 30 years, and have taught thermodynamics many times. It is just about the easiest subject to get confused about, and as I looked through the Unified Theory paper I found it hard to trace any valid argument — the authors are just deeply confused about what causes what. The authors have PhDs, but don’t have the relevant expertise to be making the arguments they are making. It actually reads like the work of cranks. You’ve been very diplomatic.
Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along says:
December 30, 2011 at 4:07 am
erl happ says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:52 pm
“Reduce its density to non significant values and the medium can not conduct or accept radiation.So, its temperature will fall.”
The thermosphere has an insignificant density and it’s temperature is reaches into the thousands of degrees.
What’s up with that, Erl?
PLEASE do not make stuff up as you go along. THINK McFly!
——————
Please tell the rest of the story. One would not experience temperatures at this level in the thermosphere because there is virtually no gas pressure thanks to the rarified atmosphere (presumably the medium to whih erl happ is referring). From Wikipedia (sorry)
“The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), due to the energy lost by thermal radiation overtaking the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.”
Interesting that you would borrow a line from a famous fictional bully to end your missive.
PV = nRT is not the whole story. There are three different types of expansion. They are isothermal, adiabatic, and polytropic. An isothermal expansion happens when the work of compression is wasted, as when you let air out of a tire. For an ideal gas this takes place at constant temperature. At pressures less than atmospheric for most purposes air can be considered an ideal gas.
An adiabatic expansion takes place at constant entropy. That is, the ability to do work is somehow recovered (a “reversible process”). This is what happens during convection when a parcel of atmosphere rises. Because the work that is done against the surrounding atmosphere will be recovered when the parcel descends again, convection is a reversible process, and is accompanied by cooling. A polytropic expansion is an intermediate case. Work is recovered but there is some loss of ability to do work (waste heat), as in an automobile engine.
This is the equation that describes the temperature change for an adiabatic expansion, and also defines the temperature profile for a planetary atmosphere.
T2 = T1 * (P2 / P1) ^ ( ɤ – 1 / ɤ)
For details and definition of gamma, etc., please visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
Thermodynamics is a difficult subject as I can relate from my own experience. Until you understand it you are doomed to spout nonsense and you cannot be a genuine climate scientist.
Sorry for the boring tutorial, but it seems to be needed here.
OK, I look forward to your comments, Paul Bahlin, but here is my take.
(1) Assume the glass is thick enough such that it does not pass LWIR.
(2) Sunlight passes through the glass cylinder and the enclosed gas and is absorbed by the black surface, heating it.
(3) The warmed black surface radiates LWIR, but that radiated energy is absorbed by the glass bottom of the cylinder, heating the glass. The warm black surface also heats the bottom of the glass cylinder by conduction.
(4) The warmed glass bottom radiates LWIR into the gas in the cylinder. It also warms the gas within the cylinder by conduction and that gas rises and by convection mixes with and warms the gas in the cylinder.
(4-CO2) The CO2 absorbs some of the LWIR, and warms. The 2 bar CO2 absorbs more of the CO2 than the 1 bar CO2. Any radiation not absorbed by the CO2 is absorbed by the glass walls. The warmed CO2 radiates LWIR in all directions, which is absorbed by the glass walls. It also conducts heat to the glass walls.
(4-N2) The N2 passes the LWIR. All the radiation thus is absorbed by the glass walls.
(5) At this point, it seems that, in the steady state, the glass walls of all the cylinders, including the 1 and 2 bar CO2 and N2 are equally heated. The reason for this conclusion is that all the radiation absorbed by the CO2 is eventually re-radiated and/or conducted to the glass walls of the cylinder. Thus, all four glass cylinders would end up with approximately equal temperatures in the steady state. If the sides and tops of all cylinders are equally heated, they will equally radiate and conduct, and the heat will thus be lost to the to the air outside the cylinders.
(6) However, the bottoms of the glass cylinders holding CO2, and particularly the one with 2 bar CO2, as compared to the N2 cylinders, may be warmed more by the re-radiation from the CO2. If this is true, and I think it is, the slightly warmer bottoms of the CO2 cylinders will radiate a bit more into the black surface than the N2 cylinders, and thus cause the black surface to re-radiate more. In other words, in the CO2 cylinders, relatively more of the initial heat energy from the black surface will be re-cycled back to that black surface, and relatively less will be lost to the air outside the cylinders. That delay will cause the CO2 cylinders to be slightly warmer than the N2 cylinders, and the 2 bar CO2 to be slightly warmer than the 1 bar.
Please comment on this Paul Bahlin and others. Although, as an engineer I did study physics and in my work I did learn about optical devices that work in the infrared, I do not claim more expertise that some others here at WUWT. So, I would like to read your take on these interesting thought experiments. Indeed, if anyone out there has access to a laboratory, please do these experiments and report the results here.
Then, try the same experiment with the following changes:
a) The black surfaces inside the glass cylinders.
b) Rock salt or plastic cylinders that pass LWIR.
Actually, that helps explain one of the things about the original post that confused me. I roadrace motorcycles and tire pressure is a ~very important~ performance parameter. Tire pressures are checked and adjusted religiously. Pressures are always checked both cold and hot. Setting front tire to 29psi cold (say ambient 80F) gives a tire pressure of 34.5 to 35psi hot when you first get off the track (depending on how hot you got the tire, in the 190-200F range). As the tire cools, the pressure will drop back to its originally set 29 (a way to check for leaks, which would be bad). So in my own experience, temperature effects pressure.
Foundations tremble,
Collapsing superstructure,
Dust blows all about.
==================
Many months ago in guest posts here Steven Goddard was pounding this atmospheric pressure drum using Venus as an example. It didn’t make a lick of sense then, either.
Tanks used for SCUBA diving become very hot as they are filled. They do not remain hot once the filling has stopped – they assume ambient temperature. If you open the valve wide open and quickly release the air the tank becomes too cold to touch. These temperature excursions are in energy balance depending and the heating/cooling depends on changing pressure, not static pressure. More specifically, it depends on the instantaneous energy state of the molecules being acted on by the creation and release of compression by energy entering and leaving the system. Energy, the compressor = cause. Heating = effect while the compressor is running.
In the atmosphere, air that is descending is warmed by compression – but the place it left is immediately replaced by displaced air that is rising and so cooling. It is in balance for pressure and energy. This is independent of the initial energy state of the affected air masses which may be, and in fact certainly are different owing to solar heating near the surface. This difference is one way the vertical movement of air happens in the first place, but that energy imbalance is caused by external radiative heating, or by mechanical transfer – convection.
R. Gates says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:04 pm
“The only issue is how much warming we can exspect from a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels,”
============
An important issue to be sure, but hardly the only one. Some other questions one should probably think worthy of attention.
1. What is the complete list of factors (“forcings” in climate-speak) that affect global climate?
2. What is the approximate magnitude of each?
3. What causes glaciations?
4. What causes glaciations to end?
5. Why does the behavior of the “Offical Climate Team” more closely resemble that of a doomsday cult than that of a scientific community?
6. What will a warmer (or cooler) world actually look like?
7. Given the need later in this century to support some 9 or 10 billion humans — (hopefully in reasonable comfort), what is the optimum global temperature?
Both Glickstein and Nikolov & Zeller seem to be amateurs.
Of course, the planet surface temperature is defined by the gas pressure.
This is trivial. We live in the TROPOSPHERE = mixed (and continously being mixed!) layer of the atmosphere. For this reason the example of a gas container of Ira is IRRELEVANT. The troposphere is always being compressed continously. That is why the temperature in the troposphere follows the adiabate ds/dz = 0, where s is the entropy density (wet adiabate!): the larger the pressure, the higher the temperature.
Of course, it is stupid to calculate the surface temperature by the “radiation balance” or “disbalance”. The earth surface is well isolated by the GHG and clouds. The RADIATING surface is much higher. It is defined either by the clouds level or by the IR transparency level – wavelength dependent.
For this reason, Venus has extremely high surface temperature: the pressure there is very high.
And Mars has low temperature, although it has 20x more CO2 than the Earth.
And Jupiter and Saturn have the same 20 degrees C at the atmospheric level of a few bars.
And if you go to a deep coal mine, the temperature rises as well> not because of the “Earth warmth”, but just because you go deeper and you have the same lapse of about 1 degree C per 100 meters.