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.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 10, 2012 at 9:23 pm
So give us some actual number here, Wayne.
>>
No Tim, thinking I’m your errand boy again, huh?
Look it up and calculate it up yourself, you have a computer, you do know how to write simple programs I am assuming, you might even learn something. I told you where, astronomy and/or radio astronomy books/sites though the later is best when dealing with sub-visual frequencies.
Tim: “For example, my knowledge suggest that attenuation of x-rays by the atmosphere is quite extreme (hence there are no x-ray telescopes on the ground). There are good reasons to expect this (compton scattering, ionization, and others). ”
You are right on x-rays, so, why don’t ground based radio telescopes peer through the window frequencies of about 8 to 13 microns? Look it up. Why do modern thermal thermometers tune to the window frequencies where there are few ghg lines? Bigger, why when you point one up at those non-ghg frequencies does it generally read about -20 degC, pop out your S-B calculator. I find these facts fascinating. What of pure nitrogen? Look it up and apply it on a planetary scale.
Tim, I am not going to lay it all out for you, I want YOU to read and try to learn something new.
Tim says: So give us some actual number here, Wayne.
Wayne replies: No Tim, thinking I’m your errand boy again, huh?
You certainly do not HAVE TO do any work, but then you also can’t expect others to put any stock in what you say. After all, you are the one proposing that a well-know mechanism has been overlooked for decades by scientists, only to be rediscovered by you. I gave a quick estimate that for the entire IR spectrum, the only mechanism (besides IR absorption that we have specifically ruled out in this case) I know of that might be important is Raleigh scattering, would be several orders of magnitude too small to be important.
So the ball is in your court. Support your extraordinary claim with some evidence, or admit the you are just speculating and have no idea if mass attenuation could possibly block on the order of 100 W/m^2 of IR leaving the surface.
davidmhoffer says:
I have no idea what the point of your arguments are any more. What you have said is not completely incorrect, but here are the major problems with it:
(1) You are misusing the term “latent heat” but I will assume that you mean something like “heat capacity” or “thermal inertia”.
(2) It is not only the crust or oceans but the atmosphere itself that can store energy; furthermore, the atmosphere (and the oceans) can also move energy around, another thing you haven’t considered that will help to even out the temperature distribution.
(3) The 6 degrees that I talked about was an overestimate of the difference between averaging T and taking the 4th root of the average of T^4 for the CURRENT Earth temperature distribution. It is not cherrypicked. It is a result obtained using a temperature distribution that is certainly broader than the actual Earth temperature distribution…probably by a factor of 3 or so.
(4) I have said that the temperature distribution of a hypothetical Earth without greenhouse gases (but still with a substantial atmosphere) will likely be broader but I doubt it will be INCREDIBLY broader, if for no other reason than the fact that the data presented by N&Z already show a substantial “surface temperature enhancement” due to evening out of the temperature distribution in even fairly thin atmospheres without the greenhouse effect.
(5) At any rate, what we know is this: An Earth without the greenhouse effect but otherwise the same (e.g., same albedo) would emit ~240 W/m^2 and hence have the 4th root of the average of T^4 about equal to 255 K. The direct average of T would be at most 255 K.
Stephen Wilde says:
Like I have said, all that your posts show is that one can justify anything using words if one’s explanation does not use correct physics principles.
There is no physics principle that says there is some magical “resistance” to radiation. The only way for radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface not to get out into space at the same rate as it is emitted is for that radiation to be absorbed (or reflected) by the atmosphere. That is what we call “the radiative greenhouse effect”.
Phil.’s comment got me thinking. The reason there is a homosphere is due to the turbulence of the lower atmosphere. It is the energy located there that mixes up the gases and prevents them from seeking a weight based profile. However, what happens when additional gases like CO2 are added. The mixing shouldn’t really change much because the heavier gases are already being driven higher then would be expected. The average height of the CO2 could easily end up the same. If that was the case there would be no rise in the effective radiation altitude and hence no additional heating.
As it would turn out the additional heat at the surface created by the lapse rate is part of the reason the GHE is enhanced at low concentrations but does not increase significantly at higher concentrations. It creates a more balanced GHE.
This is a little adjustment to what I said earlier but it makes a lot sense. Thanks, Phil..
Expanding on my previous comment. The addition of any gas in the lower atmosphere increases the weight. The energy that mixes the gases now has to deal with more and more weight and that almost certainly means something has to give. Either the well mixed portion becomes less well mixed or the upper boundary of the well mixed gases is lowered.
If it is the latter then while the concentration increases within the homosphere fairly evenly the height drops proportionately to the added mass. The net effect cancels out as far as increasing the GHE.
Remember, what got me into this thought process was equation (7) of the UTC. The idea that the GHE is essentially based on the mass of the atmosphere, gravity and the amount of energy available is just too much of a coincidence to let slide simply because the authors got off track when looking for a physical explanation.
I still may not have all the factors down, but I think I’m on the right track. The GHE is initially enhanced by the turbulence of an atmosphere. This means the effect drops off quickly at higher concentrations. Since we have plenty of water vapor to drive the GHE, the addition of a little CO2 with the already well mixed GHGs is limited in its impact.
Richard M says: “The average height of the CO2 could easily end up the same. If that was the case there would be no rise in the effective radiation altitude and hence no additional heating.”
The one point I would make is that the location of the “top of atmosphere” is what matters most, not the average location of the atmosphere. Suppose the top 10% of CO2 current is enough to block most of the radiation of a particular. wavelength. If we double the CO2, then the top 5% would be enough (since it is the same # of molecules). Even if the average altitude of CO2 remains the same, the top 5% will be higher than the top 10%. This would indeed raise the effective radiation altitude.
Tim, I agree with what you’re saying … as far as it goes. However, if you double the CO2 the top of the atmosphere should drop a little because of the added weight. Does this balance out the effect of the added CO2? Don’t know, but it seems reasonable which is why equation (7) seems to hold on so many planets.
“This would indeed raise the effective radiation altitude.”
I’m inclined to agree but the system response would simply be a surface pressure redistribution below the tropopause.
That would shift the permanent climate zones just a minute fraction compared to natural variations caused by sun and oceans.
And there would be no need for a change in total system energy content, merely a change in the rate at which energy flows through the system from surface upward. No need to propose any change in ocean heat content either.
If there were any way that the extra energy could get into the oceans then that would offset or eliminate any raising of the effective radiation altitude anyway and could defer any measurable atmospheric response for millennia due to the thermal capacity of the oceans.
AGW theory cannot have it both ways. Either the extra energy in the air from GHGs alters the thermal profile of the atmosphere or it alters ocean heat content.
If the former it is too small to worry about compared to natural variations and if the latter the problem is deferred for so long that it need not concern us.
To All:
Just want to let you know that Karl Zeller and I are working on our official reply to the blog comments. Due to unexpected work load last week, we could not finish it as planned. The article is now coming along pretty well, and we’ll be able to share it with you soon.
Thank you for your patience!
-Ned
Thanks Ned, we’ll be here waiting to read and dissect it!
So far, on this thread alone, we have 1,012 comments and nearly 12,000 page views. The other WUWT thread about your theory is also showing great interest in your concepts. You have many supporters as well as those, like me, who are a bit skeptical – even though I would love to see the Official Climate Team proven wrong about their overestimation of climate (CO2) sensitivity.
THANKS for having the courage and fortitude to expose your theory to intelligent critique in a forum that is open to new ideas but also properly careful about changing our basic understanding of climate science without some pretty good evidence.
-Ira
Tim Folkerts says:
January 11, 2012 at 8:20 am
“The one point I would make is that the location of the “top of atmosphere” is what matters most, not the average location of the atmosphere. Suppose the top 10% of CO2 current is enough to block most of the radiation of a particular. wavelength. If we double the CO2, then the top 5% would be enough (since it is the same # of molecules). Even if the average altitude of CO2 remains the same, the top 5% will be higher than the top 10%. This would indeed raise the effective radiation altitude.”
Help me out, Tim. From my perspective defining the radiative layer as the layer that emits almost all of the radiation, then adding more radiating bands to the spectrum would make that layer more closely approximate the blackbody curve, its emissivity would increase and it would cool and shrink without appreciably affecting the underlying layers which transmit practically no radiation through the opaque bands. What am I missing?
I can’t quite fathom the story that more radiation bands cause the atmosphere to radiate from a higher level, which is a key claim of the warming establishment. Since the post 1970 increase in CO2 emissions we have seen the stratosphere cool, and since the stratosphere anchors the adiabatic lapse rate this cooling would theoretically propagate downward and offset any warming from increased greenhouse effect at the surface. I do not say there is no greenhouse effect, but the effect may be too small to observe or only observable in some regions.
“Phil.’s comment got me thinking. The reason there is a homosphere is due to the turbulence of the lower atmosphere. It is the energy located there that mixes up the gases and prevents them from seeking a weight based profile.”
I think it has to do what called air packets. One can loosely think of air as bodies- because molecules are traveling at 500 m/s “but not getting anywhere”. So as imaginary group [in that could/might/or may not trade all members in a seconds- Or the group/packet is not defined by members but temperature and density of space] and it does not move due to it’s molecule speed- but does move from exterior factors like bouyancy. And this regarding ideal gas law molecules. Adding to mix is the H2O molecule is sticky in terms of ideal gas law- it’s a condensing gas at the temperature of the atmospheric air- this aspect doesn’t make it an “ideal gas”.
Now trying find the ref. Meanwhile this is somewhat related:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~bannon/moledyn.html
But anyhow, can’t find what I wanted..
So I would guess, that in higher elevation, water vapor is far less abundant as compare to troposphere and less sticky, and air packets don’t exist or much bigger/less defined- and therefore convection as motion of bodies of gas, don’t occur. Though convection in sense of transferring energy via individual gas molecules movement, obviously continues.
Also there probably someone who figured out the size of air packet [or smallest average size]- the smallest packet must change size relating to pressure. And also packet seems to me, to join with other packets- millions maybe depending what you quantify as “smallest packet”- and these large groups are inversion layers. Sort of defining aspect of air packet is moving up or down- inversion layers aren’t moving- so the definitions might may making it confusing.
Some aspect that stops air packet movement upward or downward- and you call that the “inversion layer”, but think air packets themselves can stop upward and downward movement of other air packets. Or related, air packet can gain momentum [they can accelerate upward or downward] and inversion layers could be halting of that momentum. So in sense, inversion layer are illusionary- they real in that they stop momentum and gas movement “appears stopped” but packets could also continues upward or downward- and once again start accelerating
“However, what happens when additional gases like CO2 are added. The mixing shouldn’t really change much because the heavier gases are already being driven higher then would be expected. The average height of the CO2 could easily end up the same. If that was the case there would be no rise in the effective radiation altitude and hence no additional heating.”
When talking of mass of molecule such as CO2 in this context, you talking about buoyancy, buoyancy as a factor. Gravity is called a weak force- but it’s constant. So with gas molecules moving 500 m/s, buoyancy/gravity could be said to be weak. On average and over time, gravity will tend to keep molecules nearer the surface.
If you added an enormous amount of heat to earth’s atmosphere- hot air rises. The top of troposphere will not be cold- but much hotter than lower elevation air. You don’t have the lapse rate where basically gases molecules are going the same speed. The enormous heat means are large quantity of gas molecules are traveling much faster than others. Say, half the atmosphere gases are going 2000 m/s and rest are going 500 m/s- that means the 2000 m/s molecules will be higher than the 500 m/s gas. Given enough time the 2000 m/s will increase the 500 m/s gas velocity, and balance out. Leaving the vast majority of gas traveling roughly at same velocity- restoring lapse rate. And would say the reason all molecules do not slow down to average speed, is mainly due to the sun energy. Turn off the sun and upper atmosphere will collapse faster than the lower atmosphere. And also upper atmosphere also “gets” some faster moving molecules. Faster moving molecules in air packets will go up faster from buoyancy- few of molecules will get to top with their faster speed- most will “be averaged”. Once packet reaches highest level the density of air is so low that there is no “lift”, – here in low number of molecule per cubic meter- faster molecules can go longer distance before hitting another molecule. [And there the chances of hitting slower moving molecules is less.]
So one thing about a CO2 molecule is it’s more mass, if more molecules are traveling faster, it’s more survivable to stay up than fall down- or the faster molecule speed could “overwhelm”
gravity. Or simply, it’s not in high atmosphere due to buoyancy- it’s all about molecular speed of individuals rather than air packet’s buoyancy .
I had another interesting thought relative to the GHE. Since it is based on the altitude of the radiating particles might not there be other particles besides GHGs come into play? For example, you could have a planet with no GHGs but a strongly turbulent atmosphere that blew up a lot of dust. Dust also absorbs and emits radation so it should also impact the height of the effective radiation point. OTOH, dust is quite heavy compared to the gases and would need to constantly be elevated.
This would take a lot of energy but it does seem like you could have a planet with no GHGs that still had a GHE. Seems like you would need to consider more than just GHGs.
[Richard M, as I understand it, particulate matter in the Atmosphere (dust particles, etc.) also reflect Sunlight (SWIR) and so tend to increase the albedo of the Earth, cancelling out all or much of their GHG-like effect absorbing and re-emitting UW LWIR back down to the Surface. -Ira]
gbaikie: “it’s not in high atmosphere due to buoyancy- it’s all about molecular speed of individuals rather than air packet’s buoyancy .”
I think I agree with most of what you stated. If the altitude is determined by the speed of the packets of molecules as you state, then what determines their speed? Clearly, the energy input to the system, but also I think it is the pressure, that is, the mass of the atmosphere and the gravitational pull. I think we end in the same place … equation (7).
” Since the post 1970 increase in CO2 emissions we have seen the stratosphere cool, and since the stratosphere anchors the adiabatic lapse rate this cooling would theoretically propagate downward ”
Actually,a cooling stratosphere causes the tropopause to RISE just as does a warming surface.
Pochas says: “…adding more radiating bands to the spectrum would make that layer more closely approximate the blackbody curve, its emissivity would increase and it would cool and shrink… ”
Actually, I think the net effect would be the opposite. The band would be emitting some extra energy as you say. BUT it would also be absorbing extra energy from below in those same bands (either from GHGs in the layers below or from the ground). Since the lower layers are warmer, the ability to block this more intense radiation from the warmer layers would more than compensate for the extra energy radiated from the cold upper layers. The net result is LESS cooling for the earth as a whole, causing a net warming until the radiation balance we restored.
“If the altitude is determined by the speed of the packets of molecules as you state, then what determines their speed?”
It depends.
If a lot packets are going up, one has acceleration. Acceleration can faster than 9.8 meters per second per second [faster than gravity-though dependent on gravity].
With nuclear explosion air packets would go supersonic.
You could called it explosive force- but that is heat differences.
A nuke or stick of dynamite is different creature in a vacuum- same energy.
The idea that air packet could accelerate faster then gravity- is not idea most would generally assume is possible.
And I don’t want argue about it. But you asked:)
So we assume acceleration less than 9.8 m/s/s. And unless one talking intense heat it will be a slower acceleration.
So a hot air balloon has limited acceleration. And most rising air packets would be somewhere in the range of hot air balloon. Though I would say air packets have advantages in terms of getting faster acceleration and speed as compared to hot air balloon [as compared to same heat of gas]- other advantages in addition to than lacking ballast and balloon weight.
I believe wind shear is air packets and wind shear can move quite fast. Or example is climbing thermals with gliders.
“Climb rates depend on conditions, but rates of several meters per second are common and can be maximized by gliders equipped with flaps”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliding#Thermals
Another Wiki article says:
“Thermal wind is a meteorological term not referring to an actual wind, but a difference in the geostrophic wind between two pressure levels p1 and p0, with p1 < p0; in essence, wind shear. It is only present in an atmosphere with horizontal changes in temperature (or in an ocean with horizontal gradients of density)"
They seem to be describing as caused by pressure, I say it's about density differences. Or different weight of air.
And same wiki:
"Vertical speed changes greater than 4.9 knots (2.5 m/s) also qualify as significant wind shear for aircraft."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_shear
[It seems as guess, going down, goes faster than going up:)]
Jet steams: So yeah a lot to do with earth rotation but falling air packets are involved with
it.
But generally slow, because as general rule air molecules going roughly same speed, and you have generally uniformity. But an average of 2 m/s in an hour is 7.2 km up. Walking speed is adequate.
Also in terms of acceleration, if you start with say 1 meter per second per second achieve speed of 2 meters per second, and have some rate slowing acceleration to 1/2 meter per second per second and half the acceleration rate to infinity and you still have acceleration.
Can't do that with rockets- can do that with mob of faster moving molecules.
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:40 pm
“Bart, I value your contributions here, please don’t go. Strange how Joel has complained how he gets frustrated with people who have a different view than his. Please hang-in there.”
Just dropped in one last time to see if things have progressed. They haven’t. Still people talking at, instead of to, each other.
I didn’t leave in a pique, just from exhaustion of the equivalent of trying to explain high finance to chihuahuas. Joel has no idea where S-B comes from. For him, it is magic, fundamental truth brought down from the summit of Mt. Olympus. It holds everywhere and in all places. Tim and Willis seem to think so, too. I am clearly incapable of breaching the wall of willful blindness, so I give up.
Not to start a side argument, Bart, but you clearly have some “willful blinders” of your own if you think I (or the other two) take physics as some sort of gospel from the gods. Quite the contrary, I (and I am sure the other two) have worked hard to develop an understanding of physics starting from fundamentals. For example, I have (a number of years ago) worked through the derivations of the Planck distribution and cavity radiation — a claim that only a few here could make.
We may be a bit passionate at times, but that is because there is so much bad science flying around here. There are people who quote high school principles and think that is “fundamental truth brought down from the summit of Mt. Olympus”. There are people who picked up a sound bite and think they know science. After responding to enough of these, it is easy to occasionally overlook good points that do get made, missing the few golden nuggets among the piles of rock.
It doesn’t help that threads about different gedanken experiments get intertwined, so it can be hard to know who is responding to precisely which points.
As Willis has said, please quote a line to support your contentions that Joel or I have “no idea where S-B comes from” or that we think that science is “fundamental truth brought down from the summit of Mt. Olympus”. Vague attacks only move things backwards, not forwards.
But like you, I have about reached my limit with this thread. Pretty much everything that can be said has been said — at least until the promised follow-up comes from the original authors.
Tim – all I know is that, try as I might to demonstrate that radiance from the Earth does not have to be as high as SB says it should be if it were a blackbody, all of you still seem to keep insisting that S-B by itself invalidates the idea of non-GHG heating of the atmosphere.
I made another comment about this here on another thread.
Joel Shore;
I have no idea what the point of your arguments are any more.>>>
Sadly Joel, I believe you. You really and truly don’t understand.
Joel Shore;
What you have said is not completely incorrect, but here are the major problems with it:>>>
No there aren’t, because you’ve cherry picked comments and terminology out of context rather than engage on the actual core issues.
Joel Shore;
(1) You are misusing the term “latent heat” but I will assume that you mean something like “heat capacity” or “thermal inertia”.
Yup, that’s the terminology I should have used. So stick those words in and then deal with what I said instead of nit picking. I used “heat sink” later on instead of latent heat, I think what I was trying to get at was clear. Thanks for helping with the wording, now let’s move onto the physics.
Joel Shore;
(2) It is not only the crust or oceans but the atmosphere itself that can store energy; furthermore, the atmosphere (and the oceans) can also move energy around, another thing you haven’t considered that will help to even out the temperature distribution.
C’mon Joel, I said exactly that and I said exactly that several times in this thread. You know I said it because you responded to those issues in those comments. You also complained that my comments ramble, then when I opt for brevity you complain about the things I left out even though you know very well that they are part of my argument in the first place.
Joel Shore;
(3) The 6 degrees that I talked about was an overestimate of the difference between averaging T and taking the 4th root of the average of T^4 for the CURRENT Earth temperature distribution. It is not cherrypicked. It is a result obtained using a temperature distribution that is certainly broader than the actual Earth temperature distribution…probably by a factor of 3 or so.>>>>
It most absolutely IS cherry picked. You CANNOT possibly be arguing that the observed temperatures, which you yourself pointed out are mitigated in terms of their range by the heat capacity of the earth plus the atmosphere and so on can in ANY way be used to calculate blackbody values? Or blackbody plus GHE values? Honestly? Do you think that unless you KNOW the value to attribute to heat capacity you get anything meaningful at all? On the other end of the equation you are referring to 240 w/m2 as the effective black body radiance of earth. Excuse me, but how can you possibly justify using observed temps which are massively influence by heat capacity to compare to theoretical blackbody numbers that are valid if, AND ONLY IF, the body in question has a heat capacity of zero?
Joel Shore;
(4) I have said that the temperature distribution of a hypothetical Earth without greenhouse gases (but still with a substantial atmosphere) will likely be broader but I doubt it will be INCREDIBLY broader, if for no other reason than the fact that the data presented by N&Z already show a substantial “surface temperature enhancement” due to evening out of the temperature distribution in even fairly thin atmospheres without the greenhouse effect.
Joel, you keep referring to 240 w/m2 as the effective blackbody radiance and I keep pointing at that this is a meaningless number because if we set aside all other factors, heat capcity, GHE, and so on, then the actual range due to blackbody temperature fluctuations is, in fact, from zero to 400K daily. Surely you are not suggesting that this range is close to what we actually experience? Surely you cannot characterize this range as not being “substantially” larger? Joel, please. You cannot define things via blackbody on the one hand, and then compare to observed or calculated temps that include things like heat capacity! You cannot argue that heat capacity is not substantial when a dead simple SB Law calculation results in a temperature range of 400 degrees!
Joel Shore;
(5) At any rate, what we know is this: An Earth without the greenhouse effect but otherwise the same (e.g., same albedo) would emit ~240 W/m^2 and hence have the 4th root of the average of T^4 about equal to 255 K. The direct average of T would be at most 255 K.>>>
The only thing we know Joel is that an earth with a uniform temperature across the globe and across time would have a T of 255K. Actually, we DO know more:
We know that no such planet exists. We know that variations in temperature across the globe are over 100K from highest to lowest. We know that the tropics are pretty stable over time, but that temperate zones fluctuate by as much as 80 degrees on an annual basis. We know that the blackbody temperature of the planet varies by 400 degrees DAILY. AND we know that the heat capacity of the planet plus atmospheric processes and whatever I left out in this particular rant result in the temperature of the planet fluctuating around a narrow range DEFINED by thos factors. Given that we haven’t a clue how much to attribute to heat capacity alone, any calculation that purports to determing how much of the observed temperature and how much of the fluctuation is due to ANY given factor is pure and utter bull.
Bart – We understand that if a surface is not a perfect blackbody, it can emit less than the blackbody prediction. However, while the Earth is not a perfect blackbody in the wavelength range of interest, it is pretty darn close. And it is not like this stuff is not well-measured…The field of remote sensing relies on knowing the details of the Earth’s surface’s emission.
Hence, the considerations that you are worried about are a small correction (and, as I have noted, a correction that acts in the opposite direction as the correction that David Hoffer is worried about).
That is why your arguments to us sound like desperation…and the kind of arguments that can always be made if one does not want to accept science that disagrees with what one wants to believe. It is very much like arguing that radioactive dating and other techniques used are not perfectly accurate and hence it is possible that the Earth being only 6000 years old.
Dave,
You latest post suffers from a number of confusions, but the most important one is that you seem to think that heat capacity can magically get you around having to (to a very good approximation) conserve radiative energy in and out. It can locally and in the short term, but not globally and over the longer term. Even with the current steady rises in greenhouse gases, the global radiative imbalance as estimated from the warming of the oceans is a fraction of a W/m^2.
If the Earth were only receiving ~240 W/m^2 but was emitting ~390 W/m^2 the resulting cooling would be rapid.
Just to back up my analogy (because I am sure that some people aren’t going to like it), here is webpage listing some of the scientific problems with radiometric dating: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html