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.
Bart says:
January 11, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Does the S-B relationship between temperature and radiation “hold everywhere“? Of course not. So in theory you are right, Bart, and if we required absolute perfection, the S-B equation would never, ever be used on real objects.
But in practice, the fact that you can buy a handheld remote thermometer, which uses the strength of IR radiation plus the S-B equation to measure the temperature of common objects around us means that S-B almost holds almost everywhere. Most things radiate at a level which is quite close to their theoretical S-B radiation of epsilon sigma T^4.
This is confirmed, for example, by the way satellites measure the temperatures of the troposphere and the ocean. Despite your comments, Bart, they have no problem using the S-B relationship that you say doesn’t work to measure the temperature of the ocean surface from space. You really should let them know that the physics prevents them from doing that, I guess they didn’t get your memo.
It is also confirmed by the fact that a blacksmith doesn’t need a different color scale for each different kind of metal. If some steel is glowing cherry red, it will be at the same temperature as some titanium glowing cherry red. Why? Because of the S-B relationship, which says nothing about the kind of object being heated.
Other than a theoretical cavity in a solid object, S-B doesn’t work perfectly anywhere, Bart. But we use it in all kinds of science, because it is pretty dang close almost everywhere.
You are letting the perfect be an enemy of the possible. Normally, I wouldn’t mind, but you are doing it to avoid seeing your error.
w.
Joel Shore;
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.>>>
My last post suffers only from having to deal with clear obfuscation and misdirection by someone who clearly would rather engage in that manner instead of dealing with the actual facts.
1. The earth receives 240 w/m2 and emitts 240 w/m2 “on average” and thus energy is in fact balanced and not one damn think I said suggests otherwise.
2. The maximum temperature the surface of the earth can achieve “on average” based on 240 w/m2 is 255K. The likelihood that the earth absorbs and emitts at an average of 255K is zero.
3. The surface temperature of the earth based on observations yields a surface temperature “average” of 288K or 390 w/m2. At 390 w/m2 the minimum “average” surface temperature would be 288K. The likelihood that the surface temperature radiance can be calculated accurately by averaging observed temperatures across both space and time is zero.
4. Any conclusions drawn by subtracting a number known to be wrong from another number known to be wrong result in a number that could only be correct by some freak coincidence on the order of choosing a random haystack from anywhere in the world and pulling from it the needle my aunt bessy lost 20 years ago on the first try.
5. You continually compare numbers that are heavily influenced by heat capacity to numbers calculated by formulas that do not account for heat capacity, and yet expect the conclusions to be mathematically correct and to obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Everything that I have attemped to explain to you is not that hard for someone who claims to have a PhD in physics to understand. Were you to stop and consider for a moment, you might clue in that the ridiculous attempt on your part to compare an “average” insolation number that is not representative to an “average” temperature number that is ALSO not representative, one based on SB Law with no consideration for heat capacity and the other by default which INCLUDES heat capacity is the very violation of the laws of thermodynamics you accuse me of.
YOUR numbers are the ones that don’t balance sir.
And you stipulated to my explanation of both sets of numbers as things you already knew. My numbers balance. Your numbers don’t because they are,literaly, pulled from thin air derived from equations and measurements that have nothing to do with each other.
Joel and Dave: You are two people whose knowledge, integrity, and seriousness I respect. I am sorry to see you exchanging insults rather than informative cross-discussion.
It seems to me you are comparing two different situations and therefore coming up with two different numerical results.
Joel appears to be justifying the “conventional accounting” that allocates a mean warming of about 33K (more or less) to the GHE. That accounting contrasts:
A) Our Actual Earth (AEarth), with 0.3 albedo, oceans with currents, an Atmosphere with lapse rate, weather and everything else that makes it real, and
B) An Imagined Earth (IEarth) with no water and no GHGs in a dense atmosphere that has the same mass as our actual Atmosphere, and whatever artifices are necessary to make the albedo and the exchange of heat energy between surface and atmosphere and mixing via convection the same as on the AEarth.
Thus, contrasting AEarth and IEarth, ALL ELSE IS EQUAL EXCEPT GHGs. I hope everyone accepts that AEarth has a mean temperature of around 288K, more or less, and IEarth would have a mean of around 255K, more or less. The difference is about 33K, say plus or minus 50%.
Dave (and others and perhaps N&Z) appear to be justifying an unconventional accounting that allocates a mean warming of about 133K (more or less) to the Atmosphere, which may or may not contain GHGs. That accounting contrasts:
C) A Non-GHG version of our Actual Earth (NEarth) – as described above, but lacking GHGs, and
D) A Moon-like Earth (MEarth) with no water and no atmosphere, the size of the Earth, and rotating at the rate of the Earth, and
E) AEarth as described above but with GHGs that get “enhanced” by the pressure of the atmosphere.
Thus, contrasting NEarth and MEarth and AEarth, NOTHING IS EQUAL APART FROM SIZE, ROTATION, AND DISTANCE FROM THE SUN.
So, some questions arise:
1) Regarding MEarth (Moon-like Earth):
1.1 What is the mean temperature?
1.2 Given the extremes of temperature between the polar and tropical regions and between night and day sides of MEarth, could the mean, properly calculated using the fourth root of the average of T^4, be much colder than 255K?
1.3 If the albedo of MEarth is like that of the Moon (0.11) rather than 0.3, could it be somewhat warmer than 255K?
1.4 Could the cooling effect of the temperature extremes on MEarth be cancelled out by the warming effect of the lower albedo of MEarth, such that MEarth has a mean closer to 255K?
2) Regarding NEarth (Earth with dense atmosphere, but lacking GHGs):
2.1 What is the mean temperature?
2.2 Could the dense but non-GHG atmosphere distribute heat energy (via conduction and convection) to moderate polar/tropical and nightside/dayside such that NEarth is as warm as 288K?
2.3 Is there some pressure-related “enhancement” that converts photon energy into kinetic energy that is stored in some way analogous to the GHE and has a similar warming effect?
3) Is part of the Surface warmth of AEarth actually due to pressure-broadening of the GHG spectral lines, and should this portion of the warmth be attributed to the mean temperature difference between MEarth and AEarth?
It seems to me that numbers need to be associated with the above to see if a number as large as 133K (more or less) can be attributed to some combination of dense atmosphere moderation of high and low temperatures and “enhancement” of GHGs.
-Ira
PS: It pains me to see Joel and Dave exchange insults. I think the charges of purposeful obsfucation, and the uncalled for analogy between N&Z supporters and believers in a 6000 year old Earth, are unfortunate.
Reminds me of Boy Scout trick for heating water without a pot. Put water in paper cup, set on top of a low fire (suitably braced). Remove from fire when water boils.
Works fine. The water won’t let the paper (below the water line) get hot enough to burn, and if the fire is low enough flames won’t get to the rim. .
About that Lazarus add-on: note that you can (in the 2.2 release which is what you should use) you can set the retention period. It defaults to 14 hours. I’ve got mine set to just over a year. Handy for finding past comments.
Correction: Lazarus 2.x. The 3.x is missing several features pending further development, in order to make it compatible with Chrome, etc.
Nope. The Moon at Noon is 207K, not 255.
Concerning the sarcastic allegations of tardiness in N&Z providing an improved presentation:
Considering that on the original WUWT Ira thread here ALONE, there are over 1,000 diverse comments, I’m hardly surprised that they run a tad late on their originally anticipated improved presentation. It may well be more qualitative and pre-emptive to people condemning stuff that they simultaneously admit that they do not understand; who knows? Meanwhile I wait in anticipation, whilst feeling that some of the derivations from their basic premise, (which in itself I think is valuable), might be a bit stretched.
Hopefully we will see some clarifications within the next few weeks, and let’s be patient.
BTW, I think this here debate is the best form of “peer review”
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
No…It is evidence of how, outside of the scientific community, people can endlessly debate things that inside the scientific community would quickly and rightly be dismissed as nonsense.
The fact that this is still being debated despite the best attempts by some of us to inject correct science into the debate shows how many people seem unable to distinguish actual science from nonsense. This is particularly true when the nonsense aligns more with what they want to believe than the science does. – Anthony
REPLY: And this Joel, is where you fail miserably. The point of this is education. To learn people must make mistakes. The problem with the “scientific community” is that they poo poo and denigrate people like myself and those who frequent this blog for going through the learning process discussing things they consider off limits. The fact is though, that anyone who maintains a closed mind to re-evaluating anything is a lost soul, capable only of self affirmatiom and confirmation bias.
I could have prevented this post, knowing full well at the outset that it had serious problems, but then, nobody would have learned anything. Unlike you and the team, I prefer to allow such open debate, even if the debate shows just how wrong the idea can be. The real value is in the journey. I refer everyone to the conclusion of this discussion in Willis Eschenbach’s thread A Matter of Some Gravity
You’ve spent hours dominating this thread and the original, and many have learned something from it, some have not. But in honor of your pig-headedness displayed here, I’m closing the thread. The conversation can continue on the Willis essay linked above. Take a 24 hour time out before you try to take command of that thread too. – Anthony