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.
R. Gates;
I don’t disagree with.the importance of some of your additions, but 1-4 are being studied every day, 5 is unimportant to the actual science,>>>
Unimportant? The behaviour of “the team” is unimportant to the actual science? Tell that to the researchers whose actual science never got funded because of “the team”, tell that to the editors of academic journals that lost their jobs because of “the team” and tell that to the next generation of scientists who will begin their careers based on a completely false premise.
The black body temperature of a planet is not necessarily its temperature at ground level. Some planets do not have a ground. I would guess it is the temperature at the “average altitude” of emissions to space. I don’t know how the “average altitude” is calculated, but it is probably somewhere over the ground. Now, under this “average altitude”, you expect to find an adiabatic lapse rate. So the ground will automatically be warmer than the black body temperature.
Here’s a thought experiment. Let’s say we build an opaque membrane at the top of our atmosphere. The temperature of this membrane would be calculated like the temperature of a planet without an atmosphere because there is no atmosphere on top of the membrane. But you would still have an adiabatic lapse rate under the membrane. So the ground would be warmer than the membrane.
The pressure and the temperature of a given gas are in fact a single quantity. The bottom of the atmosphere is warmer just like it has a higher pressure. This higher temperature cannot be used to produce energy just like its higher pressure. In fact, the pressure/temperature by molecule(momentum) is higher at a higher altitude. It is only the sum of pressure/temperature that is higher at the bottom. If you could build a huge tower containing a gas with a different adiabatic lapse, there would be heights where the temperature inside the tower would be different than the temperature outside. So it would be possible to create energy. But this is only because the adiabatic lapse represent an insulation and you can create energy between two points that are insulated differently from a hot body. This insulation might be explained by the fact that pressure/temperature of a gas is a property of single molecules that are attracted by gravity, therefore pressure/temperature is attracted by gravity. Just like the spin of a particle is a property of that particle. So it is more probable to detected the spin of a particle near a massive object than midway to the moon.
In conclusion, it is not surprising for a planet with an atmosphere to be warmer. The exact explanation and how much warming you should expect seems to be a subject of debate to this day.
Tim, GREAT to hear from you and thanks for your support.
Agreed, but only if you also REMOVE THE WATER. 255K is below freezing, so water would turn to ice and thus increase the albedo over 0.3. On the other hand, I think that at an average temperature of 255K, the Equatorial oceans would be liquid and therefore the heat of the Sun would cause evaporation and thus water vapor, a “greenhouse” gas, so you would get some GHE warming.
Agreed again, and again with NO WATER.
Agreed again, but only WITH WATER because you need the GHE effect of water vapor to get the 288K. I do not believe that 390 ppm of CO2 in an otherwise pure N2 Atmosphere would generate much GHE unless you add water vapor comparable to current levels.
Absolutely! As an engineer I try to focus on the “heavy hitters” in any complex system and ignore the relatively minor effects. Yes, T^4 is the right way to do precise averaging, but, at our current state of lack of knowledge, just averaging T is “good enough for Climate Science work”.
Any other comments, Tim (or others)?
JPS says:
December 30, 2011 at 8:49 am
JPS, I’m sure you are wrong here. As the number of air molecules increase, the weight (gravity’s pull on the mass of molecules) would compress them, resulting in higher pressures. To get Ira’s theoretical doubling of volume would take much more than twice the number of molecules due to this compression. Ira’s assertion that temperatures would ultimately equilibrate back to what they formerly were is the real question.
[JPS, I meant to double the WEIGHT by doubling the number of molecules. You are correct that doubling the volume would require adding more than twice the number of molecules. I am sorry that my poor choice of words caused confusion, Thanks for the correction. Ira]
Theo Godwin says:
“In the Earth-Sun system of radiation balance, no energy is created on Earth. All energy comes from the Sun.”
——–
This is simply not true. The earth’s surface radiates LW radiation that has nothing to do with energy that originated on the sun. All objects in the universe above 0 degrees Kelvin generate radiation, and certainly the earth is no different. Even if the earth were suddenly ejected from the solar system into interstellar space it would still continue to emit its own radiation, but of course at at much different wavelength than it does now.
Dan:
unwittingly you have rebutted your own rebuttal- I dont see a gravitation term in the IGL- the way it is being applied here is for is for a CLOSED, HOMOGENEOUS system. the atmosphere is clearly not that. Im not arguing the practical result of what he proposes, I am saying his model is wrong.
Brian H says:
December 30, 2011 at 12:29 am
Theo Goodwin says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:59 pm
“Theo, your intent is laudable, but I think you get hoist on your own petard. The ‘energy2′ of which you speak is transformation from one form to another, not creation. So would be any possible future on-Earth energy source, even nuclear or fission, etc.”
All talk about energy is ultimately talk about energy transformation because energy is neither created nor destroyed. My point is that people will want to say that energy is created in our atmosphere, just as we say it is created in our windmills or when we build the right kind of battery, and that we should not slap them down with the Warmist definition.
Old one on this thing of grinding down the point of needles to two or less atoms.
Visual:
Clean 8 1/2″ X 11″ blanch white paper.
100,000 grains of black pepper.
100,000 grains of house fly dung.
Sort by size and report the size distribution.
I have a thought experiment that I have been working through to see if I can understand this properly (at least in a nonquantitative manner). Let’s say that a comet hits the Earth and vaporizes in the atmosphere which raises the temperature of the atmosphere as a whole by 1C(due to increased compression of the atmosphere). By my understanding of the S-B law, the Earth still would only need to radiate the 235 w/m2 it receives from the sun, even though the *total* kinetic energy in the atmosphere is now much higher than before the comet hit. This on its face does seem to suggest that that the UCT is on to something.
However, as others have mentioned, adding mass to the atmosphere doesn’t just increase pressure it also raises the height of the atmosphere (which will tend to decrease pressure and temperature) subject to the constraints of gravity.
Finally, there is the issue of condensation. If the comet entered the atmosphere as water vapor, it would quickly condense out of the atmosphere lowering the atmospheric pressure to the pre-comet levels.
WHat do people think of this thought experiment? Am I missing any important factors? Does anyone have any idea how we would go about quantifying the relative strength of the these factors?
Cheers, 🙂
My initial thoughts were along the same lines as Ira. Its absolutely true that pressure is not temperature. In the gas phase, they are related, but that’s all, one is driven by the other, not *caused* by the other.
Let me give my interpretation of what I think the original paper was saying:
I will start by trying to remove what I see as some red-herrings. First talk of heat when pumping up a tire, warmth from rapidly descending air masses etc. These are temporary imbalances, they are the result of work being done. Work being done implies that energy is coming from somewhere else to perform that work. On the macro scale, there is only one source of energy for the Earth (the sun), and for our purposes, I think we can regard it as constant.
The other red-herring is convection vs radiation vs conduction.
I think there has been enough discussion in the past for most to agree that at the wavelengths at which the Earth (re-)radiates, the atmosphere is opaque. Radiation from the Earth itself doesn’t make it directly into space, it is transferred from the earth, via the atmosphere, and radiated from the atmospheric gasses into space.
Effectively, the atmosphere conducts the heat away. When thinking about conduction here, there are three methods of moving the energy, one is plain old molecular conduction, excitation of a molecule being passed on to adjacent molecules. Its not a super-efficient mechanism in gasses, especially at lower pressures. Convection is much more efficient, it moves the excited molecules to an area of less excited molecules to allow the faster transfer of energy. Given the depth of the atmosphere, and the relatively small convection cells, I think we can ignore the actual mechanism (moving gas) and simply regard this as an enhancement of conduction — as a black box, (internal) convection will simply make the black box appear to conduct better. Finally, there is “radiation” (as in downwelling radiation) which actually radiates in all directions, not just down — this may actually be the same thing as conduction in a gas. For our purposes, I don’t think it matters if it is or not. The point is, in a black box containing gas, apply heat at one end, and it will be transferred at some rate to the other end.
So back to the plot …
What we have is a solid body (the Earth), with a layer of gas around it.
If there is no energy input, the gas undergoes a couple of phase changes and ends up as a crust of solid material on the surface of the planet. At the other extreme, apply enough energy, and for a planet of the size and density of the Earth, the gas will achieve enough kinetic energy to escape the gravity well and “boil off” into space.
We are interested in what happens between these two extremes.
As energy is applied, the solid gas becomes gaseous gas and forms an atmosphere.
The atmosphere will have a depth and (surface-level) pressure which is determined by the total volume of gas, the gravitational constant and the temperature of the surface of the planet. The gravitational constant and the volume of gas are fixed, so temperature alone determines the pressure of the gas.
Now, its tempting to think that we can apply PV=nRT to determine the relationship between pressure and temperature, but since the gas is not contained in a fixed volume (V) it doesn’t apply. There is also the small issue of the different gas temperatures at the outside and bottom of the atmosphere, and the fact that we have a pressure gradient, not a fixed pressure.
However, if we look at a small enough portion of the atmosphere, say the first few feet, given the weight of the atmosphere above it (think of a solid sphere contained within a spherical shell, with gas filling the space between the two), we can consider that it is approaching a fixed volume, and so its pressure will be closely related to temperature, and PV=nRT will (almost) apply.
The same principle can be applied to the next “layer” of atmosphere. In this case the “base” of the (spherical) container) is the underlying layer of atmosphere, and the “container” is all the atmosphere above. From PV=nRT, since this layer of gas is at a lower pressure, its temperature will be lower.
Continuing this process, we begin to see why there is a temperature gradient between the bottom of the atmosphere and the top.
For ANY planet with ANY gas as an atmosphere, there has to be a higher temperature at the surface than higher up in the atmosphere. You physically can’t have a uniform temperature, because the pressure is different.
The temperature/pressure is determined by the amount of energy being put into the system (sun) and the rate at which heat is conducted away away from the surface and into space.
So surface temperature is going to depend on how much gas is in the atmosphere (fixed), how much energy is put into the system (fixed — according to AGW theory) and the conductivity of the atmosphere.
Conductivity of gasses varies depending upon the gas and its density. Denser gasses tend to be better conductors.
I would argue that adding CO2 to the atmosphere improves its conductivity. It is a denser gas, and its property of absorbing radiated energy means that it will warm, and so begin convection, which will improve the conductivity (in the black box sense). Now, a denser gas will lead to higher pressure, and hence higher temperature, but this is offset by improved conductivity, which will lower temperature (and pressure).
Wow, I went to bed with no comments having cleared moderation and now all of this. It is great stuff too. This is all very much like the continental drift discussions in the late 50’s and early 60’s or perhaps the Hoyle-Hawking and others of about the same time. In this case we are more like the drift business but seem to be trying to make it into cosmology. Unified theories of anything are nothing more then computerizes that satisfies no one. The drift thing got more or less solved as soon as we realized how continents move. That took a discovery based on empirical measurements. The key was the age/magnetic reversal/geographic distribution of ocean crust to show the way.
In climate, I suspect we know what to measure and we know where to measure it now we need to put a lid the predictive models and focus on the geoscience relationships and making those measure. If we are diligent about it we will some day understand the relationships of all the components that make up what we all love and live with our climate.
“Paul Bahlin says: December 30, 2011 at 5:10 am
I propose an experiment…
Go outside, place several 1 meter tall closed glass cylinders on a black surface. Start with the following contents:”
The thing that dooms all of these Woods – type experiments is Local Thermal Equilibrium.
Whatever apparatus you assemble, it comes to LTE with its immediate surroundings. If you have a box with a plate glass cover opaque to IR, the sun heats the plate and the plate heats the inside of the box and the enclosed air. If you have a box with a salt plate cover (transparent to IR) the sun heats the inside of the box and the box heats the air inside and the air heats the plate which radiates the same as the plate glass. The experimenter becomes confused thinking that he has disproven the Greenhouse Effect. Yes, Virginia, Greenhouse Gases do radiate downward, but this is important only at night when convection ceases so that cooling rates are reduced in certain regions of the globe.
Brian H says:
December 29, 2011 at 10:16 pm
The core assertion is that the mass of the atmosphere varies, and this results in temperature change. Add 1 bar of CO2 to the atmosphere, or 1 bar of N2, and the results therefore should be the same. According to C. Jinan’s theory, however, the CO2-rich version would be cooler, as it radiates into space more readily. What say you?
Very interesting. This is essentially a formalization of the concept I have putting forth for almost a year. My idea that GHGs must have a “cooling effect” has also been put forward by others. I will have to look at this closer, but I think, if valid, this paper is even a bigger dagger in the heart of AGW than the UTC. It removes the physical cause for warming that warmists are so quick to claim.
It is nice to have the UTC at this time so when warmists try to complain that something must be causing the warming and hence Coa’s paper must be wrong, we have an answer.
Thanks, Ira – the venusian gasball stuff is hansen’s leftovers with sagan backwash.
temperature and pressure have this relationship: PVT = PVT
heat is nowhere in that formula mmk?
you can’t convert watts to degrees, mmk?
pressure in an enclosed space is determined by temperature. pressure without enclosure is determined by gravity.
so the venus freaks who believe in post normal reversals of cause and effect have gravity creating heat (heat isn’t created, either – it comes from somewhere it was previously).
this kind of very fundamental error in the ability to think (disregarding the temporal relationship of cause and effect – nothing more basic than that) is a property of a very broken brain – so badly broken that it can be said to be reliable – reliably insane.
Ok, tell me where I have this wrong, because the N&Z simplification of the system makes prefect sense:
When energy is introduced into the atmosphere the sum total of gasses in the atmosphere want to expand rather than heat up. Gravity resists expansion at a constant rate, and the atmosphere heats to the extent that it can not expand.
CO2 has a greater expansion potential than other gasses in the atmosphere, but it isn’t subjected to more gravity than other gasses are so the end result of heating CO2 in the atmosphere is the greater expansion of the CO2 compared to these other gasses, not more heat.
A few , perhaps 3 or 4 contributors here have got the point. The rest are thrashing about in the dark.
I here repeat an earlier post that has got lost in the ‘noise’ I have amended it slightly for,I hope, greater clarity.
If it is flawed would someone please say why or how because the issue is integral to the entire AGW hypothesis.
“Surely it is obvious that when solar irradiation reacts with matter constrained within the Earth’s gravitational field there will be a conversion of some of that solar irradiation to kinetic energy (vibrational movement of the molecules) and some of that solar irradiation to heat.in the form of more longwave radiation passing between those molecules and the larger environment.?
The proportions are pressure dependent.
In the absence of gravitationally induced pressure ALL the solar irradiance would get converted to kinetic energy instantly and the molecules would fly off into space.
The higher the gravitationally induced pressure the more kinetic energy is required to break the gravitational bond between the body of the Earth and the molecules of gas.Thus the molecules can carry more kinetic energy in a hotter environment without flying off to space and so one observes more heat as evidenced by a higher temperature.
At Earth’s atmospheric pressure of 1 bar some goes to kinetic energy and some to heat and it is that atmospheric pressure which determines the proportions. That isn’t ‘creation’ of heat or of ‘new’ energy. It is simply an apportionment of the solar irradiation into different forms dependent on the prevailing level of gravitationally induced pressure.
That is the true greenhouse effect as I have always understood it and it is therefore pressure dependent and not composition dependent.
If some of the gas molecules have a higher thermal capacity than other molecules then those specific molecules will accrue more kinetic energy than others and add disproportionately to the pool of kinetic energy that is available to defeat the gravitationally induced pressure which is restraining the exit of the kinetic energy to space.
However, if pressure does not change then the only outcome will be more radiation to space and NOT a rise in system energy content.That increased radiation to space is achieved by energising ALL the available means of energy transfer namely conduction, convection, radiation and on a water planet the phase changes of water which greatly accelerates the efficiency of the other energy transfer mechanisms.
As Nikolov says, the effects of GHGs are thus cancelled out.
One does however observe that faster outflow of energy from the watery Earth due to GHGs in the form of a larger or faster water cycle which brings me to my broader work available elsewhere.
Nonetheless that faster outflow of energy from more GHGs is infinitesimal compared to the consequences of solar and oceanic variability as I have explained in detail previously.”
Thanks Ira. What you said makes sense. Like I said, I don’t endorse the paper. I don’t get the connection they claim about pressure causing temperature without GHGs. And the discussion about IGL on fixed volumes is just a distraction.
The connection between equilibrium temperature, atmospheric mass, and water vapor, seems clear and must be a first order influence completely outweighing all non-condensable GHGs.
It is easy to visualize a trend in atmospheric mass causing a trend in the water cycle which is the strongest atmospheric energy transport mechanism.
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
December 30, 2011 at 9:35 am
“In climate, I suspect we know what to measure and we know where to measure it… If we are diligent about it we will some day understand the relationships of all the components that make up what we all love and live with our climate.”
____________________________________
If modern climate research was directed at finding what role the various components actually play, rather than trying to reach an apparent goal of securing more funding by reaching predetermined conclusions, then your comment would be more than just wishful thinking.
Take heart! The young turks are beginning to make their presence felt.
As as analogy, regarding the N&Z theory, there is a sort of escape velocity in atmospheric heating that is related to the planetary gravitational pull. If the energy is insufficient to overcome gravitational force, the added energy simply raises atmospheric temperature, but at some point the pressure to expand is greater than the gravitational counterbalance and from that point on added energy results in expansion, not heat.
This is a rather elegant explanation with many examples in the physical world. If you turn the heat up on a pot of water the water will heat so long as the vapor pressure doesn’t exceed the surrounding environment. However, when the heat reaches a specific level,100° C at sea level, the water starts to release steam (expand to a gas) and the water stays at 100° C. The more energy you add to the system at that point only accelerates the rate at which the water turns to steam.
In the N&Z theory the same general process is taking place in the atmosphere, except that gravity is applying pressure on atmospheric gasses that, once overcome, result strictly in expansion, rather than heat.
Strewth, am i the only one that gets it. It is as they said nothing to do with energy or work.
Analogy. A lens provides neither work nor energy but use it to focus light and you raise the local temperature to cause a fire to ignite.
Second analogy, in your microwave, the power passes through the air, leaving it cool but heats the denser molecules of water in the food such that it cooks.
This is all that they are saying, a denser air at ground level causes increased temperature from the same heat radiation passing through it. Matters not it constituent gas parts.
We know from the time of the dinosaurs that it was warmer and they air must have been denser because of the huge insects and flying reptiles. Both of which needed denser air to perform.
Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along said @ur momisugly December 30, 2011 at 6:27 am
“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.”
I did:
“Lazar Nikolov on Yahoo! Music
music.yahoo.com/lazar-nikolov/
Lazar Nikolov music profile on Yahoo! Music. Find lyrics, free streaming MP3s, music videos and photos of Lazar Nikolov on Yahoo! Music.”
WTF has this to do with the discussion?
davidmhoffer says:
December 30, 2011 at 9:05 am
R. Gates;
I don’t disagree with.the importance of some of your additions, but 1-4 are being studied every day, 5 is unimportant to the actual science,>>>
Unimportant? The behaviour of “the team” is unimportant to the actual science? Tell that to the researchers whose actual science never got funded because of “the team”, tell that to the editors of academic journals that lost their jobs because of “the team” and tell that to the next generation of scientists who will begin their careers based on a completely false premise.
———-
The laws of physics don’t change because of the actions of a group of scientists. Thousands of scientists are conducting research every day that have nothing to do with the behavior of the so-called “Team”. Skeptics need their demons and distractions and so they focus on the “evils” of the Team. All this does not change the science.
I completely fail to understand why anyone would consider that a planetary atmosphere devoid of GHGs would have no bearing at all upon the planet’s temperature. That seems wholly illogical to me since it affects the surface area over which heat is lost and absorbed and acts as a transport medium which will distribute heat both laterally and vertically.
If we accept that pressurising a gas causes the gas to gain temperature, it seems to me that the starting point is to consider why having gained temperature is the temperature lost? The obvious answer is heat loss from the system which in turn begs the question as to how is the heat lost?
Obviously in the case of IRA’s illustration A, of the gas cylinder placed in the fridge, this is due to conduction and radiation (the metal cylinder being able to both radiate and conduct heat).
Reverting to a planetary atmosphere, if the atmosphere is composed entirely of non GHGs (ie., gases which the warmist maintain cannot radiate), how would such a planetary atmosphere lose heat? Ie., how would this planetary atmosphere lose the heat that it acquired when it was compressed by gravity?
If we were to add GHGs to such an atmosphere (and remove an equivalent mass of non GHGs) would this speed up the cooling process since the atmosphere now has limited capacity to radiate away its heat, or would it slow the heat loss since GHGs ‘trap’ heat?
Reverting to the planetary atmosphere devoid of all GHGs and assuming that the planet surface was not smooth but instead consisted of mountains and valleys of various and different gradients such that the sunlight hit the surface at many different angles and the surface was a mixture of jet matt black rock and white rock with high iridescent sheen (perhaps much like a chess board), would not the atmosphere be heated by conduction and convection? Indeed, would there not be swirling air currents which would aid the heating of the atmosphere?
Now if the daily heat loss from the atmosphere to space (however that may occur) is entirely balanced by the daily heat gain received by the atmosphere from conduction and convection of some part of the solar input being received by the planetary surface, the temperature of the atmosphere will never be lost and will at all times equal the temperature that was brought about by gravitational compression of the atmosphere. Obviously, if there is an imbalance between the heat loss and heat gain there will be a change to the temperature of the atmosphere (as inevitably would be the case).
I have issues with the N&Z paper and do not fully understand what they are saying. However my understanding is that they claim PRESSURE >>CAUSES>>TEMPERATURE such that in broad terms this sets the ‘planetary atmospheric base temperature’ (my expression) which temperature is then subject to changes from heat loss and/or heat gains. My understanding is that they claim that if the heat gains (whatever be their source) equal the heat loss from the system then the planetary atmospheric base temperature will be maintained indefinitely. On the other hand, if the heat loss is more than the heat gain then the planetary atmospheric base temperature will decrease, alternatively the planetary atmospheric base temperature will increase if the heat gains exceed the heat losses. My understanding is that they postulate that that solar energy is sufficient to make good the heat loss and that being the case the planetary atmospheric base temperature is maintained. They suggest that changes in cloud cover for example result in a change to the amount of solar irradiance received by the Earth system and this accounts (or largely accounts) for temperature variations to the planetary atmospheric base temperature seen in recent times.
In principle, I can see the merit in such an argument.
Ira I do not consider your illustration to be analogous to the planetary condition and it is missing a vital component, namely the equivalent of the sun. It has the coldness of space without the warmth of the sun. Accordingly, Ira, in your illustration A, the cylinder should in its base be fitted with a heater. The fridge represents space (which is <3K) and the warm cylinder will tend to lose heat to the fridge and cool. The heater in the base of the cylinder represents the sun. This inputs some extra heat into the system. When the heat from the sun (the heater in the base of the cylinder) equals the heat being lost from the cylinder to the fridge, the gas in the cylinder maintains its temperature (which was brought about by pressure) indefinitely.
Thereafter, slight changes to the amount of heat being inputted by the heater in the base (changes in solar irradiance for example due to changes in TSI, cloudiness or a slight temporary reduction in power due to a volcano or what have you) will cause the temperature of the gas within the cylinder to rise slightly or fall slightly.
This is certainly a planetary model that requires consideration. Whilst I have little doubt that the title to the N & Z paper overstates the case, I think that it was entirely appropriate to publish the paper on WUWT so that it can be disseminated by a wide audience who hold different views and different specialities, and so that the authors may reflect upon points raised by the readers of WUWT and incorporate changes that may appear appropriate in the light of those comments.
richard verney says:
December 30, 2011 at 10:30 am
I completely fail to understand why anyone would consider that a planetary atmosphere devoid of GHGs would have no bearing at all upon the planet’s temperature.
Can you explain away my example? Gravity is a constraint on the free expansion of atmospheric gasses, without gravity would the planet even have an atmosphere? Of course not.
As such, gravity, in resisting free expansion, is responsible for solar energy turning to heat, otherwise the atmosphere, absent a planet, would simply expand. This is a more elastic version of the closed jar CO2 example so misused by warmists where CO2 heats more rapidly than air simply because CO2 has a great expansion pressure when energized.
But at some point gravity is insufficient to hold back the expansion of atmospheric gasses, and at that point (like water at 100° C) added energy doesn’t contribute to heat, it contributes to expansion. As such, CO2, Nitrogen, and any other gas in existence has a set ability to be heated under normal atmospheric conditions before it breaks the surly bonds of gravity and simply expands instead.
In some way, however, there is room for AGW in this theory, but only if humanity is releasing enough CO2 (or any gas) into the atmosphere to increase to atmospheric mass in a non-negligible way.
R. Gates;
The laws of physics don’t change because of the actions of a group of scientists. Thousands of scientists are conducting research every day that have nothing to do with the behavior of the so-called “Team”. Skeptics need their demons and distractions and so they focus on the “evils” of the Team. All this does not change the science.>>>
But it does change the science, because the science isn’t reality. Science is the study of reality. If the science becomes corrupted, reality doesn’t change, but the science upon which our society rests does. Muzzling Galileo didn’t change the reality that the earth circles the sun, but it set science backwards by a considerable amount.