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.
Ira, nice effort, but does not apply exactly nor correctly.
Not to insult your intelligence, or the others here who are brilliant thinkers, however; as a pilot with advanced degrees in aeronautics the following is partially why I disagree with your container example through simple observations.
Death Valley vs. surrounding mountains. I ask why it is warmer in the basin than the hill tops that surround. The atmosphere is thicker, deeper and more dense. Correct?
Gravity pulls atmospheric high pressure air downward, compressing it. It warms on the way down. As it descends it causes low pressure areas to form through the Coriolis effect. Cause and effect. Correct?
Thunderstorm are produced by an accelerating column of rising air that does not cool relative to the temperature of surrounding air that the rising air passes through, as that air returns to the surface, it compresses and forms a hot spot leading the storm, which helps feed the system. Correct?
Consider the SCUBA tank being filled and vented; the air heats through compression and cools when decompressed. Gravity is the atmosphere’s compressor, the sun heats the surface inconsistency causing different rates of heating. Correct?
Across the planet valleys are warmer than hill tops, across the planet high pressure areas are descending air masses that compress. The atmosphere is thicker and thus warmer at the equator adding to the warmth in that band. Correct?
Venus has a thicker atmosphere than earth: warm place. Earth has less atmosphere, cooler than Venus. Mars has even less atmosphere, much colder than both Venus and Earth. Both Venus and Mars have greater than 90% CO2 atmosphere, yet one is hot, one is cold due atmosphere density. Correct?
Jupiter has massive atmosphere, hot. In all instances, the atmospheres are warmer at lower altitudes. Correct? It might be colder way out at Neptune, but the same applies. Correct?
We are not in a closed canister. We are in a system of chaos with unforeseeable variables.
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.”
Even without non condensing GHGs (those are the ones we are concerned about) the molecules of Oxygen and Nitrogen despite their low thermal capacity would still warm up to match the surface temperature (or close to it) not because of direct radiative heating but from gravitational compression, conduction and convection from water vapour and portions of the surface that ARE heated by insolation such as the land and the oceans. They then lose that energy to space not primarily by radiation but by conduction, convection and especially the phase changes of water.
Non condensing GHGs do not affect ocean heat content but they do affect atmosphere heat content though mostly in latent form because of the water cycle since their energy in the air causes more evaporation. However the atmospheric temperature is controlled by the oceans on Earth so a balance between sea surface and surface air temperatures must be maintained.
If the air cannot heat the oceans then it is the atmosphere that has to shift in order to maintain sea surface and surface air energy balance.
It does so by way of a shift in the surface pressure distribution involving a change to the speed of the water cycle and a shift of the permanent climate zones.
System energy content varies barely at all but the faster throughput of energy from surface to space manifests itself in a surface redistribution of energy which is perceived as regional climate change.
So non condensing GHGs have no significant bearing on the planet’s temperature (which must include the oceans) but they do have a bearing on temperatures at the surface where specific locations experience changes in the air flow across them.
But the effects from CO2 are infinitesimal compared to the natural variations caused by sun and oceans which is another story.
That is what I call a Unified Climate Theory especially when one goes on to link it to solar and oceanic variability which this paper does not do and which I have already tried to do.
R. Gates says:
December 30, 2011 at 10:29 am
“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.”
______________________
The ‘Laws of Physics’ have nothing to do with your post. Instead, you’ve fashioned the phrase into another of your typical red herrings. Your post is just one more of your attempts to denigrate skeptics and downplay the legitimacy of their concerns, while you try to deflect criticism of “the team”.
While you have repeate4dly demonstrated a remarkable talent as a rhetorician, the thrust of your efforts has unmasked you and revealed you as nothing more than a shill.
“1) Earth with no atmosphere (and consequently no clouds), somehow “painted” so that the albedo is 0.3 (emissivity = 0.7 for incoming solar radiation). I conclude the “average surface temperature” would be ~ 255 K, as required by Stephan-Boltzmann calculations.”
Question suppose had a blackbody- 1 meter diameter sphere in space.
Is it warmer or cooler in average temperature than compare to say solid steel 1 meter sphere?
“2) Earth with a pure N2 atmosphere with a surface pressure of 1 atm (and consequently no clouds), somehow “painted” so that the albedo is 0.3 (emissivity = 0.7 for incoming solar radiation). I conclude the “average surface temperature” would STILL be ~ 255 K (as required by Stephan-Boltzmann calculations, since radiation at the surface is unchanged from Scenario 1), with the N2 above the surface cooling off at a rate of ~ 10 C/km (the dry adiabatic lapse rate).”
First radiation to the surface would less. Second surface would warm the air and therefore preventing surface from reaching as high of a temperature. But unless you have a surface which has a heat capacity- such as surface being a solid metal or even solid rock [which is more conductive than, say sand] and therefore in similar way is slow or never reaching hottest temperature because it’s losing energy via conduction [really isn’t actually losing but is storing heat]. So if your surface doesn’t store much heat, and since atmosphere could store weeks or months worth of heat, despite getting less energy to surface, it could have higher average temperature.
It should also to be noted that you might measuring two different things- first example there is no air to measure average air temperature [which how earth temperature is normally measured- average of 15 C is not ground temperature it’s air temperature. And if you continued to measure surface temperature in second example- the surface temperature would be higher [always] than the air temperature. It would always higher because during sunlight [with no moisture] it will be considerably warmer and at nite the surface will be same temperature as air temperature.
I’m glad Ira’s response was posted, and it seems he has some solid objections. But it worries me when he writes, “I would love it if the conventional understanding of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect…could be overturned.”
What he ought to love, like everyone, is that the science be correct, regardless of its implications. Climatologists just didn’t glom onto the GH effect for the fun of it — it’s the result of nearly 200 years of scientific investigation, going back to Fourier. A LOT of very smart people have spent a LOT of time thinking about it, and it has experimental support in the observed outgoing spectrum and the changes in that radiation over time (Harries et al, Nature, 2001, and follow-ups).
Any alternative theory has to pass such standards. It was dismaying yesterday to see so many people write comments like ‘I can’t follow all the math, but it sounds right to me.’ If you can’t follow the math you don’t get an opinion on the science, period. Science doesn’t need cheerleaders, it needs people who understand it.
DEEBEE says:
December 30, 2011 at 4:25 am
I started out to do so, but it is all of a piece with the bit that I quoted. I can’t make enough sense of it enough to even comment. Take just this small part of what I quoted above:
So he’s saying that pressure is either enhancing or amplifying solar energy through the rate of molecular collision … and while that is indeed good to know, what does it mean? Here were my questions on reading those two sentences:
• How on earth does one either “enhance” or “amplify” energy through ‘molecular collisions”?
• Why do the “molecular collisions” only “relatively enhance” energy?
• How does “relatively enhanced” energy differ from “actually enhanced” energy, or from plain-vanilla garden variety “enhanced energy”?
• How does “relatively enhanced” energy “manifest as an actual energy”?
• Why does it only manifest itself when there is “external heating”?
• Why does anyone pay the slightest attention to this pseudo-science?
DEEBEE, that’s why I don’t review this kind of carpola. It makes my head hurt, but more to the point, IT DOESN’T MAKE A LICK OF FREAKIN’ SENSE … how can I comment sensibly on something that makes no sense at all? When a guy starts raving about “relatively enhanced energy”, I tune out and go read some actual science.
w.
@R. Gates
thetempestspark says:
December 30, 2011 at 3:34 am
If you took two quantities of CO2 of equal volume, both quantities had a temperature of 1°C and mixed them both together what would the temperature be as a result of doubling one quantity of CO2 with the other?
——-
R. Gates says:
December 30, 2011 at 8:14 am
What about the volume? Did you force one into the volume of the other? If you did, then of course work was done on “the system” by the application of a force over a distance and of course the temperature would go up. Pv=nrt, but work must be done when compressing a gas! If however, you simply open a valve between the two containers then of course nothing would happen.
——-
“Did you force one into the volume of the other?”
Under earths physical condition, mix the two quantities of CO2 of equal volume, no compression of gases, just an normal atmospheric factor of displacement.
“If however, you simply open a valve between the two containers then of course nothing would happen.”
Is your answer that There would be no temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 of equal volume under equal conditions?
Good to hear!
I don’t have a great English, so my first comment might not be very clear. I will try to make it clearer. Let’s look at the phenomenons of temperature and pressure of a gas at the molecular level. In a gas, a high temperature means that a lot of heat transfer events happen in a short time. A high pressure means that a lot of pressure transfer events happen in a short time. Your skin would not feel the heat or pressure without theses events. Nobody is surprised to find that pressure transfer events are more frequent at the bottom of a heavy atmosphere of a heavy planet. But, a lot of people are surprised to find that heat transfer events could be more frequent in the same condition. The problem is that every pressure transfer event in a gas is also a heat transfer event.
Does it mean that we can make free energy from gravity? No, it is much easier to make energy from pressure than from heat and nobody run their car from atmospheric pressure. On the other side, it is possible to make energy from nuclear fission and this form of energy is more frequent near of massive object. Does it mean that gravity enhances nuclear fission? No, not directly at least. So, even if gravity was able to indirectly increase the amount of potential energy, it would not mean that some basic law of physics is violated.
In practical terms, in an atmosphere of a planet, the temperature varies with altitude, and there’s an altitude where the temperature is equal to what the black body theory predicts. Jupiter might not have a ground, so it is not necessarily ground level. And then, everything under this altitude has to be warmer. In the piston example, the temperature of the air in the piston that is allowed to exchange heat with the material of the piston will get to the same temperature as the piston.
Willis, refer to an appendix that defines the terms in terms presently accepted as common to relatively enhanced vernacular amplifications, actual to external dependence with internal manifestations. 🙂
There is a conceptual error in scenario A. If temperature of a constant volume of gas decreases, the pressure must perforce also decrease. Or, more rigorously, if energy dissipates from the gas, then whatever that energy was maintaining must also go away. Pressure is caused by the energetic collisions of atoms or molecules with the walls of the container. Make the particles less energetic, and you get less pressure.
Ira Glickstein;
I agree with your article for the most part though the analogy is limited in that, as others have discussed, there’s no lid on the earth’s atmosphere. So, while the relationship between T and P is as you explained it, the earth’s atmosphere can expand and contract as it is not constrained to a finite volume which makes calculating the actual end result of any given combination of T and P rather complicated.
But two other points, first to your comment on average T vs T^4, I think this is much more significant because without proper explanation it distorts the perception the public has of the science. For example, the IPCC claims a sensivity of 2 to 4 degrees for CO2 doubling, based on 1 degree coming directly from CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2. To get to two degrees, they assume a minimum of an additional 3.7 w/m2 from positive feedback. What they are vague about is at what temperature they are calculating this, the average reader assuming they mean relative to earth surface. They do not. Their calculation is versus the “effective black body temperature of earth” which is about -20C. So using their numbers we can demonstrate how misleading T versus T^4 actually is by calculating the effect of an extra 7.4 w/m2 (the lower limit of their estimate) on various temperatures using SB Law:
T = -20C = 253K
+7.4 w/m2 = +1.99 degrees
T = +30C = 303K
+7.4 w/m2 = +1.17 degrees
t = -40C = 233K
+7.4 w/m2 = +2.54 degrees
In other words, sensitivity on a nice hot day is (+30) is less than half of the sensitivity on a bitterly cold day. I think that is significant.
Switching gears and going back to energy balance, there’s another way of looking at things that I’ve always advocated. If we assume that increases in CO2 affect upward bound LW radiation from earth, but that the amount of energy abosrbed by the earth system from the sun remains unchanged, then once a new equilibrium is established, the “temperature” of the earth as an “everage” remains UNCHANGED.
Suppose earth is in energy balance recieving about 235 w/m2 “on average” from the sun and radiating the same, 235 w/m2. Then CO2 doubles, throwing the energy balance out of whack temporarily. Provided that the energy being received doesn’t change as a result (which is debatable) and that pressure and volume of the atmosphere alse stay the same (even more debatable) what would be the before and after equilibrium radiance of the earth?
Before => 235 w/m2
After => 235 w/m2
Provided we assume no change in the amount of energy absorbed in the first place, no change in pressure, and no change in the over all thickness of the atmosphere, there would be (at equilibrium) a change in the “effective black body temperature of earth” of precisely zero. What WOULD change is the altitude at which the “effective black body temperature of earth” occurs (currently roughly 14,000 feet above sea level). This in turn would affect the temperature gradient from earth surface to TOA, but not the “average” temperature of earth as seen from space.
Of course, pressure DOES change, thickness of earth atmosphere DOES change and absorption of downward LW originating from the sun DOES change. But calculating those changes is a couple of degree levels above my skill set.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 30, 2011 at 11:23 am
“• How on earth does one either “enhance” or “amplify” energy through ‘molecular collisions”?”
Coming in cold here, so I may be OT, but the answer to this specific question should be: by maintaining the energetic particles in a bounded volume. That volume will then store more energy than it would if the energetic particles were allowed to escape. It’s not creating energy, it is merely impeding its outward path to freedom.
I’m not endorsing nor dismissing the UCT – with gravity gradients, an expandable container, and diurnal forcing and mixing, it’s all a lot more complicated than PV = nRT.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 30, 2011 at 11:23 am
Willis, I really appreciate your analyses, but here you’re just throwing up your hands. You are probably right, but it would help folks like me to know why. I asked a while ago why a pressure cooker might not kinda sorta be a way to look at what they are talking about. It seems to me that, at least in the case of pressure cookers, pressure “enhances (amplifies) the energy supplied by an external source” (i.e. by causing the temperature to be higher, which is what I think they are saying).
This addresses all of your bullet list:
• How on earth does one either “enhance” or “amplify” energy through ‘molecular collisions”? I’m assuming they mean that at higher pressures, the higher densities retain more heat. For a given volume, this is expressed as a higher temperature. (In the case of a planetary body, the volume is somewhat constrained by gravity).
• Why do the “molecular collisions” only “relatively enhance” energy? I’m guessing (literally) that they mean a larger input will result in a larger output. The temperature gain from the higher pressure is relative to the energy being input.
• How does “relatively enhanced” energy differ from “actually enhanced” energy, or from plain-vanilla garden variety “enhanced energy”? It’s actually enhanced, but relative to the input energy?
• How does “relatively enhanced” energy “manifest as an actual energy”? I think they meant to say it manifests as a higher temperature.
• Why does it only manifest itself when there is “external heating”? With a pressure cooker, if you turn the stove off, the whole process stops and the pot cools down to ambient temperature.
• Why does anyone pay the slightest attention to this pseudo-science? Because this is fascinating and interesting to me and others, even if Erinome says we should just trust Phil, Michael, Gavin, and the rest of the team that can follow the math.
Bart says:
December 30, 2011 at 11:55 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
Bart, perhaps you could start by defining “enhanced” energy, and how I would recognize it if I see it. Does it have a different color or flavor from regular energy?
w.
Ira says: “The warm black surface also heats the bottom of the glass cylinder by conduction.” I do not agree with this statement because I recall that glass is not much of a conductor of heat, therefore the bottom of the glass warms via the gas being in contact with it. Example: molding glass parts in laboratory work with the old gas burners along with a few burnt fingers from not remembering which end was hot. 🙂
Ira says: “Would the “Enhanced” effect due to double Atmospheric pressure cause great permanent warming? Answer: we already know that increasing the size of the atmosphere increases the surface temperature all else being equal. We have both Venus and Mars as example. We have variations in our atmospheric pressure that exhibit the change in temperature based on altitude.
Ira says: “Perhaps a “tipping point” even? I do not think so but I would like your opinions.Answer: I agree, there is not a run-away “tipping point” as suggested by AGW advocates. however an increase in atmosphere mass will cause warming, all else equal. If there was this tipping point issue, Venus would exhibit an accelerating warming, which it is not. Thus an equilibrium is presently the case, all else equal.
thetempestspark says:
December 30, 2011 at 3:34 am
If you took two quantities of CO2 of equal volume, both quantities had a temperature of 1°C and mixed them both together what would the temperature be as a result of doubling one quantity of CO2 with the other?
——-
R. Gates says:
December 30, 2011 at 8:14 am
What about the volume? Did you force one into the volume of the other? If you did, then of course work was done on “the system” by the application of a force over a distance and of course the temperature would go up. Pv=nrt, but work must be done when compressing a gas! If however, you simply open a valve between the two containers then of course nothing would happen.
——-
“Did you force one into the volume of the other?”
Under earths physical condition, mix the two quantities of CO2 of equal volume, no compression of gases, just an normal atmospheric factor of displacement.
“If however, you simply open a valve between the two containers then of course nothing would happen.”
Is your answer that There would be no temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 of equal volume under equal conditions?
Good to hear!
_____
Of the course, the radiative “greenhouse” properties of CO2 in terms of warming the earth are quite separate from pressure and volume issues. The best estimate for the temperature effects from a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm is about 3C globally, with of course more amplification of this at the polar regions.
R. Gates says:
December 30, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“Of the course, the radiative “greenhouse” properties of CO2 in terms of warming the earth are quite separate from pressure and volume issues. The best estimate for the temperature effects from a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm is about 3C globally, with of course more amplification of this at the polar regions.”
________________________________
Would you care to prove that assertion (3C globe temperature rise)?
R. Gates;
Of the course, the radiative “greenhouse” properties of CO2 in terms of warming the earth are quite separate from pressure and volume issues. The best estimate for the temperature effects from a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm is about 3C globally, with of course more amplification of this at the polar regions.>>>
1. Best estimate according to who? You?
2. The temperature record combined with the CO2 records falsify this as they indicate a sensitivity well below 1 degree.
3. If you mention “amplification” at the poles, then one must also mention that the opposite (whatever the oppsite of “amplification” is) is also true in the tropics.
4. Since the direct effects of CO2 doubling is only one degree, you cannot claim an over all sensitivity estimate of 3 degrees without including feedback effects. Are you suggesting that changes in atmospheric pressure and volume are zero? Or that they should be left out of the feedback calculation?
That’s an awful lot of total bunk to wrap up in just two sentences. I’m very impressed.
Oh for word parsing. If I have a light bulb cooking at some given voltage amperes (watts) and I increase the er ah I mean enhance the voltage, then does the wattage increase and it become brighter, warmer? What voltage increase, I mean, enhancement is significant? And what is significant?
I might be inclined to copy / paste to a word doc, then replace the words enhance and enhanced with increase and increased or whatever word makes us happy campers. Same with other word choices that help with understanding the writer. Best of all, it is the responsibility of the writer to take care to be clear, as Willis is making point of.
Thank you REP. As a layman, it’s difficult enough sifting through the concepts being presented in the original article, and the following comments. Having to deal with bomb-throwing trolls adds unneeded difficulty.
So, earth 4.5 billion years old or so, so sun shine on earth said 4.5 billion years.
So, how much sun transfered energy remains stored in/on/within said 4.5 bilion year old earth.
So, how does this amount of 4.5 billion years of stored energy get free of taxes and the earth?
This energy lust to be free for sure.
One other commentator mentioned the Carnot cycle, which I think needs to be considered for inspiration concerning the physics of the climate system.
The following web site has a lot of interesting stuff related to this discussion; http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/theta/
highflight56433;
Death Valley vs. surrounding mountains. I ask why it is warmer in the basin than the hill tops that surround.>>>
There are most likely multiple factors but I would guess the big one would be lack of convection. Death Valley being encircled by steep mountains, convection is supressed. Cool air that would normally flow sideways across the ground from elsewhere and cause the hot air to rise just has no entry point like it would on a prairie or seaside landscape. “Wind” is just air moving from a high pressure zone to a low pressure zone, with convection causing a low pressure zone at the bottom that ought to pull surrounding (cooler) air into it which in turn allows the hot air to rise. No source of cool air to come in at the bottom, and the low pressure zone in turn inhibits the rise of the hot air.
Less convection = less cooling = hot hot hot temps. Same effect can be observed at, for example, the Dead Sea.
Will says:
December 30, 2011 at 12
“You have repeated in almost every one of your posts that CO2 has a higher “thermal capacity” than O2 and N2. By this I assume you mean specific heat capacity. If so then I’m afraid that as usual, you have things arse about face.”
Thank you for correcting me on that bit of incorrect terminology. I seem to have picked it up from somewhere without realising.
The correct term should have been radiative forcing capability or something similar but I think that is apparent from the context and makes no difference to the scenarios set out in my posts.
I am concerned about the phrase ‘as usual’. What else do you consider to be incorrect?
R. Gates says:
December 30, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“Of the course, the radiative “greenhouse” properties of CO2 in terms of warming the earth are quite separate from pressure and volume issues. The best estimate for the temperature effects from a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm is about 3C globally, with of course more amplification of this at the polar regions.”
…and Zig Zags are doubling the CO enhancement effect, raising the global polar lunar amplification pressure gradient by a thermal factor quantifier base modifier.