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.
I will use a simple and obvious example to explain “enhanced energy” or whatever you want to call it.
Start with the physical hypotheses that govern the Earth-Sun radiative system. Notice that the Sun cannot ignite ordinary paper. Buy yourself a good quality microscope, take it outside, and focus it on some crumpled computer paper. The focused sunlight will burn the paper.
If you tell a Warmist that you have a method for focusing sunlight that causes it to burn paper, being always in attack dog mode they will tell you that this is impossible. They might cite the physical hypotheses governing the Earth-Sun system and explain the impossibility.
You respond by pointing out that the focused sunlight has nothing to do with those hypotheses but requires introduction of an additional set of hypotheses that govern the effects of sunlight traveling through a magnifying glass. The important thing here is the reference to the additional set of hypotheses.
When Warmists tell you that ENSO cannot cause heating or cooling or that clouds cannot cause heating or cooling, they are doing the same thing as ignoring the physical hypotheses governing the magnifying glass. They are making the mistake of thinking that your additional hypotheses must substitute for part of the Earth-Sun system rather than adding to that system.
We all know that there must be additional physical hypotheses to explain how ENSO causes heating or cooling and how clouds cause heating or cooling. At this time, there are no such well confirmed physical hypotheses.
People who talk about “enhanced energy” are struggling to articulate hypotheses that will be additional to the Earth-Sun radiative system of energy but not a replacement for part of it.
None of this is to say that I agree with Nikolov’s article. However, I understand his struggle to shift the focus to additional physical hypotheses and avoid the Warmist smackdown.
Well, Ira, you have been much kinder to this article than I would have been. Someone on the Judith Curry site once said
“Actually, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Claes Johnson, and Miskolczi papers are a good test to evaluate one’s understanding of radiative transfer. If you looked through these papers and did not immediately realize that they were nonsense, then it is very likely that you are simply not up to speed ”
And I must confess, this was my reaction to this article. I lost count of the posts that say something like ” I don’t understand the maths (or I haven’t bothered to read it) but I think this is a ground-breaker (or deserves a nobel prize). It is disappointing to see that such posts vastly outnumber those that point out that the article is simple nonsense.
So, what’s wrong with it? First we get a diagram of the Idealized Greenhouse Model, which is not explained and seems to play no further part in the discussion [Maybe it is there to give a bit of scientific credibility]. Then we get to calculate the Earth temperature without an atmosphere. It is pointed out that using average insolation is not accurate (correct) and uses the rather pretentious term of Hölder’s inequality, no doubt to impress the scientifically illiterate who are lost already.Given that, it is not clear how we got from equation(1) to equation(2). An extra pi seems to have crept in without explanation and the denominator 4 has moved outside the fourth power term. There is a double integral but only one parameter Mu to integrate over, although it indicates a phi term should be included as well. So I have to unpick this myself. One integral is over the range 0 to 1, it doesn’t say what this is so I assume it to be the range of cosine values. The first integral is over 0 to 2pi. What is this? Perhaps rotation in the plane of the surface of the incident radiation? But is this valid anyway? Are all angles of incident radiation equally likely? What is the angle of incidence on the dark side of the planet? Does not the albedo vary with the angle of incidence as well – seeing that we are doing it ‘properly’? This whole section needs to be clarified, otherwise it looks likes a smoke and mirrors exercise.
Never mind, after all that we end up with the ‘wrong’ answer 133K instead of 255K. I say wrong because no other textbook on physics agrees with this. But now comes the amazing bit. Based on this wrong answer Nickalov and Teller resort to the argument of inconceivability, “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? Apparently Nickolov and Teller cannot conceive this so they announce that Greenhouse Gas Theory must be wrong (although that came to the correct answer).
There may be valid objections to the theory of catastrophic run-away global warming, but this is not one of them.
So what do you think the reaction to this ground-breaking, nobel prize post will be on ‘realclimate’, for example? Do you think they will be trembling in their boots or rolling in the aisles with laughter?
I do not think the sceptic argument is in anyway advanced by proving that most of those who espouse it do not understand basic physics.
Ira,
I enjoyed your comments on the “Mythical Man-Month” and on the “Nikolov & Zeller” poster too.
Some time ago I participated in a discussion on “Science of Doom”:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/
Back then it seemed that the surface temperature of Venus could be explained in terms of the adiabatic lapse rate in the convective part of the atmosphere (from the cloud tops to the surface). Leonard Weinstein calculated that replacing the if the CO2 in the atmosphere with Nitrogen would have a minimal effect on the surface temperature and I came to the same conclusion using Helium.
Several other people have made similar calculations including:
Harry Dale Huffman: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/
Steve Goddard: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
Counting Cats: http://www.countingcats.com/?p=4745
Nikolov & Zeller have improved the mathematics and extended the analysis to other planets. I was pleased to find that my “back of the envelope” calculations based on adiabatic lapse rates came pretty close to N&K’s numbers.
highflight56433;
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?>>>
Good question. You’ll hate the answer….
E (volts) = I (current in amps) * R (resistance in ohms)
P (watts) = E * I
given that E=IR
P = IR * I
P = I^2*R
If we double E, then I doubles, and if I doubles, then P increases by a factor of 4. Right? Nope.
When E doubles the insantaneous power would rise by a factor of 4, but then would fall off. As the temperature of the filament increases, R of the filament also increases, reducing I until some new equilibrium is reached. You can demonstrate this to yourself with a cheap ohm meter and an incandescent bulb. A 100 watt bulb ought to draw just under 1 amp at 120 volts giving it a resistance of a bit over 100 ohms. Measure the actual resistance of the bulb “cold” and you’ll find it is a fraction of that. When you flip on the power switch, the initial current is enormous until the filament heats up and increased resistance reduces the current. This is the reason that incandescent bulbs almost always burn out right when you turn them on. The stress on the filament of the sudden heating eventually snaps the filament.
Now, if you increase the voltage to say double, does it become brighter and warmer? Of course it does. But not as brighter and warmer as one might think. Plus, define “brighter” and “warmer”. Since all frequencies contribute to “warmer” any additional watts are by definition included in “warmer”. But is you are relying on LW to do the cooking and classing visible light (SW) as “brighter” one gets a slightly different answer. At higher temperatures, the filament would emitt in a spectrum biased more toward SW than at lower temps.
davidmhoffer says: (to R. Gates)
“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?”
_____
They are likely not zero, but more likely not as important as other feedbacks effects in the overall sensitivity mix. If, as I believe, 3C is a pretty good estimate for the effects on global temperatures for a doubling of CO2, then the effects from pressure and volume are probably so small as to be a nearly non-measurable part of the 3C.
Ira’s opening discussing a closed system is clearly misleading. A couple of commenters have pointed out the effect of pressure on the lapse rate. Any atmosphere will warm a planet. What is not clear is the relative impact of GHGs. Nikolov’s paper suggests the impact is zero, which to me doesn’t ring true.
I am encouraged to see that atmospheric pressure is being considered with regard to modeling climate. So, now we have two out of three factors of the ideal gas law. I do hope someone starts to think about changes in atmospheric “volume” as it is influenced by fluctuations in solar wind and gravitational influences, among others.
Keep up the good work!
I’m impressed how intensive the criticism is of the central issue of Nikolov paper (people will always be complaining about peripheral aspects). Many of us are prepared to go to war over 350ppm CO2 and its affect now the Ideal Gas Law applied to our gaseous atmosphere is a heresy! Surely someone considered the Ideal Gas Law to have some relevance in climatology. Where would we stand if the equation were to predict the temperature (as accurately as is done for Mars, Venus, Triton…) of an as yet unmeasured planetary body with an atmosphere. And exactly what is wrong with the equation and the results they did get? AGW scientists are happy with R^2 of more than about 30.
The police analogy falls apart, because when a Police officer is directing traffic and there is no accident or construction or increased traffic quantity, they still foul up the traffic.
So I think it is fair to say that a police officer makes traffic worse, that is not to say an accident doesn’t make traffic worse. Many things make traffic worse and a policemen is just one of them.
Will says:
December 30, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Hmmm. I must be getting something right to attract an ad hominem of that intensity.
R. Gates;
They are likely not zero, but more likely not as important as other feedbacks effects in the overall sensitivity mix. If, as I believe, 3C is a pretty good estimate for the effects on global temperatures for a doubling of CO2, then the effects from pressure and volume are probably so small as to be a nearly non-measurable part of the 3C.>>>
As I pointed out earlier, the temperature and CO2 records falsify your belief. As to pressure and volume being insignificant, coming from someone who suggested that the globes in Al Gore’s on air experiment were “superfluous”, I am reluctant to rely on your “belief” alone. Can you justify your position on the matter with anything other than your “belief”?
The thermosphere is the biggest of all the layers of the Earth’s atmosphere directly above the mesosphere and directly below the exosphere.
The temperature of this layer can rise to 1,500 °C (2,700 °F)
the pressure of this layer is virtually zero.
hot – but no pressure…
how about the ideas of thermal conductivity and thermal mass. so what if there are no thermometers, just joules and watts? heat is heat. temperature is not.
[SNIP: Once was enough, Will. Making it personal over several comments is not productive. -REP]
I defy anyone to tell me what that means. It’s not energy, just a “relative enhancement” but it “manifests itself as an actual energy in the presence of external heating”.
———-
I’m with you on this Willis. This kind of hand waving sets off my crank detector.
The assertion that increased molecular collision rates allow an extenal energy source to provide an enhanced temperate is at odds with simple molecular physics and the kinetic theory of gases.
The claim that thermodynamics explains things is just put out there with no explanation.
Elementary mistakes like Jules and degrees Kelvin speak of people whose background in physics is weak.
““radiative forcing capability”. Perhaps you are unaware Stephen but this claim is still at the unproven hypothesis stage.”
I’m happy to use the term ‘alleged radiative forcing capability’.
My point was not that I necessarily accepted CO2 to be a more powerful GHG than Oxygen and Nitrogen but rather that even if it were it would have little effect on anything other than the rate of energy flow through the system for little of no effect on total system energy content.
And even that effect would be miniscule compared to natural changes in the rate of flow induced by solar and oceanic variations.
I take it, Will, that you are a member of the so called ‘Slayer’ group which does not accept the existence of a greenhouse effect at all ?
Ira,
Because I work with spectrometers on a daily basis, I have to say that phrases such as the following;
“(4-CO2) The CO2 absorbs some of the LWIR, and warms.”
constantly appearing in blogs on both sides of this “debate”, not to mention the Wiki article on the “greenhouse effect”, are REALLY starting to tick me off.
So here is a little challenge for ALL of you savants. Nearly 150 years ago, the likes of Kirchhoff, Stokes, Bunsen, Maxwell, and others realized and confirmed experimentally certain characteristics of the interactions of EM waves with particles. First was that resonance lines are particle specific, for instance, CO2 CANNOT absorb the resonance line emissions of an H2O molecule. Second was the equivalence of emission/absorption resonance lines. If you identify an absorption line of a particular species of particles, you have also found an emission line. These apply to ALL ranges of the EM spectrum, INCLUDING the thermal infrared, but, to be clear, NOT to the acquisition of INTERNAL “thermal” energy by means other than radiatively. This is only about EM RADIATION.
So here is the challenge, to ANYONE. Please give the name of the person(s), the year, the specific particles, and the specific wavelengths involved, which were found to violate these principles, along with the name of the journal(s) in which this proof was published.
I won’t hold my breath.
Not gravitational pressure/friction (pressure is force per area, and fraction is a force–neither of which are energy), but gravitational work. This work could have left the young Earth nearly completely molten. Most of the heat remaining from this original work is probably still below the mantle because It is such a far distance from the lower mantle to the surface and heat conduction is a very slow process. However heat flow out the Earth’s surface is exceedingly small in comparison to solar irradiance.
Mike McMillan and I have both commented on this point of runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. If one bothers to look at temperature versus height in the Venutian atmosphere, one will note a very long linear increase of temperature from the surface to very great height. This linear profile is not consistent with radiative exchange but is rather the hallmark of convection and lapse rate. In effect the Venutian atmosphere attains a high temperature quite high in the atmosphere, and the small irradiance that reaches the surface causes convection, and the lapse rate leads to very high surface temperature.
Dr Burns says
Ira’s opening discussing a closed system is clearly misleading. A couple of commenters have pointed out the effect of pressure on the lapse rate.
———–
Ira is correct but I think there is some general confusion between two separate issues.
1. The surface temperature of the planet determined by the planet’s energy balance.
2. The temperature profile between the surface and top-of-atmosphere, determined by, as you say, the lapse rate and which in turn is determined by atmospheric convection.
I think it would be useful if people toddled over to Wikipedia and picked up the lapse rate formula, plugged it into a spread sheet and graphed the temperature profile for different surface temperatures T0 and atmospheric densities.
Lazy Teenager said:
“The claim that thermodynamics explains things is just put out there with no explanation. ”
The explanation has been supplied several times over, first in the Nikolov paper, then in perfectly acceptable paraphrasing by several other contributors and by me twice before as follows:
“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 radiative forcing capability than other molecules (that possibilty is disputed by some) 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
UncertaintyRunAmok says:
December 30, 2011 at 2:26 pm
“So here is a little challenge for ALL of you savants. Nearly 150 years ago, the likes of Kirchhoff, Stokes, Bunsen, Maxwell, and others realized and confirmed experimentally certain characteristics of the interactions of EM waves with particles. First was that resonance lines are particle specific, for instance, CO2 CANNOT absorb the resonance line emissions of an H2O molecule. Second was the equivalence of emission/absorption resonance lines.”
You are right and WUWT has addressed Kirchhoff’s Law here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
When Ira says “CO2 absorbs some of the LWIR” he conveniently forget the near-instantaneous and COMPLETE re-emission of the energy. CO2 is not a heat-trapping gas.
R. Gates says:
December 30, 2011 at 8:31 am
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, and answering 1 through 4 should answer 6 & 7.
========
OK. To sum it up, you don’t actually know anything useful about climate. Or if you do, you prefer to keep your knowledge secret. Do I have that about right?
And actually, if you think about it, answering questions 1 thru 4 will not necessarily answer question 6 — what would a warmer or cooler world look like? although it would quite likely help. Neither will it answer question 7 — optimum temperature — as that probably involves a lot of land use issues and maybe some trade offs.
But thanks for confirming that in your opinion “settled” climate science can not currently answer even very basic questions.
UncertaintyRunAmok says
“(4-CO2) The CO2 absorbs some of the LWIR, and warms.”
———-
Unfortunately I don’t understand your point.
The statement about CO2 is good enough.
Your claim about resonance lines is not quite correct. It would be correct if absorption/emission lines had zero width, but they don’t. Zero width emission lines is an approximation for atomic spectra and by the time you deal with molecular species you have to deal with significant band overlap.
Given the gas kinetic collision rates and vibrational state lifetimes it’s fair to say that CO2 molecules absorb IR, transfer that energy to the air via collisions, pick up that energy again via random collissions and remit that energy again as IR. In short it’s a soup of molecules and radiation.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
December 30, 2011 at 7:18 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
I believe you and Paul are correct in proposing empirical experiments. However the experiments proposed will not answer the questions raised by the Nikolov & Zeller claims. What is first needed is a clear understanding of what they were claiming. Few people on this thread or the previous one seem to understand.
Tallbloke does –
“I don’t have a problem understanding what Nikolov and Zeller are saying in the passage quoted by Willis. They are simply explaining why it is that in a gravity well supplied with external power, the more highly compressed gas near the surface will be warmer than expected by a grey body calc which doesn’t take atmospheric pressure gradients into account. Simples.”
An experiment designed to test this is not too difficult. All that is needed is to simulate a column of atmosphere.
1. A tall (2m tall x 200mm diameter) pressure cylinder internally insulated with 5mm of white EPS foam with ultra thin reflective foil covering. All surfaces insulated except on underside of matt black alloy top cap.
2. A second internal cylinder of 5mm foil coated EPS foam 1945mm long 140mm external diameter suspended inside the foam lining of the pressure cylinder 25mm away from all walls and end caps.
3. A matt black grey cast iron target disk 125mm diameter 5mm thick placed internally in the centre of the pressure cylinder base.
4. A pressure tight glass window 20mm diameter in the top cap of the pressure cylinder.
5. Peltier or cryogenic cooling for the top cap of the cylinder.
6. High intensity external light source focused through the window in the top cap to illuminate only the cast iron target disk in the base of the cylinder.
7. Valves for the input of various dry gasses
8. temperature sensors for the target disk and various points up the atmospheric column.
9. Air speed sensor for the convection loop
How it works –
1. the external light source is intermittently switched on and off to simulate the planets rotation.
2. The target disk heats up and thereby heats the gasses in contact with it and also emits LWIR.
3. Heated gasses rise up the centre of the internal cylinder, are cooled by the top cap and descend outside the internal cylinder in a convection loop.
4. The foil covered insulation also bounces LWIR until it impacts the cooling cap and is absorbed.
If a higher internal pressure of dry nitrogen yields higher internal temperatures with the same external light source then Nikolov and Zellers claims are proved correct. A further slightly expensive variation on the experiment would be to mount the cylinder on a centrifuge arm an spin it to such speed that a significant pressure gradient were created along the length of the cylinder, with the light source and cooling cap being at the low pressure end.
Kevin Kilty says
This linear profile is not consistent with radiative exchange but is rather the hallmark of convection and lapse rate.
———-
I have puzzled about this myself. My provisional answer is that the IR and atmosphere are strongly coupled to each other. While the IR could in principle determine the temperature profile, it is coupled to the atmosphere and the atmosphere simply undergoes convection to remove to perturbations caused by IR absorption and emission.
This is consistent with the idea that in the lower atmosphere the air is able to transfer heat more rapidly than radiation. I should probably verify that last statement.
Currently I am at the point where I need to write some computer code with some actual physics to completely understand all of the factors and I don’t have the time.
LazyTeenager says:
December 30, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“I think it would be useful if people toddled over to Wikipedia and picked up the lapse rate formula, plugged it into a spread sheet and graphed the temperature profile for different surface temperatures T0 and atmospheric densities.”
You’re interested in the lapse rate? Joseph E. Postma:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf