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.
highflight56433 says:
December 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Sure, you could do that, replace “enhances” with “increases”. But that just leaves you with a new problem, which is explaining what the new sentence means:
It doesn’t make any more sense with your suggested replacement than it did without it. How does pressure increase solar energy? What is a “relative increase” in energy, that is not actual energy, but only manifests itself as energy when it is externally heated?
This is not science. This is nonsensical handwaving. It is no more intelligible after your replacement than it was before.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 30, 2011 at 12:02 pm
“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?”
I agree it is sloppy terminology. Enhanced energy retention might be better. But, if you get the gist of it, you can criticize the terminology separately, without throwing the entire argument out the window.
Is there a Unified Theory as to the definition of “heat” ?
Last I heard, it seemed rather unsettled ?
I must say that the comments on this thread seem to confirm its fleeting qualities 🙂
Good stuff everyone.
Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along says:
Our planet still contains a vast amount of slowly decreasing internal latent heat caused by gravitational pressure/friction during planet formation, and radioactive decay. I haven’t seen an energy balance equation that accounts for the dissipation of this energy. Surely it’s not constant, and has an impact on the atmospheric and oceanic energy balance.”
The flux of this internal heat is only 80 milliW/m2 at the Earth’s surface — about 0.02% of that received from above, or only 1/5th of solar irradiance variability. It’s a negligible factor — and, in any case, does not vary (as far as I know).
You know, I still use the term “degrees Kelvin” because it was what we said way back when I was going to school. Now we are supposed to simply say Kelvins–old habits never die. And jules rather than joules might be just a typo, so I wouldn’t put too much stock into those “mistakes” meaning all that much. However, these two posts, one yesterday and one today, have set off a storm of criticism for good reason. I don’t see this as a bad thing, though, because they do cause lots of discussion and there is probably more learning that goes on than you might imagine. I, for one, got a bit of insight into how people view the ideal gas law that might help me teach thermodynamics this coming semester.
Bart says:
December 30, 2011 at 3:26 pm
My problem is that I don’t get the the gist of it. And I fear your suggestion doesn’t help. Suppose we do call it “enhanced energy retention”. Then his idea is as follows:
Now you have a new problem. Why does the retained energy only manifest itself as “actual energy” when it is externally heated? How can there be energy that doesn’t manifest itself as energy? How does pressure increase the unmanifested “retained energy”?
Finally, what does “… retained energy only manifests itself as actual energy …” mean? What would be an example of “unmanifested energy”
I’m not trying to be picky here, Bart. I’m pointing out the incoherency and lack of sense of his statement. Even with your changes it still makes no sense.
w.
Kevin Kilty says:
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.
Uh, no:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
“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!”
Maybe not correct. But you missing a few factors.
Have our airless moon same size as Earth. It will receive more solar energy than Earth,
because the Earth’s atmosphere stops sun energy from getting to Earth surface.
On airless world at earth distance from sun, you get the solar constant of 1321 Watts per square meter. The atmosphere of earth on a clear day blocks about 300 of the 1321 watts.
So the sun directly overhead on Moon and Earth with clear sky on Earth and the Moon surface gets 30% more energy than earth surface.
When the sun is at angle in the sky, there is more atmosphere from sunlight to go thru and more energy is prevented from reaching the Earth’s surface.
So our earth size Moon on the sun facing side would receive *more* than 30% more sunlight on it’s surface as compare Earth. How much more:
Earth receives it’s radius squared times pi and this spread over a hemisphere: radius squared time p times 2. So the energy is spread over twice the area, but it’s not spread over the area evenly.
Both with airless world and with world with 1 atm of atmosphere it’s not spread evenly- evenly meaning, with regards to watts of energy per square meter of surface.
So regarding this hemisphere facing the sun, the middle part receives about 1/2 of of the Sun’s
energy. This middle part east to west is 45 degrees longitude both east and west from noon. Or in terms of time 9am to 4 pm. 3 hr before noon and 3 hrs after noon would the period when you get most of solar energy for solar panels.
So at equator at noon, 45 degree longitude east it’s 9 am and 45 degrees west it’s 4 pm. And 180 degrees is half the world. So the diameter of “middle” is 1/4 of earth circumference, or about 10,000 km. And it’s circular extend 5000 km north and 5000 km south. With area of about 78 million sq km. The surface of earth’s sphere is 510 million sq million and one hemisphere would be 255 million sq km. 255 minus 78 is 177 square km.
So you 78 million sq miles in the middle receiving a nearly full portion of the sun, and remaining
177 sq km “sharing the remainder”. Or the disc is half of 255 million sq km, which 127.5 million sq km. Very roughly “the middle” gets 78 million sq miles of the 127.5 million sq km. Or easily “gets more than half”. While in daylight and the further you from the middle solar energy is spread over
more land area.
So that is true of airless world and one with atmosphere, except the one with atmosphere has more atmosphere to travel thru before it hits the surface in the “outer area”.
This additional “atmospheric loss” is less at 8:30 or 4:30 pm but progressively getting worst thereafter. So roughly 25% of total sunlight getting 50% or more in atmospheric losses.
Resulting in earth size airless moon getting around 40% more solar energy than earth.
Another factor I didn’t include is at lower angle the sunlight would also be more reflected/refracted away from earth surface.
Oh other thing is with Moon you using surface temperature and comparing to Earth which
is a air temperature in the shade temperature.
Lets be 100% honest here. Who fell for this moronic argument that increased temperature causes increased pressure? Seriously? The Earths atmosphere is contained in a non flexible fixed volume container? I missed that part of my science lessons.
My science tells me that high pressure systems are generally cold air. When air cools, more particles fit in a specified space at a specified pressure. When air warms up, fewer particles fit in a specified space at a specified pressure. If it is contained in a fixed volume, it will exert more pressure, but its mass will not increase but an infinitesimally small amount from the mass of the energy to increase its temperature. So, looking at the Earth Atmosphere, what happens when something gets further from the center of the planet? If you answered that its weight is reduced, your right. What happens to the Earths Atmosphere as it warms? It expands to fill a larger volume. The only direction that the atmosphere has to expand is to increase out towards space. But since the actual mass of the atmosphere did not increase simply because of the temperature increase, the actual weight of the air (pressure) at ground level will decrease, not increase.
Now, maybe I read what I wanted to in the unified theory page, but what I got from the unified theory page is that it is not changes in pressure of the whole atmosphere that causes there to be a true black-body surface temperature of the Earth with an Atmosphere with no greenhouse gasses that is higher than the supposed 254.6k. That effect is due to the fact that the full radiating surface of the Earth includes the entirety of the volume of the atmosphere. Thus raising the true black-body surface above the surface of the Earth by 5 KM and placing that as the location where where the 254.6k black-body calculated temperature forms. Using adiabatic lapse for 5KM and increasing the 254.6K by this amount gives the no greenhouse gas black-body earth with Atmosphere surface temperature.
It all makes absolute perfect sense. The argument presented on this sheet seems to be trying to poke holes in that perfect sense by throwing straw men at the problem. They never claimed that pressure is what causes the temperature, they argued that the atmosphere all on its own with no need for greenhouse gas effect changes the location of where the black-body calculated temperature will be found.
lol, still at it? Questions: Can force cause work? And, does work cause heat exchange? Even in the microscopic?
What is this “pressure” effect on lapse rate? Lapse rate in an ideal gas atmosphere is determined by gravitational acceleration, and specific heat of gas at constant pressure…pressure does not enter directly. Proof of this that the lapse rate remains essentially constant with elevation even as pressure constantly declines.
Point number 1: Lets go a bit farther. Temperature everywhere on a planet is determined by energy balance. Pressure does not determine temperature, temperature results from considerations of energy in versus energy out.
Point number 2. The lapse rate might be principally the result of convection, but there are other influences too. Near the surface even conduction becomes important, and radiation is always present, there is absorption of some portions of solar irradiance and IR, and here and there is the release or absorption of latent heat . An interesting complication in a planetary atmosphere is that vertical convection transfers not only some heat, but does quite a lot of work as well. In the case of the adiabatic lapse rate, work explains the entire picture as “adiabatic” means no heat transfer.
THANKS, Willis, for joining this thread as a patient, well-informed, science-based critic of the N&K theory. You have a unique ability to state your objections and questions succinctly and with courtesy. I appreciate your helpful and productive efforts. I also read your main WUWT Posts with great interest and always learn something new.
DirkH,
Sorry I somehow missed that thread, but the paper you linked to further down is also incorrect.
We have been using a very simple method in molecular IR spectroscopy for many decades which does exactly one of the things that the paper claims is impossible. The radiative output of molecules CAN be increased ABOVE the level of the input energy without increasing the relative concentration of the species AND without increasing the input energy. It’s not theory, it is done on a daily basis in labs all over the world.
True what you say about the ideal gas law. I’d just want to point out that PV=nrT and T2 = T1 * (P2 / P1) ^ ( ɤ – 1 / ɤ) are very different things. The Ideal Gas Law is an equation of state. It relates the variables P,V,n, and T to one another in all instances (as long as the gas is ideal). The relationship of temperature to pressure in an adiabatic expansion that you cite is not an equation of state, but rather a path on a curve in P,T space–a path on a curve, or, if you wish, a process. An example of an adiabatic process that would obey the equation you give is the compression stroke of a diesel engine. It is important to keep in mind that a path or process and an equation of state are not at all similar things, and I think some of the confusion on this thread stems from this. For instance, temperature is the result of a process (energy balance), and at equilibrium it is also a state variable related to others through the IGL. But the ideal gas law does not describe a process.
By the way, a number of people have commented on when is a gas “ideal”. There are two things to avoid if a gas is to be ideal. One has to avoid instances where the gas condenses, which is very non-ideal behavior; so saturated water vapor is not ideal. The other is among states close to the critical point. For air the critical temperature is -140C and critical pressure is 39 atmospheres. Obviously dry air in the earth’s atmosphere is always ideal because the pressure is so much below critical.
Drs Nikolov and Zeller have discovered a tight correlation from the pressure at a planetary body’s surface to this body’s Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE). Does the exisence of this correlation imply that the level of the pressure causes the level of the ATE?
In response, Dr. Glickman recites the familiar rule that correlation does not imply causation. One could recite the same rule in reference to the conjecture that the CO2 concentration causes the equilibrium global surface air temperature. There is a relation from one of the variables to the other but not necessarily a cause and effect relation.
If the correlation from the pressure to the temperature were to imply a cause and effect relationship then we would have the basis for making public policy; the appropriate policy would be to deregulate CO2 emissions. If the correlation from the CO2 level to the temperature were to imply a cause and effect relationship, then we would have the basis for making a different public policy. However as Glickman points out, correlation does not imply causation. How then can a basis be created for making public policy on CO2 emissions?
A basis can be created through recognition of the fact that each of the two relations is an example of an idea that plays a central role in logic. This idea is called an “inference.”
A scientific model (aka scientific theory) is a procedure for making inferences. On each occasion in which an inference is made, there are alteratives a, b,… for being made. Logic is the science of the rules under which the one correct inference may be discriminated from the many incorrect inferences. These rules are called “the principles of reasoning.”
Very few researchers know anything about the principles of reasoning. The ignorance of climatological researchers regarding the principles of reasoning leaves them unable to discriminate correct from incorrect inferences in the construction of their models. Thus, they are unable to provide us with a logical basis for the formation of public policy. The US$100 billion or so which the taxpayers of the world have spent on the inquiry of climatological researchers into the AGW conjecture has not provided us with such a basis. Before providing us with such a basis, climatological reseachers must learn about the principles of reasoning. It seems to me that it is high time they did so.
Well, yeah Willis, that’s kind of muddled. I assume the idea is that, by confining the atmosphere into a thin shell about the Earth and inducing pressure in it, gravity induces retention of heat near the Earth, with the heat being derived from an external source. Basically, it would work in the same way GHGs are believed to heat the Earth – by impeding the outflow of energy.
That’s my interpretation, and it seems reasonable to me, at least on the surface (no pun intended).
The warmest places on the planet are those below sea level, those with the highest atmospheric pressure – the Dead Sea, Death Valley, the Danakil Depression.
If atmospheric pressure is not the reason for this, then one needs to invoke a stonger response of back-radiation caused by GHGs as one goes lower.
Take your pick,
– back-radiation varies by atmospheric pressure/altitude; or
– the basic weight of the atmosphere/the density varies the rate by which longwave radiation escapes from the surface.
Heh, Ira:
The honest commenters have said it all. Those with vested interested (including ego) are repeating their noise (trouble is, they are toast and they know it). You are again “in over your head” on this, Ira!
Kevin Keity says:
Your first statement is correct and your second is wrong. In the lower part of an atmosphere that is strongly heated from below and cooled from above, the lapse rate will assume the adiabatic lapse rate. This is due to the fact that the lapse rate in the absence of convection would even be higher but a lapse rate higher than the adiabatic lapse rate is unstable to convection, which then transports heat upward until the lapse rate is brought back down to the adiabatic lapse rate.
Your second statement is wrong because the lapse rate alone does not determine the surface temperature. If I tell you that a line has a slope of m and then ask you what the value of y is at x=0, you can’t tell me: You also have to know the value of y at one particular x. This is true of temperature vs height: The fact that you know the lapse rate does not uniquely determine the surface temperature. If you know two things, such as the lapse rate and the “effective radiating height” in the atmosphere (where the temperature is equal to the ideal blackbody temperature) then you can determine the surface temperature; however, the effective radiating height is determined by the opacity of the atmosphere to radiation emitted by the Venusian surface…Or, in other words, by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Fact is: heat storage by the oceans and atmosphere, plus the lapse rate, can easily explain the extant temperatures on this planet. We don’t need some silly radiation diagrams with magic back-radiation to explain anything. (BTW, Willis, et. al., I am NOT denying that the back-raidiation exists; I simply maintain that it means nothing)
IF the back-radiation from greenhouse gases actually causes some kind of “radiative greenhouse effect,” then just where is this magic effect for the last 15 years?? OCO levels are ever increasing….
Just where the hell is that warming at about 10 km in the tropical atmosphere? Where is the Artic and Antartic warming?
Oh, maybe the volcanoes are messing with the theory? soot? the Sun?
Need some explanation, Willis and all you backradiation-enhanced-blanket-insulation freaks. It looks to me like the scientists that offered an alternative explanation have WAY, WAY more evidence on their side!!
In the original poster “case A” would be that the ongoing work done (by gravity) to maintain a given pressure in an open ended container (such as is the outer surface of our sphere) results in a higher temperature than would be the case at a (permanently) lower pressure for a given energy balance. “Case B”, that at an increased temperature equilibrium and a given mass of atmosphere in our open but gravitationally constrained system; pressure would temporarily rise and then fall back while volume increased to a higher “permanent level”. I see no confusion in cause and effect here. The cause, according, to the original poster, of temperature fluctuations at the surface for a given energy balance over the long term is changes in mass.
PS I still can’t see why people object to the 133k of GHG warming. It does not mean the atmosphere free world would fall to -118C. It means there are other factors (such as the water cycle and more) currently keeping our temperature as low as 15C – which factors, in the absence of atmosphere, would also disappear.
Please Do Not Make Stuff Up As You Go Along (AKA Chesty Puller) says:
December 30, 2011 at 4:07 am
The thermosphere has an insignificant density and it’s temperature is(sic) reaches into the thousands of degrees.
In fact the individual molecules of the thermosphere reach into the thousands of degrees (and are in themselves relativly dense). On average the thermosphere is pretty chilly.
PS Ned Nikolov is commenting over on the original thread.
Read your second paragraph carefully, Mr. Shore. 1) I stated that there was a small irradiance reaching the surface to run the convection. So, it is you saying that lapse rate alone determines surface temperature, not me. 2) You can determine surface temperature from the temperature high in the atmosphere plus lapse rate to the surface. One point and one slope is a straight line. 3) I didn’t say the “greenhouse” effect isn’t important on Venus, I am pointing out that it doesn’t operate as it does on Earth, and implying that there is not much danger of Earth becoming like Venus. You are so determined to make the greenhouse on Venus an analogy to that on Earth, that don’t pay attention to what I say. Your second paragraph, more or less, says exactly what I was saying.
BTW, the name is Kilty…use cntrl-C.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 30, 2011 at 10:07 am
I think it would be easier to understand if you used density of the atmosphere as and example.
IE: at 50,000 feet the density of molecules is very sparse. thus the heating (vibration) energy they transfer has long travel times and is easily lost to the coldness of space. At sea level that same mix of gases is very compacted and close together (dense) thus the same level of heating would be retained longer as adjacent molecules will react to the energy transfer.
The pressure (and thus the density) of gases at seal level will hold, retain, and reflect heat in direct proportion. As the gas pressure decreases so does the density. Thus proportionally less heat will be retained.
This is how I understand the N&K theory. The mix of gases is relatively irrelevant to the calculations as in a convecting atmosphere the weight (density) will not significantly change given dispersion. Even dumping of huge amounts of CO2 will not increase the temp as the Black Body LWIR heat escape is increased. While warming might increase initially during day time hours the loss will counter balance at night. The convection process and water transfer will simply self correct.
just a layman’s take on the problem..
Bill
Bill Illis says:
December 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm
The warmest places on the planet are those below sea level, those with the highest atmospheric pressure – the Dead Sea, Death Valley, the Danakil Depression. If atmospheric pressure is not the reason for this, then one needs to invoke a stonger response of back-radiation caused by GHGs as one goes lower.
BINGO!!!