
Note: I’m going to leave this as a sticky “top post” for a day or so. new stories appear below.
Nigel Calder asks us to republish this post for maximum exposure. He writes:
Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, it’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release at http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.
In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.
Here are the main results:
- The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
- The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
- Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
- As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.
By implication, supernovae also determine the amount of oxygen available for animals like you and me to breathe. So the inherently simple cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis now has far-reaching consequences, which I’ve tried to sum up in this diagram.

By way of explanation
The text of “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” is available via ftp://ftp2.space.dtu.dk/pub/Svensmark/MNRAS_Svensmark2012.pdf The paper is highly technical, as befits a professional journal, so to non-expert eyes even the illustrations may be a little puzzling. So I’ve enlisted the aid of Liz Calder to explain the way one of the most striking graphs, Svensmark’s Figure 20, was put together. That graph shows how, over the past 440 million years, the changing rates of supernova explosions relatively close to the Earth have strongly influenced the biodiversity of marine invertebrate animals, from trilobites of ancient times to lobsters of today. Svensmark’s published caption ends: “Evidently marine biodiversity is largely explained by a combination of sea-level and astrophysical activity.” To follow his argument you need to see how Figure 20 draws on information in Figure 19. That tells of the total diversity of the sea creatures in the fossil record, fluctuating between times of rapid evolution and times of recession.
The count is by genera, which are groups of similar animals. Here it’s shown freehand by Liz in Sketch A. Sketch B is from another part of Figure 19, telling how the long-term global sea-level changed during the same period. The broad correspondence isn’t surprising because a high sea-level floods continental margins and gives the marine invertebrates more extensive and varied habitats. But it obviously isn’t the whole story. For a start, there’s a conspicuous spike in diversity about 270 million years ago that contradicts the declining sea-level. Svensmark knew that there was a strong peak in the supernova rate around that time. So he looked to see what would happen to the wiggles over the whole 440 million years if he “normalized” the biodiversity to remove the influence of sea-level. That simple operation is shown in Sketch C, where the 270-million-year spike becomes broader and taller. Sketch D shows Svensmark’s reckoning of the changing rates of nearby supernovae during the same period. Let me stress that these are all freehand sketches to explain the operations, not to convey the data. In the published paper, the graphs as in C and D are drawn precisely and superimposed for comparison.

There are many fascinating particulars that I might use to illustrate the significance of Svensmark’s findings. To choose the Gorgon’s story that follows is not entirely arbitrary, because this brings in another of those top results, about supernovae and bio-productivity.
The great dying at the end of the Permian
Out of breath, poor gorgon? Gasping for some supernovae? Named after scary creatures of Greek myth, the Gorgonopsia of the Late Permian Period included this fossil species Sauroctonus progressus, 3 metres long. Like many of its therapsid cousins, near relatives of our own ancestors, it died out during the Permo-Triassic Event. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgonopsia
Luckiest among our ancestors was a mammal-like reptile, or therapsid, that scraped through the Permo-Triassic Event, the worst catastrophe in the history of animal life. The climax was 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian Period. Nearly all animal species in the sea went extinct, along with most on land. The event ended the era of “old life”, the Palaeozoic, and ushered in the Mesozoic Era, when our ancestors would become small mammals trying to keep clear of the dinosaurs. So what put to death our previously flourishing Gorgon-faced cousins of the Late Permian? According to Henrik Svensmark, the Galaxy let the reptiles down.
Forget old suggestions (by myself included) that the impact of a comet or asteroid was to blame, like the one that did for the dinosaurs at the end of the Mesozoic. The greatest dying was less sudden than that. Similarly the impressive evidence for an eruption 250 million years ago – a flood basalt event that smothered Siberia with noxious volcanic rocks covering an area half the size of Australia – tells of only a belated regional coup de grâce. It’s more to the point that oxygen was in short supply – geologists speak of a “superanoxic ocean”. And there was far more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now.
“Well there you go,” some people will say. “We told you CO2 is bad for you.” That, of course, overlooks the fact that the notorious gas keeps us alive. The recenty increased CO2 shares with the plant breeders the credit for feeding the growing human population. Plants and photosynthetic microbes covet CO2 to grow. So in the late Permian its high concentration was a symptom of a big shortfall in life’s productivity, due to few supernovae, ice-free conditions, and a lack of weather to circulate the nutrients. And as photosynthesis is also badly needed to turn H2O into O2, the doomed animals were left gasping for oxygen, with little more than half of what we’re lucky to breathe today.
When Svensmark comments briefly on the Permo-Triassic Event in his new paper, “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth,” he does so in the context of the finding that high rates of nearby supernovae promote life’s productivity by chilling the planet, and so improving the circulation of nutrients needed by the photosynthetic organisms.
Here’s a sketch (above) from Figure 22 in the paper, simplified to make it easier to read. Heavy carbon, 13C, is an indicator of how much photosynthesis was going on. Plumb in the middle is a downward pointing green dagger that marks the Permo-Triassic Event. And in the local supernova rate (black curve) Svensmark notes that the Late Permian saw the largest fall in the local supernova rate seen in the past 500 million years. This was when the Solar System had left the hyperactive Norma Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy behind it and entered the quiet space beyond. “Fatal consequences would ensue for marine life,” Svensmark writes, “if a rapid warming led to nutrient exhaustion … occurring too quickly for species to adapt.”
One size doesn’t fit all, and a fuller story of Late Permian biodiversity becomes subtler and even more persuasive. About 6 million years before the culminating mass extinction of 251 million years ago, a lesser one occurred at the end of the Guadalupian stage. This earlier extinction was linked with a brief resurgence in the supernova rate and a global cooling that interrupted the mid-Permian warming. In contrast with the end of the Permian, bio-productivity was high. The chief victims of this die-off were warm-water creatures including gigantic bivalves and rugose corals.
Why it’s tagged as “astrobiology”
So what, you may wonder, is the most life-enhancing supernova rate? Without wanting to sound like Voltaire’s Dr Pangloss, it’s probably not very far from the average rate for the past few hundred million years, nor very different from what we have now. Biodiversity and bio-productivity are both generous at present.
Svensmark has commented (not in the paper itself) on a closely related question – where’s the best place to live in the Galaxy?
“Too many supernovae can threaten life with extinction. Although they came before the time range of the present paper, very severe episodes called Snowball Earth have been blamed on bursts of rapid star formation. I’ve tagged the paper as ‘Astrobiology’ because we may be very lucky in our location in the Galaxy. Other regions may be inhospitable for advanced forms of life because of too many supernovae or too few.”
Astronomers searching for life elsewhere speak of a Goldilocks Zone in planetary systems. A planet fit for life should be neither too near to nor too far from the parent star. We’re there in the Solar System, sure enough. We may also be in a similar Goldilocks Zone of the Milky Way, and other galaxies with too many or too few supernovae may be unfit for life. Add to that the huge planetary collision that created the Earth’s disproportionately large Moon and provided the orbital stability and active geology on which life relies, and you may suspect that, astronomically at least, Dr Pangloss was right — “Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”
Don’t fret about the diehards
If this blog has sometimes seemed too cocky about the Svensmark hypothesis, it’s because I’ve known what was in the pipeline, from theories, observations and experiments, long before publication. Since 1996 the hypothesis has brought new successes year by year and has resisted umpteen attempts to falsify it.
New additions at the level of microphysics include a previously unknown reaction of sulphuric acid, as in a recent preprint. On a vastly different scale, Svensmark’s present supernova paper gives us better knowledge of the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy.
A mark of a good hypothesis is that it looks better and better as time passes. With the triumph of plate tectonics, diehard opponents were left redfaced and blustering. In 1960 you’d not get a job in an American geology department if you believed in continental drift, but by 1970 you’d not get the job if you didn’t. That’s what a paradigm shift means in practice and it will happen sometime soon with cosmic rays in climate physics.
Plate tectonics was never much of a political issue, except in the Communist bloc. There, the immobility of continents was doctrinally imposed by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. An analagous diehard doctrine in climate physics went global two decades ago, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was conceived to insist that natural causes of climate change are minor compared with human impacts.
Don’t fret about the diehards. The glory of empirical science is this: no matter how many years, decades, or sometimes centuries it may take, in the end the story will come out right.
===============================================================
For those who would doubt our cosmic connections, Svenmark’s work and Calder’s article reminds me to remind you of this well known quote:
The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff. – Carl Sagan



tallbloke says:
May 1, 2012 at 4:31 am
“There are times where that word [denier] is appropriate.”
Not in scientific debate there isn’t.
You are not conducting scientific debate, but ideology, so very appropriate.
Haughty pride goes before a fall. Your attacks against those whose research
You are not conducting research even with a generous definition of that word.
tallbloke says:
May 1, 2012 at 4:48 am
So are Halton Arps anomalous redshift galaxies
Not at all, as there is nothing there that cannot be explained by chance, see e.g.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/633/1/41/pdf/62464.web.pdf
It’s interesting to see the various tactics deployed by the big bang ideologist gatekeepers.
Here we have Leif offering a red herring misdirection and clipping my comment in the hope no-one will notice that the paper he links doesn’t address the evidence I discussed.
Stay cool Leif.
tallbloke says:
May 1, 2012 at 8:16 am
clipping my comment in the hope no-one will notice that the paper he links doesn’t address the evidence I discussed.
The ‘evidence’ was about chance QSOs and the paper was on QSOs, but we don’t need to limit ourselves to those. Observations of a million ordinary galaxies show the redshift is cosmological, so the QSOs are indeed a red herring. These must be hundreds of far away ordinary galaxies in that tendril. Astronomers do not take your arguments [or the ones you parrot] serious because they simply do not hold up. Now, the real gatekeepers are the ones who ban people from their websites…
tallbloke says:
May 1, 2012 at 8:16 am
clipping my comment in the hope no-one will notice that the paper he links doesn’t address the evidence I discussed.
Here is the conclusion from the paper I linked to:
“In summary, using samples from SDSS and 2QZ, we demonstrate that not only is there no periodicity at the predicted frequency in log (1 þ z) and z, or at any other frequency, but there is also no strong connection between foreground active galaxies and high-redshift QSOs. These results are against the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies or have periodic intrinsic noncosmological redshifts.”
Leif says
Not at all, as there is nothing there that cannot be explained by chance…
Henry says
You know I am reasonably with stats and probabilities…
In fact I am currently still the only only one who has reported cooling since 1994
(remember my name)
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Let me explain one of the problems if you reason that way:
you are exactly one in a 5 million shot if we go by the average count of sperm after a love making session…
Now work out the probability for me that you are alive today by going back in time until the arrival of the first humans on earth, with that chance level…
It is something I actually forgot to mention here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god
I do not know if anyone can make something of this, but there are three lapse rates defined for the atmosphere. First, there is the dry or non-condensing lapse rate of 9.8 °C/km cooling as a parcel of air moves upward. This rate of cooling will quickly arrest the upward movement of dry air as soon as it cools below the temperature of the air around it. Next, there is the saturated or wet lapse rate of 5 °C/km, which assumes that the heat of vaporization is added to the rising parcel of air and water vapor condenses out of the air as soon as saturation occurs.
Finally, there is the environmental lapse rate of 6.5 °C/km actually observed in the atmosphere near the surface. This could indicate that, typically, about 69 percent of the rising air cools at the wet rate and about 31 percent cools at the dry rate. Could this fraction be cosmic ray dependent?
If Galactic cosmic radiation is required to initiate condensation, then it seems reasonable that the environmental lapse rate might also depend on this radiation. Perhaps Galactic cosmic radiation not only causes more clouds reflecting solar radiation but also helps cool the surface of the Earth by assisting convection and reducing the lapse rate—that is, assuming the tropopause temperature and altitude remain more or less constant.
tallbloke says:
May 1, 2012 at 4:48 am
Say what? Cite?
Because as near as I can tell, both Robert and I were discussing nothing but Jelbring’s gedanken experiment. I discussed it here, Robert discussed it there … what on earth do you think we were talking about?
You just don’t like the fact that we’ve conclusively shown it to be another failed perpetual motion machine.
w.
Willis says at 12:51pm:
“Robert and I were discussing nothing but Jelbring’s gedanken experiment. I discussed it here, Robert discussed it there …we’ve conclusively shown it to be another failed perpetual motion machine.”
Ahhh… the non-GHG ideal gas column contest restarts. Team Tallbloke & Trick et. al. vs. Team Willis & Robert et. al.
Willis means Fig. 1 in link “there” as “it”, so interested readers can therein discover in l-o-o-o-n-g comments that Team Willis & Robert did NOT conclusively show “it” (Fig.1) “…to be another failed perpetual motion machine.”
Willis asks of our Team:
Q: “Cite?”
A: Again, the conclusive citation being a 2004 peer reviewed published paper by Verkley & Gerkema 1st cited by poster Roberto Caballero in “there” thread:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Robert’s Fig. 1 is exactly the construct in Verkley & Gerkema Part 2b where their paper rigorously shows the temperature profile (of Fig. 1 in “there” WUWT post) in z is non-isothermal, isentropic in compliance with 0th, 1st & 2nd thermo laws. No perpetual motion. Robert manifestly misses this by classically assuming T(z) constant with dz to perform the integration right before his eqn. 6.
Assuming that T is constant to perform the dz integration then writing T is shown manifestly constant in z by the integration doesn’t cut it.
Verkley et. al. 2004 paper cited above still stands as doing the T(z) integration properly based on Bohren&Albrecht 1998 text cited therein. Team Willis & Robert et. al. have NOT cited any later rigorous proof conclusively showing Robert’s Fig 1 (“it”) “another failed perpetual motion machine”.
HenryP says:
May 1, 2012 at 9:21 am
Let me explain one of the problems if you reason that way:
you are exactly one in a 5 million shot if we go by the average count of sperm after a love making session… Now work out the probability for me that you are alive today by going back in time until the arrival of the first humans on earth, with that chance level…
You are confusing a priori and a posteriori chance. I would but it differently: the chance that I’m here today is that every single one without fail of my ancestors from the first green slime to me have been successful in having a descendant and every one of those again, and so on until I came to be, so the chance is precisely 100%. And God had nothing to do with it.
Leif says:
so the chance (of being alive today) is precisely 100%. And God had nothing to do with it.
Henry says:
That is the wrong answer. First of all, we express probability as a fraction; it is number between 0 and 1. So, you are in the wrong dimension (s).
2nd, you are simply denying that there were 5 million odd potential brothers and sisters competing with you to get to be the first onto your mothers egg. If you had argued that you were simply the strongest or the quickest you may have had a point; in that case I would have asked you: who gave you the grace to be simply the best?
(although I cannot shake off the picture that perhaps being in the first squirt might have given you an unfair advantage to the others…..)
What we do know is that nobody knows for sure what came before the Big Bang.
Note that if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose.
We will leave it there, but I predict that you too, one day, will end up in a deep, deep, black hole, and on that day you will eventually find out there is only one Person who can get you out of there.(Ps. 22).
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god
Steve from Rockwood said:
sophocles says:
…
You could check Shaviv’s paper at
http://www.sciencebits.com/iceages
——————————————————–
Link is broken.
========================================================================
this link works:
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
It may be my typing or may be Shaviv’s — I have a recollection of copying and pasting to try and ensure its accuracy….. but
HenryP says:
May 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm
“so the chance (of being alive today) is precisely 100%.”
That is the wrong answer. First of all, we express probability as a fraction; it is number between 0 and 1.
We express chances in percent, like in 50-50 chance. 30% chance of rain.
who gave you the grace to be simply the best?
I’m just the luckiest, not the best. And I don’t need somebody’s grace for anything.
God who created him for a specific plan and purpose
If I am the best a god can come up with, he is not very good at this game. And you are right, there is no purpose and no need for one. On a more optimistic note, one might say that a being who wants purpose can inject as much purpose into his own life as he feels is needed.
HenryP says:
May 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm
“so the chance (of being alive today) is precisely 100%.”
That is the wrong answer. First of all, we express probability as a fraction; it is number between 0 and 1.
We express chances in percent, like in 50-50 chance. 30% chance of rain.
who gave you the grace to be simply the best?
I’m just the luckiest, not the best. And I don’t need somebody’s grace for anything.
God who created him for a specific plan and purpose
If I am the best a god can come up with, he is not very good at this game. And you are right, there is no purpose and no need for one. On a more optimistic note, one might say that a being who wants purpose can inject as much purpose into his own life as he feels is needed. And I don’t like or want to be part of someone’s crummy plan.
I would have to agree that if I am the best a god can come up with, I have a bone to pick with that entity. Being female and short, something I don’t mind at all, appears to be something the world is not keen on. The christian bible clearly defines and limits my role, as do many other religious texts. At every turn, women have had to fight through these blatantly stupid restrictions and limits on our freedoms. And the fight ain’t near over.
I am not enthralled with this specific “plan and purpose” this entity had in mind for me. Unless it is to fight against it! It is not that much different from what we are experiencing regarding the powers that be using the stupid CO2 argument to limit our freedoms. It is just an excuse for another agenda. Just like the label “female” is an excuse for another agenda. Neither makes a lick o’sense.
[Moderator’s Note: Please, Pamela, Henry P and Dr. Leif, while this is interesting, it is also off-topic. If we could get back to the topic of the thread, please…. -REP]
Pamela Gray says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:39 am
It is not that much different from what we are experiencing regarding the powers that be using the stupid CO2 argument to limit our freedoms. It is just an excuse for another agenda.
[Moderator’s Note: Please, Pamela, Henry P and Dr. Leif, while this is interesting, it is also off-topic. If we could get back to the topic of the thread, please…. -REP]
Pamela nicely steered it back to the climate topic
Henry@moderator
You are right. Completely off-topic. Of course. Sorry.
Pam just raises something interesting that I would like to respond to,
if you would just allow me to refer her to my own webspace
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/open-letter-to-radio-702
then we will carry on waffling over there.
thanks!
Henry
Trick says:
May 1, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Willis says at 12:51pm:
“Robert and I were discussing nothing but Jelbring’s gedanken experiment. I discussed it here, Robert discussed it there …we’ve conclusively shown it to be another failed perpetual motion machine.”
Ahhh… the non-GHG ideal gas column contest restarts. Team Tallbloke & Trick et. al. vs. Team Willis & Robert et. al.
Willis means Fig. 1 in link “there” as “it”, so interested readers can therein discover in l-o-o-o-n-g comments that Team Willis & Robert did NOT conclusively show “it” (Fig.1) “…to be another failed perpetual motion machine.”
Willis asks of our Team:
Q: “Cite?”
A: Again, the conclusive citation being a 2004 peer reviewed published paper by Verkley & Gerkema 1st cited by poster Roberto Caballero in “there” thread:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Robert’s Fig. 1 is exactly the construct in Verkley & Gerkema Part 2b where their paper rigorously shows the temperature profile (of Fig. 1 in “there” WUWT post) in z is non-isothermal, isentropic in compliance with 0th, 1st & 2nd thermo laws. No perpetual motion. Robert manifestly misses this by classically assuming T(z) constant with dz to perform the integration right before his eqn. 6.
Assuming that T is constant to perform the dz integration then writing T is shown manifestly constant in z by the integration doesn’t cut it.
Verkley et. al. 2004 paper cited above still stands as doing the T(z) integration properly based on Bohren&Albrecht 1998 text cited therein. Team Willis & Robert et. al. have NOT cited any later rigorous proof conclusively showing Robert’s Fig 1 (“it”) “another failed perpetual motion machine”.
Trick, thank you for staying on the case with this important issue. I fear that the opposing team believe the issue can be settled by shouting longest and loudest and most repetitively, whilst intermingling the most ad hominem arguments in their voluminous output, rather than by addressing the actual science.
They also studiously ignore the experimental evidence and ignore all calls for replication at an accredited lab. Instead, they dismiss the experimenter as a “crank”. This is just more ad hominem attack which attempts to divert attention from the key issue. One of our group is heading to Germany in a fortnight to meet the experimenter at a seminar he is giving. I will be publishing a full report afterwards. prior to that, I will be making a call for questions to put to him, so please visit my site and pitch in.
Tallbloke, your citation says (emphasis mine)
Note that in the case Jelbring and Robert Brown and I are discussing there is no convective mixing … and in that case your own citation says that the profile is isothermal. Does the term “hoist by your own petard” ring a bell?
You go on to say that “I fear that the opposing team believe the issue can be settled by shouting longest and loudest and most repetitively …”
Robert has given you a formal proof that Jelbring’s claim is not true. If the column of air is not isothermal, a silver wire connecting the top and bottom of the column will conduct heat forever, which would be a perpetual motion machine.
Neither you nor anyone else has found anything that contradict’s Robert’s proof. Claiming that we think that the issue can be “settled by shouting” is an insult to the careful and interesting work that Robert put into his proof. It also ignores the fact that no one has found any problems with Robert’s proof.
Look, I know it must piss you off immensely that Robert Brown’s proof is airtight. But slandering him doesn’t advance your case.
You really should restrict your posting to the Talkshop, where people will pat your tummy and blow in your ear. Here, we do science. If you have some kind of objection to Robert’s proof, trot it out … otherwise, you’re just making yourself look foolish.
w.
Willis says at 12:28am:
This is probably not the best thread to relitigate the issues. Especially in the fine detail required to achieve an accurate understanding of Robert’s Fig.1 T(z) profile provided by 1) classical thermodynamics approximate isothermal solution math vs. 2) the exact rigorous non-isothermal, isentropic solution math for Robert’s Fig. 1 shown in 1998 and 2004 part 2b cites.
Willis continues:
“”
Where is Willis discussing another construct besides Robert’s Fig. 1? Fig. 1 non-GHG ideal gas column HAS vigorous convective mixing as does 2004 Verkley et. al. part 2b. Robert’s Fig. 1 is inaccurate to the classical isothermal solution since allows no work performed on the air column above and below the adiabatic control volume (see Verkley Fig.1) but Robert’s math is ok assuming the classical solution of constant T(z) for integration.
Note the real standard tropospheric atmosphere lies always between Robert’s Fig. 1 approx. isothermal math solution and the exact non-isothermal, isentropic math solution (excepting the crossover point Verkley Fig. 2) and discussed in Verkley part 3 b/c the exact non-isothermal, isentropic solution of constraints as shown in Robert’s Fig. 1 “… lead to a temperature profile that corresponds remarkably well to the tropospheric part of the Standard Atmosphere.”
Any, ANY proper real experiment designed to emulate Robert’s Fig. 1 will only approach the exact non-isothermal, isentropic solution but never get there as the idealizations do not exist in nature (no ideal gas w/inelastic collisions, no perfect adiabatic container). The idealizations & experimenting do allow a lot of learning about nature with proper effort applied along with an informed, critical reporter.
Trick, we are not talking about gas which has convective mixing. For that to occur you need to add heat at the bottom, and neither Jelbring, Robert, nor I are discussing that situation.
Nor are we discussing the “real standard tropospheric atmosphere”.
Here’s the crux of Robert’s lovely proof.
If, as you content, an isolated, thermally insulated cylinder of air stratifies thermally due to gravity, you could connect a silver wire between the hot and cold ends. The wire would conduct heat from the hot to the cold end. Of course, this would cool the hot end and warm the cool end.
But according to you, Jelbring, and tall bloke, the column of air would simply re-stratify by gravity. As a result the process would go on forever … which is a perpetual motion machine.
Now, if you find fault with that logic, please let me know. I know of none, and nobody has been able to provide one to date … but heck, you might be the first.
If you, Jelbring, and tall bloke are right, it would mean perpetual motion, free energy forever, and a Nobel Prize for y’all.
However, I’m not holding my breath waiting for your invitation to Stockholm …
w.
Improving my quotation implementation, Willis says at 1:45pm:
“Now, if you find fault with that logic, please let me know.”
Very gracious. Yes, this is fun; guess we can hijack this thread for awhile.
Willis’ logic:
“As a result the process would go on forever … which is a perpetual motion machine.”
Surprisingly good logic Willis, Robert’s Fig. 1 IS perpetual motion as the idealized process in there will go on forever at constant entropy, no entropies or energies are being harmed. But Fig. 1 is NOT a buildable perpetual motion machine in that no work can be extracted from Fig. 1. Dropping in a silver wire will not cause anything unphysical, the wire (or anything else) will simply drop to rest on the bottom and equilibrate in non-isothermal, isentropic T(z) long term equilibrium according to Verkley et. al. part 2b.
The 2nd law allows constant entropy thought stuff but any, ANY, real experiment emulating Fig. 1 will of course not be perpetual motion or a perpetual motion machine b/c the real container can’t be adiabatic and the ideal gas collisions can’t be inelastic. Any real Fig. 1 loses energy, entropy increases. Anything that can’t really go on forever, will stop.
Willis continues:
“If you…are right, it would mean perpetual motion, free energy forever, and a Nobel Prize…”
No, Verkley 2b is right. This is not new stuff. Do not hold your breath; if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve. As I wrote above, no free energy comes out of Robert’s Fig. 1, there is no prize here. Robert’s Fig. 1 just sits there processing collisions, vigorously convecting & generating frustratingly long threads. No science is new here, just cited.
Willis says at 1:45pm:
“Trick, we are not talking about gas which has convective mixing. For that to occur you need to add heat at the bottom.. if you find fault with that logic, please let me know…”
I find fault with this logic. Robert’s Fig. 1 has no heat added at the bottom and there is vigorous convective mixing of the non-GHG ideal gas molecules under reasonable circumstances (p0=avg. earth surface, T=earth global mean in kelvin, n=a column of earth’s tropospheric atmosphere (less GHG) from p = 1000hPa up in z to ~200hPa, R, cp, g).
In other threads, posters have shown the science of the time & distance between gas constituent collisions, all quite reasonably vigorous.
Trick says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:26 pm
You appear to be confusing the random movement of the molecules (sometimes called “Brownian movement”) with convective mixing. For convective mixing to occur, you need a gas that is warmer at the bottom than at the top. However, both Brown and Jelbring deny there is convective mixing. Jelbring’s claim is that the gas is thermally stratified. Brown (and I) say the gas is isothermal.
But in neither case is there convective mixing.
w.
Willis says at 5:02pm:
“For convective mixing to occur, you need a gas that is warmer at the bottom than at the top.”
That would be forced convective mixing. For free convective mixing to occur, all nature needs is the reasonable initial condition ideal gas column with a gravity field turned on. I double checked, Robert’s Fig. 1 has the g field arrow turned on. There is vigorous free convective mixing naturally occurring in Robert’s Fig. 1.
For a cite, once again Verkley part 2b detail discusses the math representation of this free convective mixing.
I give up, Trick. Come back when you have learned the difference between convective mixing and molecular diffusion. The latter is not called “free convective mixing” because it’s not convective mixing of any kind.
Yes, Verkley discusses convective mixing. It also states quite clearly that the resulting distribution is isothermal given the conditions specified by Jelbring or Brown (emphasis mine):
See the part about “common misconception” there? Since that is exactly the claim you are making (gravity will create a vertical temperature gradient) and since they call it a “common misconception” (e.g. you, Jelbring, tall bloke, and lots of others share the misconception so it is “common”), your own reference says you are wrong.
If you don’t understand what “common misconception” means, please come back and ask.
w.