Note: I normally don’t publish anything related to the ideas of Nikolov and Zeller, for three reasons: 1) It’s just wrong, 2) It invariably descends into a shouting match. 3) These two guys published a paper under fake names to fool the peer-review process, which is a professional no-no.
But, here we are. I thought this was important to share. – Anthony
Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach (originally published at drroyspencer.com)
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The non-greenhouse theory of Nikolov (and now Zeller-Nikolov) continues to live on, most recently in this article I’ve been asked about on social media.
In short, it is the theory that there really isn’t a so-called “greenhouse effect”, and that the excess planetary surface temperatures on Earth, Venus, and other planets above the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) temperature calculated from the rate of absorbed solar radiation is due to compressional heating by the atmosphere.
This is a popular alternative explanation that I am often asked about. Of course, if there is no “greenhouse effect”, we don’t have to worry about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and all of the global warmmongers can go home.
I have posted on this blog many times over the years all of the evidences I can think of to show there really is a greenhouse effect, but it is never enough to change the minds of those who have already convinced themselves that planetary surface temperatures are only a function of (1) absorbed sunlight and (2) atmospheric pressure, as Zeller and Nikolov claim.
I’ve always had the nagging suspicion there was a simpler proof that the Zeller-Nikolov theory was wrong, but I could never put my finger on it. My co-worker, Danny Braswell (a PhD computational physicist) and I have joked over the years that we tend to make problems too difficult… we’ve spent days working a problem when the simple solution was staring us in the face all along.
Enter citizen scientist Willis Eschenbach, a frequent contributor at Wattsupwiththat.com, who back in 2012 posted there a “proof” that Nikolov was wrong. The simplicity of the proof makes it powerful, indeed. I don’t know why I did not notice it at the time. My apologies to Willis.
Basically, the proof starts with the simplified case of the average planetary temperature without an atmosphere, which can be calculated using a single equation (the Stefan-Boltzmann equation). Conceptually, in the absence of an atmosphere, sunlight will heat the surface and the temperature will rise until the rate of emitted infrared radiation from the surface to outer space equals the rate of absorbed solar energy. (To be accurate, one needs to take into account the fact the planet is rotating and spherical, the rate of heat conduction into the sub-surface, and you also need to know the planet’s albedo (solar reflectivity) and infrared emissivity).
The SB equation always results in a surface temperature that is too cold compared to surface temperatures when an atmosphere is present, and greenhouse theory is traditionally invoked to explain the difference.
Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.
In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), the atmospheric pressure hypothesis of Zeller-Nikolov cannot explain surface temperatures above the Stefan-Boltzmann value without violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.
This is a simple and elegant proof that radiation from the atmosphere does indeed warm the surface above the S-B value. This will be my first go-to argument from now on when asked about the no-greenhouse theory.
I like to give credit where credit is due, and Willis provided a valuable contribution here.
(For those who are not so scientifically inclined, I still like the use of a simple hand-held IR thermometer to demonstrate that the cold atmosphere can actually cause a warmer surface to become warmer still [and, no, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated]).
Is the basic Zeller-Nikolov notion easily testable by a simple experiment? Two identical vessels containing nitrogen gas, receiving identical levels of radiation. One vessel has a greater density of gas. If the notion is true then one vessel will get hotter.
Up above someone mentioned a cylinder of pressurised gas having the same amount of snow on it as everything else in his garden. So I think we have an indication of how the experiment would go.
PJF:” Is the basic Zeller-Nikolov notion easily testable by a simple experiment? Two identical vessels containing nitrogen gas, receiving identical levels of radiation. One vessel has a greater density of gas. If the notion is true then one vessel will get hotter.
“Up above someone mentioned a cylinder of pressurized gas having the same amount of snow on it as everything else in his garden. So I think we have an indication of how the experiment would go.”
Pressurized gas in the garden: is this cylinder insulated? If not, then how do we expect the energy not to dissipate to the atmosphere?
If we have two identical vessels with nitrogen gas and one is denser and they both receive the same amount of heat, then the vessel with the denser gas will get hotter. It has to be so. Why? Because the molecules of the gases in both vessels receive the same amount of energy, therefore the kinetic energy of molecules is the same! So the answer should be evident but I fear it’s not, so the next step would be to consider what the definition of “temperature” is for a volume of gas.
” … temperature has to do with the kinetic energy of the molecules, and if the molecules act like independent point masses, then we could define temperature in terms of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules, the so-called “kinetic temperature”.” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper.html#c1
and http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper2.html#c1 “For monoatomic gases acting like point masses, a higher temperature simply implies higher average kinetic energy.”
In following with the ideal gas law, if you increase the density of a gas and all else is equal, then the temperature of the gas must go up because there are more molecules per volume and therefore the average kinetic energy is higher.
Try this: heat a vessel with only three molecules of nitrogen in it. How hot do you think the nitrogen gas in the vessel will be? The temperature of a gas (to be distinguished from the “temperature” of the molecules within the gas) depends a great deal on its density.
Don132
I used to do bronze casting and used bottled gas. As the gas ran low I had to put the whole bottle in a bath of boiling water heated by another source to keep the pressure up. So the sun is the ‘other’ source. The furnace is the radiation to space, and the bath of hot water the planet/atmosphere conduction interface. However could I have kind of levitated the foundry up into the stratosphere the rise in altitude would have had the same effect as adding more energy by conduction – at least I would imagine? So relative pressure and energy are interrelated in this system.
I don’t know whether this analogy helps?
Martin,
“I used to do bronze casting and used bottled gas. As the gas ran low I had to put the whole bottle in a bath of boiling water heated by another source to keep the pressure up.”
It makes sense the pressure in your bottle would go down since heat is radiated to the atmosphere, and what this means at the molecular level is that the speed of the molecules in the bottle slows. When you put the bottle in boiling water the speed of the molecules increases through conduction with the boiling water.
“…could I have kind of levitated the foundry up into the stratosphere the rise in altitude would have had the same effect as adding more energy by conduction.” Unfortunately, no. The stratosphere is cold so there’s no heat to conduct. Even getting to the thermosphere, which is “hot,” wouldn’t help, since even though the molecules there are moving fast, there are too few of them to make the thermosphere actually hot.
You’d have to add heat to speed up the molecules, or else more pressure to make the gas denser.
Don132
Martin, it looks clear enough as an analogy to me so I can see that you can understand the principle. Was it you who gave a fully charged and remaining on charge battery previously ? That was also a good analogy.
Unfortunately, we cannot get past the obsession of the radiative theorists that a surface at 288k must radiate to space at 288k despite the intervention of a conducting and convecting non radiative atmosphere.
I wouldn’t mind so much if they engaged properly with my step by step description of the purely mechanical process but they just will not.
If they can find a flaw in it then so be it. I would accept that. But I know there isn’t one.
Hold on a second, Stephen. How would raising the bottle to the stratosphere increase its temperature?
Don132
I didn’t mean to imply that. Your answer to that is correct. I was only considering that the energy conducted back in from boiling water could keep the pressure up by cancelling out the conductive losses that would otherwise have occurred.
“I wouldn’t mind so much if they engaged properly with my step by step description of the purely mechanical process but they just will not.
If they can find a flaw in it then so be it. I would accept that. But I know there isn’t one”
Says it all.
If we have two identical vessels with nitrogen gas and one is denser and they both receive the same amount of heat, then the vessel with the denser gas will get hotter. It has to be so.
That’s a clear claim and thus it would be interesting to see a practical experiment to demonstrate whether the claim is accurate or not. Easy enough to do, too, for science types.
Pressurized gas in the garden: is this cylinder insulated? If not, then how do we expect the energy not to dissipate to the atmosphere?
Why should we worry about that? The energy dissipation (which in the above scenario would melt the overlying snow more than that on surrounding objects) would clearly indicate the extra heat from the extra density of the gas in the cylinder.
PJF,
Undoubtedly the warm cylinder in the garden will melt the snow before it cools. If you pressurize it, it MUST heat up; no one disagrees with that.
A denser gas is warmer than a less dense gas, all else equal. This is by the gas laws, and it’s also shown by the lapse rate.
No one disagrees that the gas gets hot by the action of pressurising it. The question is whether the gas is above ambient temperature once that energy of pressurisation has dissipated.
The anecdotal evidence above (same amount of snow on pressurised cylinder as on everything else in the same environment) would suggest that the pressurised gas is at the same temperature as everything else.
Well if you read my step by step description you will see that the energy does not get dissipated due to the ongoing cycle of further decompression in rising columns and renewed compression in falling columns.
The energy stored in the atmosphere is constantly refreshed by a ‘rolling over’ process.
Which is how it heats the surface above S-B.
PJF: “No one disagrees that the gas gets hot by the action of pressurising it. The question is whether the gas is above ambient temperature once that energy of pressurisation has dissipated.”
There’s no question about it, PJF: once the heat from the pressurized container is dissipated, the container equalizes with ambient temperature.
Not sure what you’re trying to say with all this. Are you assuming that a pressurized atmosphere works the same way?
So let me explain it this way. In the container, when the gas is pressurized the molecules are packed in tighter and therefore, according to the gas laws, the gas heats up and warms the sides of the container. But once the container is left, the container radiates/conducts energy and the gas molecules conduct with the slower-moving molecules and thereby cool. The gas will not cool if it’s left in an environment that’s the same temperature as the gas. This is obvious.
In an atmosphere, when there’s “x” amount of pressure at the surface, that means that the molecules are packed in according to “x” amount of pressure. In Willis’ imaginary planet (to keep things simple) where does the energy dissipate to? It’s non-radiative, so it doesn’t radiate. It’s conducting with a surface whose molecules have exactly the same amount of kinetic energy as the atmosphere, so there’s no conductive heat transfer there. All of the molecules of the atmosphere have exactly the same amount of kinetic energy, so again no heat transfer. Despite this, by definition of the temperature for a gas, the upper atmosphere must be cooler than the lower atmosphere. Also, following the basic logic of the gas laws, if the atmospheric pressure is high enough, then the atmosphere can be warmer than the surface (with no GHG.) More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature, EVEN IF all the gas molecules are exactly the same temperature (have the same kinetic energy, or speed.) Since the gas doesn’t radiate to the surface, it can’t warm the surface.
Unless I’ve made some errors that no doubt will be pointed out, it really is fairly simple.
Don132
More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…
Then why isn’t our gas cylinder in the garden warmer than its surroundings?
Since the gas doesn’t radiate to the surface, it can’t warm the surface.
The gas has a temperature. It will radiate. Slightly less than half the radiation will reach the surface.
PJF:
‘More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…’
Then why isn’t our gas cylinder in the garden warmer than its surroundings?
‘Since the gas doesn’t radiate to the surface, it can’t warm the surface.’
The gas has a temperature. It will radiate. Slightly less than half the radiation will reach the surface.
Me:
PJF, I believe I’ve explained how the cylinder cools. I trust that no one but you disagrees with the basic physics.
Without going back and reading I believe “the gas” you refer to is the atmosphere. It radiates, yes. It doesn’t radiate in IR, by definition, and so can’t warm the surface. If we want to maintain that the gas radiation increases the kinetic energy of the surface and thereby warms the surface, then we are back to the argument that the planet’s atmosphere absorbs energy from the surface, and that energy is part of “energy in” so if it contributes to “energy out” then that’s no violation of any law.
Don132
PJF:
“More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…
Then why isn’t our gas cylinder in the garden warmer than its surroundings?”
Because all else isn’t held equal.
Don132
I believe I’ve explained how the cylinder cools.
Indeed, but then you contradicted it again with: “More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…”
I trust that no one but you disagrees with the basic physics.
Apparently you do.
It doesn’t radiate in IR, by definition, and so can’t warm the surface.
Any radiation absorbed by a surface will warm it.
“All else equal.”
Don132
Because all else isn’t held equal.
Let’s assume everything in the garden is under the same conditions – i.e. being warmed by the same level of radiation. Now imagine two identical gas cylinders, one holding gas at 20 bar, the other at 200 bar. Both have lost the heat added during pressurisation and have been in the garden for days.
Are they both at the same temperature? If they are, what difference does having “more packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy” actually make to temperature?
More kinetic energy in a smaller volume = higher temperature.
The Gas Laws.
Sorry, I rushed that.
Normally, if one has more molecules in a given volume there will be a higher temperature due to there being more total kinetic energy within the available volume.
In your example, the surface area of both cylinders would be the same which means that both are absorbing the same energy so I would expect the same temperature for the molecules inside. The pressure difference would remain, though.
Not really a good analogy for a convecting atmosphere due to the lack of expansion and contraction.
PJF: “Let’s assume everything in the garden is under the same conditions – i.e. being warmed by the same level of radiation. Now imagine two identical gas cylinders, one holding gas at 20 bar, the other at 200 bar. Both have lost the heat added during pressurisation and have been in the garden for days.
Are they both at the same temperature? If they are, what difference does having “more packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy” actually make to temperature?”
If the containers are the same size, then the one under more pressure would have had to have more molecules of gas added to it. When it cools to ambient temperature it would have the same temperature as the surroundings but each molecule would have less kinetic energy than the 20 mb container, otherwise the temperature of the gas in the 200 mb container would be higher than ambient temperature. So all things are not equal.
The 200 mb container has more heat in the form of kinetic energy to lose.
It’s the ideal gas law.
But thanks, I had to think about that one.
Does anyone else want to weigh in on this so we don’t go around and around?
Don132
Yes, that was a tricky one relating to the Gas Laws but not really helpful in the current context. Good brain exercise, though.
If the containers are the same size, then the one under more pressure would have had to have more molecules of gas added to it. When it cools to ambient temperature it would have the same temperature as the surroundings but each molecule would have less kinetic energy than the 20 mb container, otherwise the temperature of the gas in the 200 mb container would be higher than ambient temperature.
No.
The kinetic energy of a gas molecule is directly proportional to its temperature, and is expressed as 1.5 (k)(T), where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is the temperature of the gas.
So, both cylinders being the same temperature, the kinetic energy of each molecule is the same in both cylinders. Thus the whole of the gas in the cylinder with more gas has higher overall kinetic energy. This is exhibited not by a higher temperature but by the greater pressure exerted by the gas on the inside of the cylinder.
PJF,
You are correct. I am wrong.
I’m too tired of all this to figure out the implications, and I really do need to attend to other things
Thanks for setting me straight.
Don132
To summarise the present state of play:
Wiliis now accepts that the formation of an atmosphere draws energy from the surface that would otherwise have escaped to space. If that is true in the formation then it is also true that maintaining the atmosphere requires more energy at the surface than is predicted from the S-B equation. I have asked Willis to proceed to step 2 of my description but he has not yet done so.
Leif has kindly produced evidence that the outer, convecting layers of the sun are hotter than the radiation layers beneath but refuses to acknowledge that the delay in energy transmission created by convective overturning is the cause.
Both of them resort to abuse when pressed on the logic.
Stephen Wilde January 6, 2019 at 1:36 am
Don’t pretend to read my mind. You have no clue what I think about your babbling nonsense.
To summarize the current state of play. You called me a cheat and a liar. After that, I couldn’t care less about “point 2 of your description” or whatever kind of nonsense it might contain. I don’t have any truck with someone who calls me a liar.
I did not “resort to abuse when pressed on the logic”. I called you out as a slimy scumball for accusing an honest man of cheating and lying without a scrap of evidence.
Now you are trying to turn that around to make me the bad guy? Piss off. You are one sick puppy, trying to twist a scientific discussion in this manner.
I’m done with you. Go insult someone else, and don’t make any claims involving me.
w.
Holy crap Willis you sure know how to elevate the conversation!
Personally I think that Stephen is a bit convoluted in his expression. That doesn’t make him wrong, and I don’t see how he has outright called you a cheat and a liar, whereas you come up with “slimy scumball.”
So we descend into insults after all?
We have disagreements. We’re trying to resolve them as civilly as we can. When Anthony said that the conversation on this subject usually ends up shouting, look who’s throwing the first punches.
So what do you expect Stephen to do now? Put up with you clear and un-called for insults? Way to go.
Don132
So now we can close comments and leave things ending exactly as Anthony predicted!
I can’t believe it. This site needs lessons in civility and I thought we were doing pretty good, all things considered.
Don132
…and I don’t see how he has outright called you a cheat and a liar, whereas you come up with “slimy scumball.”
“Loaded the dice” = cheat
“Conceal the truth” = liar
That’s downright outright.
I’m not a regular here but the difference between rough-and-tumble and totally-unacceptable is clear as day.
PJF
Loading the dice means aiming for a predetermined outcome. Eliminating convection from a model which is intended to replicate a scenario that relies on convection is certainly that.
Whether or not that is cheating depends on intent. I did not assert that he did cheat, I simply left it open as a prima facie possibility.
Concealing the truth is the inevitable consequence of what Willis did. Again, it could be deliberate or not.
It is, however, a fact that Willis is pretty astute so one would be entitled to be suspicious and suspicion is all I expressed.
The proper response from Willis, to negate all suspicion, would be for him to explain clearly why he chose to remove the parameter of uneven surface heating.
Instead, he lost his temper which raises further suspicion.
So, no, I do not accept that I outright called him a cheat and a liar but I did indirectly point out that his conduct had left him open to that allegation.
“‘Loaded the dice’= cheat
‘Conceal the truth’ = liar
“That’s downright outright. ”
Agree that Stephen should refrain from this as well, but from that to “slimy scumball” is quite a leap.
Let me note that Willis hasn’t answered one single objection to his hypothetical planet that I’ve raised– not one. In particular it seems to me that this comment refutes his imaginary planet model and also explains the basic physics of the pressure model, laid out in simple logic. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836 I admit that with time constraints I haven’t thought about Joe Born’s response to that carefully, but it seems to me that his comment is a reiteration of why the greenhouse theory must be correct, not a direct refutation of the mechanisms I’ve laid out. The issue is that if both theories account for the same phenomenon to the same degree, then both can’t be correct. So if we’d focus on the basic argument I laid out we might get somewhere. I’ll admit if I’m wrong, honest! But so far a lot of talking at cross-purposes is going on, with Willis content to ignore some objections.
Don132
Instead, he lost his temper which raises further suspicion.
Me, I’d have just withdrawn the remarks and apologised for making them. But you still want to go there with bizarre rationalisations.
There’s a difference between “logic” and “weasel”.
PJF,
You haven’t read my response to his first tirade. I did accept his denial of the necessary intent.
Nor have you noted that upthread he had previously implied that I was knowingly fooling people i.e he was calling me a cheat / charlatan.
DJF
My words to Willis were:
“Then I accept that you did not do it deliberately “
Let me add that my demonstration here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836 shows three main things:
1. An atmosphere without GHGs does not radiate the surface (obvious.)
2. Whatever the temperature of the atmosphere, if that temperature is due to conductive interactions with the planet’s surface, then the molecules of the atmosphere can never have more kinetic energy than the molecules of the surface.
3. Nevertheless, since a denser gas holds more heat, an atmosphere can be dense enough to be warmer than the surface. No compressive heating happens; this is simply how the temperature of a gas is defined, and this is distinct from the temperature of the molecules within the gas. This follows directly from the ideal gas law and is the basis of the NZ/Wilde/Holmes theory.
I suspect that people are confused about point three (?) and are confused about the temperature of a molecule versus the temperature of a gas. An isothermal atmosphere does not mean that the atmosphere is the same temperature from top to bottom, even if all the molecules are exactly the same temperature. We’re using “temperature” in two different ways, and these get confused.
This proves that the NZ/Wilde/Holmes theory makes sense and isn’t quite as silly as everyone says.
So refute, politely and civilly, so we can all learn.
Don132
1 Agreed
2 You should refer to total energy not kinetic energy. The molecules at the top of atmosphere have the same total energy as the ones at the bottom but as one increases height kinetic energy becomes potential energy. The latter is not heat and does not radiate. The ones lower down must have more kinetic energy in order to support the greater weight of atmospheric mass above them.
3 There is a constant loop of decompression in rising air and compression in falling air.
Apart from that an isothermal atmosphere by definition has the same temperature top to bottom. We are not using temperature two different ways since temperature simply represents kinetic energy. We, or rather you, are not yet distinguishing between kinetic energy which is heat and does not radiate and potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate.
It is the returning KE from PE in falling air that is then recirculating which is heating the surface above S-B.
Stephen! Work with me here!
I wish you’d stop talking so much about KE versus PE because frankly I think it’s confusing the issue. This is my opinion.
“Apart from that an isothermal atmosphere by definition has the same temperature top to bottom. We are not using temperature two different ways since temperature simply represents kinetic energy.”
Oh yes, we are using temperature two different ways. Given the same kinetic energy (“temperature”) of molecules, what’s the “temperature” of a volume of gas with one molecule in it? How about the “temperature” of same volume of gas with a trillion molecules in it? All molecules have the same kinetic energy.
Why is the thermosphere actually cold, if you stick your hand in it?
Don132
Sadly, the KE PE exchange is critical.
Temperature does indeed depend on the number of molecules in a given space so if you expand the space whilst leaving the number of molecules the same then the temperature drops.
Why does it drop?
It drops because KE is replaced by PE but the total amount of energy within the volume (PE plus KE) stays the same.
So you are talking about two different types of energy influencing temperature and not two types of temperature.
You already know that the thermosphere would feel cold despite the high temperature of molecules because they are so widely spaced. But their energy content is huge because they also have an enormous amount of potential energy being so far off the surface. Its just that the potential energy part doesn’t register as heat.
If you brought a thermosphere molecule down to the surface adding together their potential energy and their kinetic energy from direct solar heating they would become incredibly hot.
So, I think you are straying away from simplicity and maybe I’m not helping.
But you have to realise that the PE KE energy exchange combined with the up and down motion is what simplifies the issues so that I could produce my very straightforward description.
Stephen, I think you can prove that the basic idea of the mass atmosphere effect is sound by simply considering conduction and atmospheric density. All you need to prove is that a non-GHG atmosphere can indeed be warmer than the surface, and radiation balance can be maintained. That’s it! People are stuck on that. And, Willis’ model is dead wrong, which I think I’ve demonstrated directly. Willis refuses to address anything I’ve said. Maybe I’m lower than “slimy scumball”? In any case no one has yet addressed the refutation I posted, which fully supports your position in a fairly simple manner.
This is so just by considering the ideal gas law, the nature of conduction, and being careful to distinguish between the temperature of individual molecules versus the temperature of the gas that contains those molecules. IMHO you’re trying to explain the details of your theory when people are stuck on square one. At this point we only need to show that the theory isn’t so silly as Watts and Willis believe.
Seriously, I have other things to do (don’t we all?) and much as I like following along, my time in the next day or so may be limited. By then comments might be closed. But, I’ll scan for comments and address what I can.
Don132
We are both getting tired but I agree essentially.
However that should be that a non GHG atmosphere can produce a surface warmer than S-B and radiation balance can be maintained.
Objectors are indeed stuck on square one because they believe it ‘must’ be wrong. It goes against all they have been taught and messes with their mental picture of atmospheric processes. Thus they set off at increasingly bizarre tangents and we end up discussing a vast variety of details that are dependent on square one so that there are constant cross purposes. Then they get abusive as Anthony anticipated.
All they need to do is say ‘what if ?’ and follow the steps in my description.
They just won’t.
Stephen:
“Objectors are indeed stuck on square one because they believe it ‘must’ be wrong. ”
I believe I’ve laid out an irrefutable argument here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836
No one has yet responded directly to that fairly simple argument, which I believe establishes the validity of the NZ/Wilde/Holmes model. Joe Born refuted by arguing for the greenhouse theory, which is fine because we all expect the greenhouse theory to be self-consistent, but that doesn’t mean that the theory is necessarily correct. If we have two theories that account for planetary temperature above S-B, then only one can be right– or, as some have said, it might be a combination of the two. But at this point I’m only interested in establishing that Willis’ refutation of NZ is wrong, and that the NZ/Wilde/Holmes model is sound and makes sense.
Don132
PJF January 6, 2019 at 4:05 am
Thanks, PJF. I knew that someone was going to say “but … but … he never called you that”, so I’m glad that it is as clear to you as it was to me.
w.
Stephen Wilde January 6, 2019 at 4:29 am
Loading a set of dice is a quintessential example of cheating. Playing with dice that you had loaded would get you shot in the old West, and for good reason. It means secretly changing the game so that you would win … in other words, cheating.
Stephen, you called me a cheat and a liar. At least have the balls to either stand behind your accusations or retract and apologize for them. Trying to wriggle out from what you obviously said is unseemly and pusillanimous.
w.
I withdrew the implication (not an allegation).
Please explain why you did choose those parameters.
An apology is not required because the suspicion was reasonable but if you can give a sound reason I will express regret for the suspicion.
Provided you also withdraw your allegation upthread that I was ‘fooling’ contributors to this site.
Or we can both just move on and you can address what happens next after the atmosphere draws energy from the surface rather than it radiating out to space.
If you stay civil then I will too.
you didn’t take on board the message about the Israeli scientist who won the noble prize then Willis?
Richard, I assume you mean the Nobel Prize, but other than that I have no clue who or what you are talking about. Some context here would help.
w.
Leif has kindly produced evidence that the outer, convecting layers of the sun are hotter than the radiation layers beneath
No, this is not true [as usual Stephen is a bit economical with the truth; perhaps hoping that nobody will notice].
Here is the run of temperature in the solar interior:
It is the very rapid change in temperature in the our layers that cause them to convect.
That is not the chart I referred to. I think it was on page 8 of your link or thereabouts.
Kindly post the correct one.
I’m not good enough with WordPress to post it myself.
That is not the chart I referred to
You wondered what the temperature was in the interior of the Sun. I provided you with a link
http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/PY4020/lecture01_solar_interior.pdf
in which the chart appears. You said that you looked at it [is that also not true?].
In any event, that is what the run of temperature actually is:
A very rapid decrease as one goes outwards. It is this decrease that cause the convection.
The energy fluxes at the bottom and at the top of the convection zone are the same, contrary to your ‘prediction’. Guess what that does to your ideas?
The chart on page 8 is completely different. Please post it and explain the difference.
Kindly retract your personal allegations.
The chart on page 8 is completely different.
That slide does not show the temperature, but the temperature gradient.
The ability to read is a useful thing to have, but it should be applied, don’t you think?
So, again: the facts contradict your theory.
So the temperature gradient increases when one enters the convective zone but declines when one gets above it?
Well that seems to accord with the view that convection heats things up.
But, if the temperature doesn’t change then something else peculiar to a star is offsetting it and that certainly does not apply for a planet.
So, the only error in my statement is that I should have said that the temperature gradient changes due to convection.
You owe me an apology.
Well that seems to accord with the view that convection heats things up.
Nonsense, it shows that the matter has become opaque and that energy is just carried along with the flow. With the same energy exiting at the top as entering at the bottom.
So, again: the facts contradicts your theory.
and no need to apologise for you just being yourself.
But, if the temperature doesn’t change then something else peculiar to a star is offsetting it and that certainly does not apply for a planet.
Again, you are not paying attention. The whole point is that the temperature begins to fall precipitously because the matter in the convection zone is now opaque, which is what causes convection to begin. Note that the gradient is now the adiabatic one showing that there is no exchange of energy with the ambient atmosphere.
So, again: the facts contradicts your theory, big time.
You now have the explanation for my misinterpretation of the solar charts which precludes dishonesty on my part so you should apologise.
What does come out of this is that the interior of stars is not a suitable comparator for a planet with an atmosphere which is what I said to you at the very beginning but you dissented so we had to go off on this irrrelevant tangent.
Someone in your position should know perfectly well the comparison is not suitable.
If you really do have a problem with my description then you are welcome to run through the steps in sequence and discuss them with me.
If you just want to obstruct and distract then please go away.
You now have the explanation for my misinterpretation of the solar charts
Which is due to either wishful thinking or deceptive practice. What was it?
The point is that the convection is not a PE/KE cycle as you consider to be so critical.
It is hard to go through your ‘steps’ as most of them are ‘not even wrong’.
But it is really not necessary as Willis has shown [as noted by Roy].
So, the only error in my statement is that I should have said that the temperature gradient changes due to convection.
Again, you have it backwards. It is the changing gradient [due to opacity] that creates the convection.
Your understanding of the physics of convection appears to be nil.
In suns, yes.
On plants, no.
Go away.
In suns, yes.
On planets, no.
Convection is a universal phenomenon and the physics of it is the same everywhere in the known Universe.
Regardless of your lack of understanding of it.
Works differently in different situations as you really should know.
I ought to ignore you but every comment of yours is flawed one way or another.
I still want your apology but I suppose that is a forlorn hope.
I respect your solar knowledge but not your wider knowledge.
Works differently in different situations as you really should know.
No, a gas molecule acts locally and has no ‘awareness’ of being in a different condition.
Again: the facts contradicts your ‘theory’.
That’s where you are going wrong then.
The principles are the same but the outcome is different. The molecule doesn’t need to ‘know’ anything.
In the sun there is little change in the temperature up through a convective cell but there is a change in the temperature gradient.
On a planet there is a significant reduction in temperature with height up through the convective cell and the gradient is steady on average as per the lapse rate.
But this is all off topic.
In the sun there is little change in the temperature up through a convective cell but there is a change in the temperature gradient. On a planet there is a significant reduction in temperature with height up through the convective cell and the gradient is steady on average as per the lapse rate.
Again, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding.
In the sun, the gradient is constant [at the adiabatic rate: chart on page 8] but the temperature changes dramatically [factor of more than a hundred].
Just as on your planet.
So, again: the facts contradicts your theory.
One wonders how people with at least a modicum of intellectual capacity can cling to the nonsense you are peddling. One possible explanation might be their opposition to the effect of CO2 which causes them to grasp for straws, even nonsensical ones.
Leif Svalgaard January 6, 2019 at 11:18 am to Stephen Wilde
Leif, that fits with my rule of thumb, which states:
w.
Chart on page 8 shows a large increase in the gradient upon reaching the convection zone, it stays stable most of the way up and then drops substantially at the top of the zone.
The earlier chart shows a curving decline in temperature through the convection zone that is not comparable to the straight line of the lapse rate in the troposphere.
They are not comparable.
Chart on page 8 shows a large increase in the gradient upon reaching the convection zone, it stays stable most of the way up and then drops substantially at the top of the zone.
You are ranting. It is the gradient that controls the convection zone. At the very bottom and top one would expect [as observed] a transitional effect.
the straight line of the lapse rate in the troposphere.
In the Sun the lapse rate is just the adiabatic one, as in the troposphere.
So very comparable.
Here you can learn more about lapse rates:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/adiabatic-lapse-rate
This is all off topic. Time to stop.
If you have anything to say about my description then add your comment or query at the bottom of the thread.
Or maybe ask Anthony to give you a fresh thread explaining why my description is rubbish.
But you don’t even need to do that. Just go through it and tell me what my error is, which you could have done long ago.
tell me what my error is
I have done that to just about every comment you have made. Pointed out to you that it was erroneous and showed no understanding of the physics. Pointed out that every time you claimed that ‘things were just as I said’ you were wrong. Every ‘prediction’ made was off. Do we really need more of this? The Dunning-Kruger effect argues that we do not.
You have made no comment on my description of the convective overturning cycle on a planet.
Please feel free to add one at the bottom of this thread.
You have made no comment on my description of the convective overturning cycle on a planet
Because it is flawed and not worth it. Your problem is that it is based on wrong physics [e.g. the need for a hard solid surface, and lifting the initial atmosphere some 4 billion years ago of the frozen ground, etc, too many more even to mention]. If the basis is wrong, what follows from it is garbage.
Planets, not plants of course.
Planets, not plants of course.
Why not plants? With your superior understanding of physics, you should be able to explain why ‘not plants’.
We’ll monitor your comments to see if you try to evade this important question.
🙂
I like you when you are humorous. Try it more often in place of acid asides (and sometimes libel).
I like you when you are humorous
Yet another misrepresentation. I was not humorous, but deadly serious.
Now, man up to the challenge or put up.
Plants and convection = where to start ?
If you were indeed serious then I’ m sorry for you.
Plants and convection = where to start ?
Hey, you are the expert.
How about staring with the difference in convection above the Amazon rain forest [lots of plants] and the Saharan desert [no plants]?
Off topic, start a new thread and I’ll contribute.
Off topic, start a new thread and I’ll contribute.
Very much on topic as it would test your ‘understanding’ of convection [which has caused this thread to balloon] . So, you acknowledge that your ‘plants’ was not so silly after all..
For the benefit of those who still think that the radiative properties of CO2 can cause anomalous warming anywhere;
The fact is that the Ideal Gas Law or its derivatives (such as the molar mass version of the ideal gas law) does not care about the chemical composition of a gas.
This means that there are no ‘special’ gases which exist that can cause an anomalous change in any of the three gas parameters which we know form temperature.
This is also clear from measurements in the solar system, which prove no anomalous changes are taking place, no matter what the concentration of GHG is.
Example;
Earth has 2.5% GHG, Venus has 96.5% GHG.
Yet there is no anomalous changes to the main gas parameters on Venus due to this massive difference in the atmospheric GHG content – and so there aren’t on Earth either.
The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.
Tv=∜1.91 x Te
Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 1.91 is 1.176
288 x 1.176 = 339K
This is the exact measured temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1atm.
Thus proving that there are no anomalous changes in pressure or density caused by the so-called ‘greenhouse’ properties of CO2, because there is no anomalous temperature change.
Game Over.
Correct.
And now I have provided a description of the non radiative mechanical processes involved which no obbjector seems prepared to follow through on a step by step basis.
Stephen
On a personal note, I love your beautiful pictures of Ness Gardens, Parkgate shore and the Dee Marshes through the seasons at your website. They have made me homesick for the Wirral.
Philip
Thanks Philip. Didn’t realise you had Wirral connections.
Good to note that the work on my site is being read by someone 🙂
Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 1.91 is 1.176
288 x 1.176 = 339K
This is the exact measured temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1atm.
A minor detail you omitted being the different albedos of the two planets, Earth 0.31, Venus 0.76!
Phil.. a useful read:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/
the paper:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
The NZ table 1 includes albedos:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
Phil, after a lot of work, we have found that albedo is an effect of atmospheric/planetary physics, not a causative agent in the energy balance. For me, it began while observing the venusian data….. Brett
“Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 1.91 is 1.176
288 x 1.176 = 339K
This is the exact measured temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1atm.”
For me, years ago, this fact opened my mind to the radiative model being wrong. NZ used classical thermodynamics and parameterized it to explain surface temperatures.
In a similar manner, Einstein started with the fact that c was constant, when a doppler effect was expected. Using this fact, he produced his famous relativity equations.
Now we have the fact of Venus(above) staring at us. That is the start point. Any model that cannot derive that fact, is wrong. The radiative model fails. It is wrong. The ATE model works, and nothing W said or anyone else has said has refuted that fact.
Does anyone disagree? Please.. let the brilliant physicists from around the world provide proof that their models replicate the Venus facts.. I am all ears.
“Does anyone disagree? Please.. let the brilliant physicists from around the world provide proof that their models replicate the Venus facts.. I am all ears.”
Yes, science does.
You could try going elsewhere to find it.
A basic Google Scholar search fimds…..
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA085iA13p08223
Full paper here ….
https://moscow.sci-hub.tw/2040/dafb93d1bba0975f56b8aa26390fe10d/pollack1980.pdf
“We find that the observed surface temperature and lapse rate structure of the lower atmosphere can be reproduced quite closely with a greenhouse model that contains the water vapor abundance reported by the Venera spectrophotometer experiment. Thus the greenhouse effect can account for essentially all of Venus’ high surface temperature. The prime sources of infrared opacity are, in order of importance, CO2, H2O, cloud particles, and SO2, with CO and HCl playing very minor roles.”
Anthony,
It has already been noted that the greenhouse effect at the surface can be either radiative or mass induced but not both so that rather rather begs the question under discussion here.
However, the indispuable fact is that radiative models have no input for KE recovered from PE in descending air which is why they (incorrectly in my view) need to propose a thermal effect from back radiation.
The measurements at 1 bar pressure within the Venusian atmosphere however are consistent with the mass induced model but not the radiative model.
“Quite closely” is not close, as compared to NK. (predicted 738.8 actual 737.2). They get: “With nominal choices of other model parameters and the altered water vapor profile, we obtained a surface temperature that was almost 100K warmer than the observed value and a stability structure that was inconsistent with the observed one (cf. Figure 3b).
Further, because they cannot think of another model: “Thus on almost a priori grounds, it would appear that the greenhouse effect is the only viable mechanism for achieving the high surface temperature on Venus. ”
So.. not even close is my conclusion, but since it was a first cut from Dec 1980, that should be no surprise.
Any more “science”?
I seem to remember a certain Tony Heller quoting the Venus profile as the disproof for CAGW on this very forum many years ago before you know who banned him.
Heller was one of several.
My only fresh contribution is a description of the mechanical processes involved and a willingness to endure unlimited abuse on blog sites.
I have to say that Anthony has been very fair to me thus far but I have to be careful.
It was around this time.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/tamino-vs-goddard.html
Interestingly it looks like the original post has been “lost”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/ Using PV=nRT
Found it
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Recent-Evolution-of-Climate-on-Venus-Bullock-Grinspoon/286e505996f29cd883290ae01cc985c069171523/figure/1
http://funkyscience.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Bullock-and-Grinspoon-2001.pdf
More science for you to naysay.
Both Hansen and Houghton thought that it was the GHE of CO2 which makes Venus hot; and to this day, NASA say the same thing on its website.
This is total nonsense.
The explanation is far too long to post here, but the five salient points are as follows;
1) The first question that might be asked is; can a highly compressed and super-heated super-critical fluid that is more like an ocean than a gas, still possess the greenhouse properties of an ordinary atmospheric gas? This seems to be unlikely. However, it is true that fermions, (of which CO₂ is made) when highly compressed, increase the width of their absorption/emission bands, (because the Pauli Exclusion Principle (Pauli, 1988) prevents fermions from being in the same state and in the same place.) Whether this factor has affected the surface super-critical fluid enough to create a gas-like greenhouse effect is unknown at present.
2) A second problem with regard to the greenhouse effect claim for Venus is that the atmosphere is very thick and is optically opaque – more like a thick soup than transparent like the Earth’s atmosphere is. Measurements from the surface of Venus show that no direct solar insolation (Moroz et al., 1985) actually makes it to the surface of Venus to warm the surface for the infra-red radiation to be available to be captured in any possible atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, direct insolation can be neglected below a height of 60km, as all solar radiation below that level is ‘scattered’ by the thick atmosphere. The flux of this scattered solar insolation was measured on the surface by six separate landers, and appears to be very low (Moroz et al., 1985), averaging <<10% of the 2,644 W/m² TOA insolation flux. In contrast, Earth receives much more at 12% of its TOA insolation directly to the surface (161 W/m² of 1,366 W/m²) (Trenberth et al., 2009) and much more if scattered, atmospheric and back-radiation are counted.
3) Third, Venus has a very slow rotation period, which makes the Venusian ‘night’ ~58 Earth-days long (Landis et al., 2011). During this long night, measurements have been taken of the atmospheric and the surface temperatures, and they remain basically the same all through the long night just as they are during the long 58-day Venusian ‘day’. The surface cools only very slightly from ~737K to ~732K during this long night. A question might reasonably be asked here; ‘How can the greenhouse effect of CO₂ be responsible for all this surface heat, by trapping upwelling longwave radiation, emitted from absorbed direct solar insolation and hence keeping the surface hot with re-emitted downwelling radiation, when no direct Sun arrives to the surface during the ‘day’ and when no Sun at all arrives during the long ‘night’?’
4) Fourth, the very high albedo reduces Venus’s access to solar insolation. Even though Venus’s TOA insolation is ~2x Earth’s, the reflectivity of Venus is so high at 75% that this more than cancels out the higher TOA insolation. This means that although it is closer to the Sun, Venus actually receives much less Solar warmth than Earth does; (2,644/4) x (1-0.75) = 165 W/m² vs (1,366/4) x (1-0.29) = 242 W/m² for Earth. If Venus receives even less solar radiation than the Earth does, how can it maintain a very much higher temperature profile in its atmosphere?
5) Fifth, although as might be expected because of its high density, the Venusian atmosphere moves only slowly at the surface (<10km/hr), it rotates very rapidly at height, the cloud tops level circling the planet every 4 days at speeds of up to 100m/s (360km/hr) (Svedhem, Titov, Taylor, & Witasse, 2007). It is known that the wind speed increases monotonically from very slow at the surface, upwards through the atmosphere to the cloud tops at 70km in height, where the wind speed is ~360km/hr. Why does the Venusian atmosphere rotate westwards at sixty times (Hollingsworth, Young, Schubert, Covey, & Grossman, 2007) the rotation speed of the planet, and what is the mechanism driving and maintaining it? Given that the atmosphere is in constant motion like this, how is the alleged greenhouse effect affected?
I anticipate that Anthony Watts and Willis will shut this debate down withing days, just like they did last March.
They are losing so badly that they have (as before) resorted to insults instead of any fact-based argument.
“They are losing so badly that they have (as before) resorted to insults instead of any fact-based argument.”
LOL:
The usual WUWT denizen logic of the motivated speaking most often and loudest “winning” in their eyes.
A biased Blog (it is – biased that anything that disproves AGW must be correct) is not an exercise in science.
However having said that – it is clear that WUWT does not support N & Z’s physics (head post) and by extention SW’s.
One gives up the will to live when ‘talking’ with the likes of Steven and others of his Sky-dragon slaying type. And Foxtot Oscars away.
Unwinnable as they are simply impervious
That’s not “losing” anything, it’s a realisation of that fact.
One can only go on bangimg ones head against a wall for so long before the penny drops.
(Snipped the banned name) MOD
If not then do Google him.
In a world of his own making.
Bless.
The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.
No it does not, on average it receives 0.24*1.91/0.69 = 0.66 times the solar insolation of Earth.
Tv=∜0.66 x Te = 0.90 x Te
Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 0.66 is 0.90
288 x 0.90 = 260K
Have you done work for the IPCC?
Looks like it with those figures.
Have you done work for the IPCC?
Looks like it with those figures.
I used the readily available values of albedo, 0.31 for earth, 0.76 for venus.
In your later post you used 0.29 and 0.75 so I don’t understand the point of your question. You earlier posted a comparison of earth and venus’s temperatures based on incident radiation without allowing for albedo, after I pointed that out you made the following statement.
Fourth, the very high albedo reduces Venus’s access to solar insolation. Even though Venus’s TOA insolation is ~2x Earth’s, the reflectivity of Venus is so high at 75% that this more than cancels out the higher TOA insolation. This means that although it is closer to the Sun, Venus actually receives much less Solar warmth than Earth does; (2,644/4) x (1-0.75) = 165 W/m² vs (1,366/4) x (1-0.29) = 242 W/m² for Earth.
So you end up with 0.68 whereas I calculated 0.66 which gives a temperature ratio of 0.908 for you compared with 0.901for me, huge difference.
Completely disagreeing with the guy who posted:
The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.
The strange thing is that that post was by you a day earlier!
Phil,
The points I made for there being no GHE on Venus are intended to cover all cases of ‘belief’.
In other words, there are those who think that albedo affects surface temperatures in planetary bodies with thick atmospheres.
However, this idea is inconsistent with measurements, made in the Venusian atmosphere itself – (i.e. that at 1 bar, the temperature is exactly the 340K predicted by the thermal enhancement model).
So there is no inconsistency at all, sorry.
I might be wrong but I think that this article might be interesting in this context.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/12/its-the-gradient-stupid/
And this certainly is relevant:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html
With regard to myearlier analogy I’m sure the bit about elevating my foundry is wrong but I imagined that taking a pressurised bottle up into a lower pressure zone would get the gas to flow the same as adding heat down below. I didn’t mean to suggest that it would add heat. But I’m probably muddling things!
That link to Lubos’s site is something I hadn’t seen before and I broadly agree with it so I’m not here pressing for some arcane, novel concept.
My description simply sets out the mechanical process that gives rise to the real world observations that have exercised so many powerful minds over recent years.
I’ve no idea why nobody else has ever done it but I’ve certainly never come across such a simple, logical, coherent description.
All one needs to do to resolve all those vast collections of disputatious verbiage in relation to the greenhouse effect is to recognise that descending air warms as it descends and thereby reduces surface cooling so that the surface must become warmer than S-B predicts.
The entire AGW edifice is broken by that single, simple observation.
“descending air warms as it descends and thereby reduces surface cooling so that the surface must become warmer than S-B predicts”.
Not observed when I walk outside day or nght since the wind hits me in the face or the back, not the top of the head and coming up from my feet all the time. There are no such columns observed & thus do not exist in largely hydrostatic atm. as Stephen imagines.
Low pressure and high pressure systems exist and rotate, produce geostrophic winds and over the globe are surface warming neutral so do not make the surface warmer than S-B predicts as they do not change the IR opacity of the atm. The entire AGW edifice is NOT broken by that imaginary single, simple observation.
Looks like a number of objectors have heard about this thread and are coming over here to suppress it.
I have a long history with Trick, denying basic meteorology.
Yes Stephen, as Leif et. al. also repeatedly point out you have a long history of denying basic text book meteorology and simply use your imagination to invent processes that do not exist in nature. When challenged you sometimes write all modern texts are wrong and some mysterious text you can’t remember from 50-60 years explained it.
Do you feel the CO2 DWIR on the top of your head at night with a clear sky?
Remind us again how many Watts/m2 it is supposed to be.
Not sure what A C means by “feel the CO2”. It does feel colder on clear sky nights than some increased temperature overnight due backradiation from atm. liquid H2O on heavily clouded nights or even rainy nights basking in the glow of the released latent energy.
Trick, how many watts per metre squared are coming down from CO2 as per GHG theory?
Dunno without doing the research work A C. I put your question into google and found a number of authors might have formed an opinion, I’d recommend you follow-up with them. I do have in inventory a 2012 paper that has done the radiative-convective equilibrium work for global cloud free all gases w/o CO2 effect on OLR if you are interested.
I think I finally understand the Nikolov-Zeller argument and where it goes wrong.
Start with a day/ night atmosphere. The dayside gets 684 watts per square meter, the nightside gets zero watts per square meter.
DAYSIDE temperature would average (684/390.7)^.25 *288 K= 331 K
NIGHTSIDE temperature would approach 0 K,
for an overall average temperature of 1/2(331 K + 0 K)= 160.5 K
They think the atmosphere will transfer wattage from the dayside to the nightside, reducing average daytime temperature, but increasing nighttime temperature. Since temperature is proportional to the fourth ROOT of wattage, such a process, if it existed, would increase overall average temperatures.
After all,
(342)^.25 is a lot warmer than 1/2[(684/390.7)^.25 + (0)^.25)]
Stephen Wilde stated, “After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.”
But as I pointed out, Nitrogen or Argon near the ground may warm by conduction with the ground during the day, but higher in the atmosphere, temperatures will remain stable.
That Nitrogen or Argon near the ground will COOL during the night, but upper atmospheric temperatures will remain stable. As a result, there will be a temperature inversion later in the night, as the earth cools. There will be NO Hadley circulation, that near ground daytime Nitrogen or Argon is NOT going to replace the colder, denser near ground nighttime Nitrogen or Argon.
Stephen Wilde might consider reading about “temperature inversions” and “atmospheric stability”.
Alan,
The model is a non-rotating world. On this world one hemisphere is always day and the other is always night. So, the surface on the day-side can never stop receiving heat because night never happens there. The gas above this surface is always being warmed by contact with the lit surface, and because it is a mobile fluid it will ascend by fluid overturn. Because it is not a greenhouse gas it cannot cool by internal thermal radiation to space.
Now there is no physical wall on this model world that separates day from night. So, the heated atmosphere on the day-side will flow round onto the cold vacuum surface of the dark-side. This advected air will warm the dark-side surface and then that heated surface will radiate heat to space through the transparent atmosphere; cooling the air at the base that is in contact with it. This cooled air then flows back to the lit side as a cold high density airmass. The planet has in effect one gigantic Hadley Cell with continuous heat export from the never-ending day of the lit hemisphere to the never-ending night of the dark-side.
NO!! It WON’T flow to the dark side. Higher in the atmosphere, temperatures are the same EVERYWHERE! Cold air near the ground at night will give a temperature inversion, which remains stable.
Where is the air becoming less dense and rising? Supposedly on the day side- but the upper air is already less dense, than or equal to 0.98 degrees C cooler per additional 100 meters increase in height, so the warmer air near the surface of a non greenhouse gas planet is NOT going to rise.
As shown here:
Ok, we’ll just scrub out the Hadley and Ferrel cells and every high and low pressure cell containing descending or ascending air on the planet on Leif’s say so.
Again, you show no understanding of the difference between convection and circulation.
What I showed was observational data. You do not understand the difference between the temperature everywhere being the same and the lack of difference between night and day at altitude at any given location.
Ah well, no surprise there.
That the temperature at altitude is the same day and night is not controversial [has been known for a century].
Here is a typical profile:
From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228751584_Air_pollution_meteorology/figures?lo=1
That you didn’t know that is no surprise.
Leif,
and
It is not the temperature at altitude that is the issue here, it is the difference in temperature at the ground surface that drives circulation. We have a model world, one that is non-rotating with a non-greenhouse gas atmosphere that is also non-condensing. If you find that to be a stretch, let us assume that the non-greenhouse gas is hydrogen, which has a boiling point of 20K at 1 atmosphere.
Our model planet is a super-Earth with a gravity sufficiently strong to hold on to a hydrogen atmosphere, and that this world has a geothermal gradient of 0.1 W/m2. The geothermal gradient is realistic (it is Earth’s value) and this heat flux, although very low, will create an irreducible surface temperature of 36K by the S-B equation. So, the hydrogen gas can never condense anywhere on the surface of this model planet and it will always have an atmosphere.
Now, on the dark side of our non-rotating super-Earth the hydrogen atmosphere will cool by contact with the 36k geothermally maintained ground surface. As long as there is a surface irregularity, horizontal advection of cold air will occur. We know that in Antarctica in winter surface cooling of the air produces ground hugging katabatic winds of such force that they reach the coast and form the basis for the circulation pattern of the Polar cell.
Maybe you don’t like this idea of density currents flowing for long distances over the surface of a planet? I however find Marcel Leroux’s concept of a Mobile Polar High to a perfectly credible mechanism for transporting cold, polar air from the dark of an arctic winter night south towards the light, where surface heating of the cold air by incoming solar radiation can occur.
So yes, inter-hemispheric exchange of air mass at the surface, even on a non-rotating world, is a perfectly credible dense fluid transport mechanism. It forms the basis of a process that can be invoked to complete the global circulation cell of this non-rotating model world with its non-greenhouse gas atmosphere.
it is the difference in temperature at the ground surface that drives circulation
Difference from what? The sentence is not even grammatically correct…
Leif,
difference in temperature
Leif,
Difference from what?
difference in temperature
Please don’t try to be cute. A difference is between two things, so a difference between a temperature at one place or time [where, when] and a temperature at another place or time [where, when].
Leif,
Lost in translation?
difference in temperature temperatuurverschil
temperatuurverschil temperature difference (Reversed using Bing Translator)
Leif,
Lost in translation?
No, but it does not make sense to just say “difference in temperature”. You have to say “difference in temperature at point A and at point B”. It takes two numbers to make a difference.
What is it about this that you don’t understand?
difference in temperature between the lit side of the planet which is hot and the unlit side of the planet which is cold.
difference in temperature between the lit side of the planet which is hot and the unlit side of the planet which is cold.
Attaboy! Now remember the lesson: don’t be cryptic or assume that the readership can read your mind. Be explicit and precise.
difference in temperature between the lit side of the planet which is hot and the unlit side of the planet which is cold.
The point was that at altitude [above 500-1000 m] there is no difference between day and night temperatures.
And the key point is this:-
It is the difference in temperature at the ground surface that drives circulation between two places. One lit and warm the other dark and cold.
The model is demonstrating that at the surface the difference in temperature between lit and warm place A and dark and cold place B is the imbalance that leads to fluid motion.
Surface temperature differences cause by thermal radiation from the solid land surface to space is the mechanism that causes the formation of the Land Breeze at night moving cold air from the radiatively cooled land surface downslope towards the adjacent sea.
Note that Dr. Motl’s refinement of Mr. Heller’s post still requires greenhouse gases for an elevated surface temperature; it just says that after a certain greenhouse-gas concentration the surface temperature becomes more less sensitive to that concentration than to the integral of lapse rate with respect to altitude.
Lubos accepts that his work is incomplete.
If he plugs in my convective overturning model I’ve no doubt he can then exclude GHGs.
“Nitrogen or Argon near the ground may warm by conduction with the ground during the day, but higher in the atmosphere, temperatures will remain stable.”
Ever heard of the lapse rate ?
Or convection ?
Stephen, where is the best place to look at the convective overturning model? I’m a retired process engineer and have always doubted the AGW theory but never to the confidence level I’d like to have. This thread has taken me almost there, just a little reading needed without wading through every post on this thread.
Hi Martin
It was originally published here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
Thank you, I’ve read it and think that it’s a simple and convincing way of explaining the basics. Far better than radiation alone . It also has the benefit of matching observations on the earth and other planets which radiation alone theories can’t do while giving a place for radiation.
Thanks, but it seems to upset a lot of people who simply refuse to address it whilst creating a thread of over 1000 posts.
It’s a terrible human characteristic the closed mind (sceptic or alarmist) and I believe that this great site is diminished by the headline and some of the rhetoric. The sad thing is that the real problem on the left and in the NWO, those scientists who suck off the AGW teat and the warmist industry will never look at the conclusion never mind the reasoning.
Agreed, but I wouldn’t like the truth to disappear into the ether with a world like 1984.
It would be nice if we could focus on a specific point of contention and hash it out in a civil manner.
We were challenged to accept Willis proof. I don’t accept it and I explained why. So far no direct response to this.
There are a lot of side arguments going on.
For cripes sake if we argue about the entire breadth and scope of Stephen’s theory or NZ’s theory then it’s going to be a mare’s nest. The basic task at hand is: is Willis’ refutation sound, yes or no? Regardless of whether or not NZ are correct, is the refutation sound?
Focus, please. Then we can move on to the next step.
Don132
No hope of that. It always comes to this when progress is being made.
Don, the answer is for me is No.
You cannot dispute a theory by on Physics, Maths and actual measured data using an imagined world that bears no relation to reality
But then I am a nobody, just a reader of other’s work.
based not “by”.
Funny to see how non:physicists try to fight each other using pseudo-scientific arguments.
Of course, there is greenhouse effect.
And of course, there is the adiabate that finally defines the surface temperature.
If you climb up the mountain, you will certainly freeze.
If you descent down a deep mine, you will feel like in sauna.
The adiabatic hight temperature lapse is given for the planet and is starts not at the surface, but at the tropopause.
Thus, everything is defined by the tropopause height.
And this depends on the atmosphere composition- where the atmosphere becomes transparent for the infrared radiation. This, of course, depends on the radiation band and the clouds.
There is no simple answer where the tropopause is located. It must be measured and modeled in complex computer models.
It is true that Venus surface is so hot because it has a very thick atmosphere. It’s surface is completely insulated for the infrared. So, it may have any (!) temperature according to the simple SB law. It is the adiabatic that defines the actual temperature.
It is true that Mars is so cold because it’s atmosphere is rarefied – and contains no moisture. Though, Mars has 50 times more CO2 compared with the Earth (absolute value!).
The Jupiter atmosphere has nice 20 degree Celsius at the pressure of two bars. Although it is that far from the sun.
Alex,
So what is your take on this paper that it is pressure and not temperature that defines the location of the tropopause?
Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. (2014). Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7(1), 12-15.
Would it not be better to say that the tropopause is simply the point where the atmosphere changes from being dominated by conduction and convection and perfect gas laws to dominated by radiation. Is it not dependent on pressure, temperature and composition. How about the point where the lapse rate changes from + to -. I think this is the key to understanding what Stephen and people like him are saying and understanding the Venus temp. In the troposphere, radiation is a sideshow, it has its day later and higher.
Martin, good question but might be increasing complexity when we need not.
It is generally accepted that convection dominates in the tropopause with radiation dominating in the stratosphere but that is not the whole story. There is still some convection in the stratosphere and there may be some in the mesosphere too.
Note that the lapse rate for the whole atmosphere is shaped like a ‘W’ on its side so that the change between troposphere and stratosphere is effectively cancelled out in the mesosphere.
In the thermosphere the lapse rate warms up again due to direct solar effects but it is so thin that it doesn’t matter.
For the purposes of hydrostatic equilibrium it is best to go as far as the top of the mesosphere and average out the various changes in the lapse rate on the way up.
Due to the vast bulk of the atmosphere being in the tropopause it is usually enough just to consider the tropopause as does the US Standard Atmosphere which adequately predicts the temperature at any given height for aviation and rocketry.
The US Standard Atmosphere has no term for atmospheric composition and composition is irrelevant on Venus too.
The reason for that is that convective adjustments eliminate radiative imbalances such as those from GHGs.
Composition is not relevant to surface temperature unless it affects mass.
“The US Standard Atmosphere has no term for atmospheric composition and composition is irrelevant on Venus too.”
The US standard atmosphere includes the composition of the avg. midlatitude tropics.
Yes, that was a tricky one relating to the Gas Laws but not really helpful in the current context. Good brain exercise, though.
Ok. So having possibly confused myself further, here’s a question for Stephen:
As you say, and I think rightly, the energy needed to keep the atmosphere up is locked into the atmosphere. So say we have a planet with only frozen nitrogen on it and I’ll count everything as abstract energy including gravity for the sake of the argument. So the earth has 2 units of gravity.
Someone turns the sun on which emits at a constant rate of 2 units. First the earth heats by time T1 to 2 units stored at which point it would start to radiate back 2 units to space were it not for the fact that as it warmed the frozen nitrogen starts to absorb energy and evaporate from the surface so that some additional energy – say 1 unit gets absorbed by time T2, while 1 unit is emitted by the earth to space. The earth continues to receive the same solar input of 2 units, store 2 units, emit 1 unit to space, and conduct 1 unit to the atmosphere until at time T3 the atmosphere has reached maximum density and pressure of 2 units in opposition to the 2 units of gravity. So we have a total energy content of 4 units to the system at which the system as a whole has reached equilibrium with the incoming radiation as no more energy can be stored in the system. At this point T4 the earth/atmosphere system holds 4 units – ie twice the bare earth energy storage – receives 2 units, and emits 2 units.
However, the earth energy remains only 2 units – so no addition energy. Why? Because all the energy in the atmosphere is being used up in holding it up. As you point out a unit of energy cannot be in two places at once. For the energy in the atmosphere to warm the earth it would have to do this and hold the sky up. This it cannot do since it can’t be in two places at once. The cycling of convection and kinetic/potential energy transformation is all just part of how the atmosphere stays up and is totally consumed in this process. It has no energy spare to heat the earth.
So I think I’ve ended up agreeing both you and Willis.
The store of energy holding up the atmosphere is held within atmospheric mass resting on the surface so that the surface has to have an additional 2 units to keep the process running but those 2 units do not get radiated out. The surface has to carry enough kinetic energy to support both 2 units out and 2 units recycling. So 4 units at the surface.
Martin, one mistake all these purveyors of ‘silly’ as an adjective for the findings of James Clerk Maxwell and several presentt day scientists (see Tallbloke etc.) plus plenty in between, is to confuse solids eg a frozen atmosphere, with any gaseous one. Guess which phases of matter have the Gas Laws, and which lack them. Few here on this post seem to grasp that simple indeed “Silly” Law of Physics. The Ideal Gas Law or Poissin Relation as Maxwell incorporated it. And the “Silly” proponents also lack contact, we have seen, with real atmospheres in their minds. Ones which are warmed by the sun and surface day and night.
Stuck they are, on ideas of air pumps heating and cooling without making a small upward step away from Models, always wrong, to the real solar heated world I feel lucky to live in.
The value for Gravity (eg g/Cp) is included in Lapse Rate and other similar atmospheric formulae. They do not work without it, which should be a clue. I know the scales fell from my eyes when I saw the solar system lapse rates. Some ten year ago. By the way, the idea that many gases do not radiate is facing extinction by recent research. Raaman and Spectral. As is the claim that volcanic/tectonic CO2 is a minor emitter. They just assumed without looking, but that has changed and Murry Salby should have the last word….Brett
N2 & O2 do absorb and emit solar radiation. But because of their strong molecular bonds, it is in the UV, largely far UV.
For this reason solar absorption and emission occurs in the high atmosphere and most relevant photon energy does not reach the surface. Good thing, because organic tissue is susceptible to bond breaking by UV
N2 & O2 do absorb and emit solar radiation. But because of their strong molecular bonds, it is in the UV, largely far UV.
Nothing to do with the strength of the bonds, due to the symmetry of the molecule it can not be excited in the vibrational and rotational modes only the electronic, there absorption only occurs in the electronic modes hence in the UV.
For the benefit of Leif I’ll start a new sub thread here.
This is the description I will accept comments on:
i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.
Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.
On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere and, since surface heating is uneven, gas density differentials arise in the horizontal plane so that warmer, less dense, Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath and convective overturning of the atmosphere has begun.
After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.
The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.
There will be a lapse rate slope whereby the air becomes cooler with height due to expansion (via the Gas Laws) as it rises along the line of decreasing density with height. That density gradient is created by the pull of gravity on the individual molecules of the Nitrogen atmosphere.
At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.
During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.
Thus we have a very simplified climate system without radiative gases consisting of one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.
ii) The thermal consequences of convective overturning.
On the illuminated side, conduction is absorbing energy from the surface the temperature of which as observed from space initially appears to drop below the figure predicted by the S-B equation. Instead of being radiated straight out to space a portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is being diverted into conduction and convection. Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction. The surface temperature appears to drop to 222K when observed from space. Those figures are illustrative only since there is dispute about the actual numbers for the scale of the so called greenhouse effect.
On the dark side the descending Nitrogen warms as it falls to the surface and when it reaches the surface the cold surface will rapidly pull some of that initially conducted energy (obtained from the illuminated side) out of the descending Nitrogen so that the surface and the Nitrogen in contact with it will become warmer than it otherwise would have been, namely by 33K.
One can see how effectively a cold, solid surface will draw heat from the atmospheric gases by noting the development of radiation fog above cold surfaces on Earth. The cold surface quickly reduces the ground level atmospheric temperature to a point below the dew point.
That less cold Nitrogen then flows via advection across the surface back to the illuminated side which is then being supplied with Nitrogen at the surface which is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been.
That describes the first convective overturning cycle only.
The key point at that stage is that, as soon as the first cycle completes, the second convective cycle does not need to take any further energy from incoming solar radiation because the necessary energy is being advected in by winds from the unlit side. The full effect of continuing insolation can then be experienced once more.
ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K
Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would still show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.
In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.
Stephen,
Why is all of this needed? You’ve given a number of points that are subject to debate, meaning: here we go again.
Why not one simple question: can a GHG-free atmosphere be warmer than the surface? And the answer is yes, by using simple logic, conduction/convection, and the ideal gas law. Far fewer things to argue over. I believe I might have already laid out the argument.
And I disagree with those who say game over. I say it’s been a confused mess.
Don132
can a GHG-free atmosphere be warmer than the surface?
Too fuzzily stated. The temperatures of what and where, precisely? Of the soil [surface] or the air one centimeter above the surface? or 10 miles up? Or what?
Let’s say one meter up.
Don132
Sadly it isn’t that simple.
The atmosphere can be warmer than the surface but not routinely.
Under a descending air mass the air is usually colder than the surface but warms as it comes down.
It reaches maximum temperature at the surface which may or may not be at the same temperature.
Either way though it does reduce surface cooling to space and that is not taken into account in the radiative theory.
That is, it doesn’t reduce the rate of cooling to space but it means that the surface temperature remains higher than it otherwise would have been because you have to offset the KE from descending air against the normal radiative cooling to space.
Some people see it instantly and others just never grasp it.
For cripes sake can’t we focus on Willis’ simplified planet just to demonstrate that it’s possible?
If you can’t handle Willis’ hypothetical planet and take it down with a few well-considered logical steps, then I say it is game over, but not the way you think it is.
You’re confusing things, Stephen.
Don132
You’re confusing things, Stephen.
A standard trick.
I have done. Willis’s planet required multiple suns and a featureless surface to prevent density differentials in the horizontal plane and thereby eliminate convection.
On those terms he is correct and he would get an isothermal atmosphere but that is not reality. In the real world convection is unavoidable and you cannot have an isothermal atmosphere.
Yes Leif & Don, Stephen 12:23pm is imagining things as always: “Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath”.
That isn’t the way convection works in the real world, convection only works that way in Stephen’s robust imagination. I’ve shown Stephen videos of convective columns rising and what happens in real tests is not what Stephen describes.
The tests show the fluid that flows in below the rising column comes in laterally at the same density and temperature of the surface fluid. The fluid at the top spreads out mostly laterally too, the fluid doesn’t cool and descend in a column on the other side of the planet as in Stephen’s imagination.
Stephen’s 12:23pm story falls apart at that point for sure.
In reality, Stephen’s imagined story falls apart immediately when Stephen announces his imagination of meteorological science makes 100% N2 a non-radiative atm. Thus, Stephen loses touch with reality in the very first sentence of his 1) as N2 does radiate even in Earth’s atm.
I may be sorry that I’d wish the comments would be extended!
The only thing I’ll say right not is that through all this hash I don’t see where anyone has refuted Willis’ model, and that includes my own refutation– which I noticed hasn’t been paid much attention to. I don’t take it personally, I just wonder if that’s because it’s very wrong or very right. Arguing that the ATE must be wrong because the temperature on earth can be explained by the greenhouse effect doesn’t cut it for me, because just because a theory is internally consistent and appears to accord with the facts doesn’t mean it isn’t just epicycles.
In any case the only task that the gravitationists have been charged with in the top post is to refute Willis’ model, and I strongly disagree that “that’s not fair.” It’s perfectly fair. If the theory of ATE is correct, then the atmosphere of Willis’ planet must be able to rise above S-B surface without violating conservation of energy, and if the gravitationists know what we’re talking about than we should be able to explain it. We don’t have to worry about convection! We’re not talking about how earth works; we’re talking about how a theory that purports to be in accord with established physical laws and principles would be applied to a set of conditions unlike earth’s.
If the authorities on the ATE can’t demonstrate how their theory works on Willis’ planet then it would seem that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and I was wrong for believing that they did. Either way it doesn’t matter to me, we’re fine, the world isn’t going to burn up from CO2.
Don132
Stephen: “Willis’s planet required multiple suns and a featureless surface to prevent density differentials in the horizontal plane and thereby eliminate convection.
On those terms he is correct and he would get an isothermal atmosphere but that is not reality. In the real world convection is unavoidable and you cannot have an isothermal atmosphere.”
Not an answer, Stephen. I don’t even think the question is whether the atmosphere would be isothermal or not– who cares? The question is, if pressure is what’s making the atmosphere warmer than the BB temperature then how does it work on a model planet? The equation is T = PM/Rρ. There’s nothing about convection in that equation.
If the equation is correct then it must work in some far-off, unknown planet that somehow satisfies the conditions Willis has laid down.
Don132
Don132
Sokath, his eyes opened!
Congratulations on your breakthrough. And congratulations to PJF for the <a href=https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2578914 that was responsible.
I withdraw my assessment of your limitations. Perhaps I need to reassess my ability to explain things; I had thought I’d made the same point. Indeed, I had been under the illusion that what I’d said here was pellucid: “Here’s the reason why Mr. Eschenbach is right that almost all of those arguments are irrelevant: there would be no average conduction between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere if the atmosphere were perfectly non-radiative.” Apparently not.
However that may be, now that you’ve made one breakthrough and recognized that the greenhouse effect is needed, I commend to your attention the Steve Goddard / Luboš Motl explanation,/a> of why its effect eventually becomes negligible in comparison to the integral of lapse rate with respect to altitude.
If the temperature of a gas isn’t related to pressure, then how does the lapse rate work?
This question isn’t a challenge to anyone, it’s an honest question.
This is what confuses me: even in an isothermal atmosphere, there would be more pressure at bottom: denser. At the top the atmosphere would be very thin: let’s say one molecule/m2 at top and 100,000,000,000/m2 at bottom. Hence even though all molecules have the same kinetic energy and are technically at the same temperature, if you could walk from the bottom of the atmosphere to the top you would get colder the higher up you go, just as you get colder as you climb a mountain.
So what gives? What is the “temperature” of the atmosphere at the bottom of the isothermal atmosphere, where you start your walk and are warm, and the “temperature” at the top of the atmosphere, where you end your walk and are cold?
Don132
Joe Born,
“Don132 Sokath, his eyes opened! Congratulations on your breakthrough.”
Not so fast. Yes, PJF showed me that I was wrong by patiently taking me through it and cornering me: nice work! And yes, I do believe that I now have to rethink everything. And yes, you said the same thing but so much is coming through that it’s hard to consider everything.
But, I’m still waiting for a response by Holmes/Wilde or anyone who can answer Willis’ objection is a logical and sound manner using basic physics, without dismissing it because well … because maybe they can’t answer it? If the model really is impossible and not fair, then walk us through the physics of why that’s so. But focus on the simplest reason why not and let’s not talk about the entire theory so that everyone is confused and no one knows what the hell to respond to because so much as been thrown out. If Willis’ model is impossible and not fair, what’s the key and central and simple reason why not? One clearly and distinctly and patiently explained reason, please!
But yes, I seem to have been wrong about a lot of things, if my ideas about gas density and temperature were wrong. But to be honest I’ve given so much energy to this and I’m getting tired of it, and will accept that I’m mistaken and probably won’t give it a lot of thought unless Stephen or Holmes or someone else can come up with some convincing logic. I’ll mull it over.
If the ATE theory is wrong I’m OK with that. Like I said, I have no horse in the race except the ideas that I thought were correct but that turned out to be wrong.
So I’d say that the gravitationists are now up to bat.
Don132
Don132
Let me see if I can do that without flubbing the hyperlinks this time.
Congratulations on your breakthrough. And congratulations to PJF for the comment responsible.
I withdraw my assessment of your limitations. Perhaps I need to reassess my ability to explain things; I had thought I’d made the same point. Indeed, I had been under the illusion that what I’d said here was pellucid: “Here’s the reason why Mr. Eschenbach is right that almost all of those arguments are irrelevant: there would be no average conduction between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere if the atmosphere were perfectly non-radiative.” Apparently not.
However that may be, now that you’ve made one breakthrough and recognized that the greenhouse effect is needed, I commend to your attention the Steve Goddard / Luboš Motl explanation of why its effect eventually becomes negligible in comparison to the integral of lapse rate with respect to altitude.
Don132:
That’s exactly as it should be.
But the reason why it seems that so many of us won’t give any consideration to Mr. Wilde’s or Nikolov & Zeller’s theories is that we’d years ago been down that path, repeatedly imploring them to state their theories in a coherent way and repeatedly receiving nonsense in response.
There’s always a “step by step” explanation, but there’s always at least one step that’s not quite clear. And then, when you think one iteration is indeed clear and point out the clear physical-law violation, you get the accusation that you’ve ignored something—which again is either unclear or a clear physical-law violation. It never ends.
So what’s happened is that Mr. Wilde had long ago already wasted hundreds if not thousands of hours of other people’s time on his delusional physics, and here many more hours have been used up by some of us trying to save people like you from having your time similarly abused.
At least in this case Anthony Watts is contributing to the intellectual hygiene rather than, as in the case of Christopher Monckton or George White, aggravating the need for it.
Well, I say there’s likely a key point that either proves or disproves the ATE theory. So if we can get to that and continually point to that, then all these other side arguments would be unnecessary.
So far Willis seems to have gotten the gravitationists in a contradiction from which they can’t escape, except by denying the problem. That doesn’t mean I’ve turned against the gravitationists; I’m stating a fact, and I want to see them come through and explain the apparent contradiction in a manner that makes sense. Even if they say the model planet isn’t valid, they have to come up with a simple and elegant reason why not. I really don’t like convoluted answers that raise even more questions. If it’s basic physics and simple then it can be stated simply with basic physics, and I believe that the problem, boiled down, really is basic physics and simple.
The idea of temperature seems to be a key point.
Don132
Don132
The reason why you would (eventually, not initially) get colder as you ascend in an isothermal atmosphere is not that the air is colder but that, being less dense, it conducts heat to your skin more slowly, so it’s less able to keep up with what your radiative heat loss.
Joe Born:”The reason why you would (eventually, not initially) get colder as you ascend in an isothermal atmosphere is not that the air is colder but that, being less dense, it conducts heat to your skin more slowly, so it’s less able to keep up with what your radiative heat loss.”
I’ll buy that. But if you have a rock at ground level and a rock on the top of the atmosphere, which is warmer, in an isothermal atmosphere? Forget about an isothermal atmosphere, what about on earth?
If you put a thermometer at the top of an isothermal atmosphere– with only one molecule/m2– what would it register? Why?
Have to go for a while– like most people I have a life away from WUWT!
Don132
Don132:
There are too many variables for me to answer that. So let’s just concentrate on the rock at the top of the atmosphere, and let’s additionally make things really simple.
Specifically, let’s say the rock is perfectly round with radius
, unity emissivity 
, and unlimited thermal conductivity so that its temperature 
is uniform. Since it’s located at the top of the atmosphere there’s essentially no conduction, so heat flow occurs only radiatively. Perhaps that’s the key point here: the temperature of a rarefied gas doesn’t matter much.
Anyway, since the rock’s surface area
is four times the cross-sectional area 
over which it receives solar radiation 
at the solar-constant power density 
, the rock emits at 
. Since 
, its temperature ![T=\sqrt[4]{\frac{R_R}{\epsilon\sigma}}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%3D%5Csqrt%5B4%5D%7B%5Cfrac%7BR_R%7D%7B%5Cepsilon%5Csigma%7D%7D&bg=ffffff&fg=000&s=0&c=20201002)
, if I haven’t flubbed the arithmetic, is 278 K.
That’s warmer than I would have guessed. But, of course, a real rock wouldn’t be perfectly round, and its thermal conductivity would be limited, so its average surface temperature would likely be much less. Depending on geometry and orientation, though, it could actually be greater.
Joe Born:
“Perhaps that’s the key point here: the temperature of a rarefied gas doesn’t matter much.”
But we are getting warmer! So the “temperature” of a rarefied gas does matter.
If we put a thermometer at the top of our atmosphere, what temperature would it read compared to sea level?
If I go to Willis’ planet and put one thermometer at the top of the atmosphere and one at the bottom, will they read the same temperature? I believe that they will not. So what’s going on? Because if indeed there are two temperature readings, then that seems to mean that pressure matters. Which thermometer tells the “real” temperature: the one on the surface or the one at the top?
Let’s forget about whether or not this raises the surface atmosphere above BB for now and just resolve the issue.
Don132
Don132:
For the reasons I gave before, that would depend.
But on an equilibrium, transparent-atmosphere planet—i.e., on a planet having an isothermal atmosphere whose pressure decays exponentially with altitude—the top-of-the-atmosphere thermometer would read the same as a thermometer at sea level if the former were accurate enough. But—and here I’m stepping beyond my metrology competence—I doubt we could make an ordinary mercury thermometer accurate enough.
The one on the surface, because it’s accurate enough for the job it was assigned, whereas measuring the temperature at the edge of space would (I believe) be too demanding.
And, no, pressure doesn’t matter. The pressure on a planet whose atmosphere is perfectly transparent has no effect on the average power of the radiation the planet’s surface emits; that average power has to equal the average absorbed from the sun. This is the key point, because the planet’s surface could, as ours does, radiate more than it absorbs from the sun if the atmosphere did include greenhouse gases.
But I could confuse the issue by saying instead that, yes, pressure does indeed matter even on a transparent-atmosphere planet. To the extent that pressure affects the rate at which heat can be conducted into and out of the planet’s surface, it affects the variance in (but, again, not the average value of) the surface’s emitted-power density, so to that extent it affects the average temperature.
However, that’s only a confusing irrelevant tangent. It doesn’t go to greenhouse gases’ effect.
Joe Born:
“But on an equilibrium, transparent-atmosphere planet—i.e., on a planet having an isothermal atmosphere whose pressure decays exponentially with altitude—the top-of-the-atmosphere thermometer would read the same as a thermometer at sea level if the former were accurate enough. ”
Here’s where it goes off the rails for me, and why I think the gravitationists have a point: I find it incredible to believe that a thermometer measuring an isothermal atmosphere with one molecule/m2 would read exactly the same as one measuring the bottom of the atmosphere with one trillion trillion molecules/m2. Or let’s exaggerate and say that the top doesn’t have one molecule/m2; it has one molecule/square mile, since we’re at the very top of this isothermal atmosphere and the pressure is way low. I find it hard to believe that the thermometer is measuring much of anything, yet it seems to me that whatever it’s measuring is exactly what we’re talking about, and not the kinetic speed of the molecules. And if we can conjure up Willis’ model planet then we should no problem conjuring up a thermometer that could measure both places accurately.
Don132
Don132:
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re saying. The issue is whether it takes greenhouse gases for the planet’s surface to radiate more than it absorbs from the sun. The “gravitationists” say no. I say yes. I don’t see that issue’s connection to how difficult measuring the top-of-the-atmosphere temperature is.
Maybe PJF can give you a hand with this one.
Joe Born:
“Sorry, I have no idea what you’re saying. The issue is whether it takes greenhouse gases for the planet’s surface to radiate more than it absorbs from the sun. The “gravitationists” say no. I say yes. I don’t see that issue’s connection to how difficult measuring the top-of-the-atmosphere temperature is.”
At present, as I understand it, the issue isn’t what greenhouse gases do; for all I know the theory is just epicycles. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming it’s wrong. The present issue is, is there a temperature gradient on an isothermal planet? I say yes. You say no. I say yes because a thermometer at the top of the atmosphere measures no real heat content, as it were, even if the molecules there have exactly the same kinetic energy as the surface.
What is the thermometer measuring, if it’s not measuring what we normally think of as the temperature of a gas, defined as the average kinetic energy of the gas? If has to be measuring something like average translational energy per unit volume; the “per unit volume” I think is the key idea. The upper atmosphere doesn’t seem to have the same heat content as the lower atmosphere, even in an isothermal atmosphere, and I use the term “heat content” without doing any research into how that term is used in a scientific context. It’s just the best way I have right now of explaining how I’m thinking, which yes, may be just epicycles.
Don132
Don132:
Yes, a thermometer does indeed measure what we normally think of as a gas’s temperature, which is the mean kinetic energy per molecule per degree of freedom. If the gas temperature is 20°C., that’s what the temperature will measure, independently of whether a cubic meter’s heat content is 100 J or 1000 J.
It’s only when there are too few molecules for the thermometer to measure that it falters.
But the heat content is not the same if there are 100J at once place and 1000J at another.
What does a thermometer measure at the bottom of the Grand Canyon? What does it measure at the top? Why is the bottom always warmer than the top?
Is a thermometer measuring kinetic energy or joules?
I haven’t had time to research this new avenue of heat content and joules and might be lazy and let those who know answer. I really should be doing other things and WUWT has been taking a huge portion of my time.
Don132
“At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below ”
This cannot happen, since the less dense atmosphere 100 meters higher will ALREADY be less than 0.98 C cooler than surface atmosphere. You’re NOT going to get warmer Nitrogen from below pushing aside warmer Nitrogen from below. The Nitrogen CANNOT rise because at EVERY height, the supposedly rising parcel will be cooler and denser than, or the same temperature and density as, the air above it. Remember, that Nitrogen higher in the atmosphere already was heated at ground level previously, expanded adiabetically, and is now in balance with the atmosphere below. Your model CANNOT work unless EVERY DAY the ground continually gets more and more heat from the sun.
Alan,
We are living on a planet that has been continuously lit on one side since the time of its formation about 4.5 billion years ago; and has on the other side been in continuous darkness for the same length of time. So, the day lit surface of our Earth IS continuously getting hotter, but at the same time the dark night is continuously getting colder. The rotation of our world does not alter this fact, it merely moves the surface we live on from warming day to cooling night and then back again. Climate is all about the movement of gases over the surface of the planet, carrying heat from the warmth of the lit hemisphere to the cold of the dark side.
If this idea of continuous heating and cooling seems strange, consider the fact that due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis the polar night lasts for many months. In the dark of the high arctic winter air cools by ground surface radiation to space. The freezing arctic wind of winter is the return flow of dense cold air south from the long polar night towards the light.
“So, the day lit surface of our Earth IS continuously getting hotter, but at the same time the dark night is continuously getting colder”
In the words of Congressman Davy Crockett, that statement doesn’t make good sense. It doesn’t even make good NONSENSE!
If daily temperatures were continually getting HOTTER, the oceans should have evaporated away some time in the last 4 billion years. The earth’s temperature has remained relatively stable.
Let the ground, and Argon near the ground, be heated to , say 303 K during the day.
That ground air is going to expand, cool by 9.8 degrees K per 1000 meters.
At a height of 1000 meters the temperature wiil be 293.2 K. at 2000 meters it will be 283.4 K.
At NIGHT, the GROUND temperature cools, and you get a stable temperature inversion.
The NEXT day, when the ground Nitrogen is heated to 303 K it is NOT going to rise and get less dense because the Nitrogen 1000 feet up will ALREADY be at 293.2 K, the Nitrogen 2000 feet up will be ALREADY at 283.4 K. Your model quickly comes to a standstill. In contrast, in the REAL world, with greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will lose some heat due to radiation, so the temperature at 1000 feet will be LESS than 293.2 K, so ground air can move up and replace it.
The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.
Can you please clarify, elaborate on this point. I’m not sure what it means.
PJF
“Can you please clarify, elaborate on this point. I’m not sure what it means.”
It’s one of the rules of the game. Only the solid planet surface can absorb sunlight and emit thermal radiation. The nitrogen gas can transport heat, but it cannot gain or lose internal heat by thermal radiation (it is a totally transparent non-greenhouse gas). The nitrogen can only gain or lose heat by conduction with the solid planet surface at the base of the atmosphere; which either warms the gas on the lit side or cools the gas on the dark side.
Having read all of the posts I’d say that in a boxing analogy the ref should stop the fight. In a soccer analogy it’s SW (and others) 5 WUWT 0 at half time.
Agreed.
Stephen,
I want to congratulate you on possessing endless patience and persistence here!
Holmes, you must be able to address Willis’ challenge regarding the hypothetical planet.
Don132
Why bother, when I can use measurements from the real thing.
Well what do you say about Willis’ model planet? Assume some numbers and plug in your equation. How does it work? If it can’t work then explain why not, according to the ATE theory.
Don’t think that’s asking too much. We’re going all over the place and arguing about too much and everything is getting confused. Yet so far as I see, Willis’ objection has not been answered.
Don132
Don,
OK I have read the nonsense posted at the top here by Roy Spencer. Here is some of it;
.
“Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up”
.
What makes him think that the energy loss from the surface due to warming by thermal enhancement will be any different to that of the supposed GHE?
A troposphere warmed by auto-compression will be no different to the one we have now. There will be long-wave back-radiation from the troposphere, caused by the thermal enhancement of the gases in the troposphere.
The emission height would change due to forcing by GHG as the atmosphere expands or contracts to compensate for that forcing; there will be no delay, this is 100% negative feedback to any GHG forcing.
The 100% feedback occurs because the atmospheric temperature in regions of the atmosphere which are >10kPa are not determined by the GHE, they are determined by two things; auto-compression and insolation. Why isn’t the GHE contributing anything to warming? Because there are no ‘special’ gases which can cause anomalous warming, first these are not allowed under the ideal gas law.
Also second; the total nonsense of this GHE idea is clearly revealed when one realizes that the IPCC claims that just 0.04% more CO2 will increase global temperatures by 3C, with a GWP of 1.
So what happens with the addition of a similar amount of a gas such as Sulphur Hexaflouride with its GWP of 23,900?
– Supposedly an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature of 23,900 x 3 = 71,700C or a surface temperature of 72,000 Kelvin caused by the addition of a tiny amount of gas? The GHE from ‘greenhouse gases’ is total nonsense and does not actually exist anywhere in nature.
.
Here is more from Roy Spencer;
.
“…. violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.”
.
There is no ‘violation’ of conservation of energy. Sorry Dr Spencer, you are wrong.
Because it is not real it is totally impossible.
I can imagine all sorts of things that fit theories, but if they are not real it is meaningless.
I am sure that this is where Mr Eschenbach will invoke “Schrodingers cat” etc.
A C Osborn: “Because it is not real it is totally impossible.
I can imagine all sorts of things that fit theories, but if they are not real it is meaningless.
I am sure that this is where Mr Eschenbach will invoke “Schrodingers cat” etc.”
I may be dense but I don’t understand why the ATE theory can’t be applied to the model planet.
If it cannot be, then explain clearly why not, using established physics. Just keep it simple and basic.
Don132
I am not a Phycisist, so how can I?
No you explain the “Physics” that would allow Mr Eschenbach’s Universe where you have a totally featureless planet with a monatomic atmosphere totally surrounded by thousands of suns.
It does not and cannot exist, it is a construct specifically designed to try and disprove a real world theory that applies to the real Universe using real Universe measurements.
The current CAGW theory cannot even get our own solar system’s Planet’s/moon’s temperatures correct without fudges, so why would you believe it?
A C Osborn
“No you explain the “Physics” that would allow Mr Eschenbach’s Universe where you have a totally featureless planet with a monatomic atmosphere totally surrounded by thousands of suns. It does not and cannot exist, it is a construct specifically designed to try and disprove a real world theory that applies to the real Universe using real Universe measurements.”
It cannot exist? I disagree. I have been to that planet. It’s very far away, and yes, it’s totally smooth– no one knows how it got that way! It has only one gas in the atmosphere … well, maybe it has a trace or two of other gases but everyone says they don’t matter. And here’s the really neat part: it really is heated evenly all around. It doesn’t have thousands of suns like Willis’ but only three, but is surrounded by a special plasma (above the atmosphere) which is unknown on earth, called heatevenium, which ensures that everywhere on the planet is heated equally, 24/7. There isn’t a lot to do there, though, which is why I didn’t stay.
Willis’ planet is improbable, but I fail to see how it’s impossible or violates any physical laws. In any case, physical laws apply: we all agree on that point. So where’s the ATE?
Don132
Sorry, your grasp of Universal physics is as poor as your imagination is great.
Your planet is not Mr Eschenbach’s planet as it has the wrong number of suns.
But if you want to believe it, that is fine by me, but that is faith not science.
You state that Physical Laws apply.
So let’s see how much you actually know about the physics.
Do you accept that Radiation is made up of Photons?
If yes, then do all photons have the same Frequency, Energy and Power?
Or do you believe that all photons are equal?
Do you know what the Height in the Atmosphere is where 15micron CO2 molecules outnumber the H2O molecules?
Do you accept that most of the CO2 molecule’s extra energy is lost to N2 & O2 molecules before they can emit a photon?
How, then do the N2 & O2 lose this energy?
Do you accept that less than half the photons emitted by CO2 molecules are directed downwards?
Do you know what the free path length of an IR photon is in the atmosphere?
A C Osborn
“Sorry, your grasp of Universal physics is as poor as your imagination is great.
Your planet is not Mr Eschenbach’s planet as it has the wrong number of suns.”
I look at the logic of arguments. That’s all. I back that up with my dismal understanding of physics; nearly everything can be understood conceptually and I change my mind as my understanding grows. Nevertheless I have a good grasp of the theory of CO2 warming and the greenhouse effect, have read widely on climate issues, and I don’t believe CO2 is a problem. I also believe that the central problem with the ATE theory might be the understanding of what “temperature” is, and that’s why sometimes you need to just look at the underlying logic and pay attention to it. I’m being critical of Stephen at this point because he seems to be stating that there’s a universal law (or theory), the ATE, that isn’t universal.
” … here’s the really neat part: it really is heated evenly all around. It doesn’t have thousands of suns like Willis’ but only three, but is surrounded by a special plasma (above the atmosphere) which is unknown on earth, called heatevenium, which ensures that everywhere on the planet is heated equally, 24/7. ”
So apparently you’ve never heard of heatevenium– I suspected as much. But you will note that although I did say that the planet wasn’t exactly the same as Willis, it was heated evenly, which is of the essence. I don’t think the number of suns is the real deal-breaker.
A C Osborn, I am not against your side. I am on whichever side ends up making the most sense. So far the gravitationists haven’t taken up the challenge and I implied that the key might be in the understanding of temperature, as I believe Joe Born might also have said or implied, but so far there’s not been a lot of response except to claim “no fair.”
Don132
“In a soccer analogy it’s SW (and others) 5 WUWT 0 at half time.”
Martin:
That always applies here.
As in the contrarian always wins.
The sheer weight of comments supporting it/them gives that illusion.
However it is the quality of the comments and who they come from that matter.
So are you saying that the comments of Leif Svalgaard do not carry weight?
Are you saying that all physicists/scientists this last ~ 150 years have got it wrong?
Are you saying that NWP models run by the world’s weather forecasting services – which carry empirical radiative effects at their core – do not come up with realistic outcomes?
If what SW says were true then radiative transfer codes within them would make a nonsense of their forecasts.
Sorry, but the weight of ‘opinion’ here is counter to AGW.
Most denizens will support anything that confirms their bias, even to the exclusion of common sense.
Oh, and another thing, this thread has been this long (don’t ever remember a thread this long here) merely because SW has persisted, whilst his detractors have got bored and left.
I have long since learned that ‘talking’ with his kind is is possible (actually we have talked long ago on another Blog).
Do you remember a certain (Snipped the banned name) MOD
Those that are invested in such sky-dragon slaying alternative physics are extraordinarily invested in them and TBH impossible to shift.
But if he says so … and you say so.
Don’t let the real world get in the way.
Anthony B, there is a lot of AGW theory that is plain wrong whoever the authority that makes the statements. There is also a lot of this enhanced Atmospheric effect that is right and which can be demonstrated to be so. I’m an engineer and whilst not an expert on anything, I understand enough of systems to be able to form a decent opinion.
Please don’t take this wrong but I believe you are a closed mind and a follower of authority and not really useful in a discussion like this where new views are essential. Sorry if that is incorrect.
“Please don’t take this wrong but I believe you are a closed mind ”
Martin:
There is a difference between a “closed mind”.
And one that accepts that science has been applying enquiring minds to the subject for ~ 150years – and not found it wanting.
If they had done then they would have got to the real answer.
Empirical science is science that has NOT been proven wrong.
People pushing Sky-dragon slaying physics such as SW are motivated at all costs to explain away AGW.
That is their motivation.
So they end up with something that is MADE to fit, despiemcarrying much miscomseption about how the atmosphere works.
SW does not know his meteoology.
I do.
Retired UKMO meteorologist.
Science starts with there being a problem and observing/testing/theorising to get to the truth.
We have done.
There is a GHE (As Roy Spencer, Christy, Anthony Watts and many other so-called sceptical heros also say).
Sorry about that.
There are a couple of problems with your statements.
1. science has been applying enquiring minds to the subject for ~ 150years – and not found it wanting.
Strange that there are lot’s of enquiring minds that have found it wanting, but their results have not been accepted by the mainstream.
2.Empirical science is science that has NOT been proven wrong.
The same answer, it is not if it has been proven wrong it is if it has been accepted to have been proven wrong.
You are an ex UK meteorologist, so do you personally believe that CO2 Back Radiation at 15microns heats the Oceans.
If so show us the observing/testing that proves it.
Do you personally believe that CO2 Back radiation is circa 300MW/m2 is heating the surface, ie higher than solar radiation when the power of CO2 photons is far less than those of shortwave an white light?
How can there be far more CO2 photons than Solar ones reaching the surface?
If so why can we easily feel the faintest sunshine but cannot feel anything from CO2 radiation on a clear night.
This obviously all makes sense to you, but it does not to me, whereas the affects of H2O make more sense to me.
Thanks for confirming my closed mind hypothesis.
Mr Banton, historically most of the threads on this subject are this long, if not longer, because the “Science is Not Settled”.
There were 500+ peer reviewed papers published last year that do NOT support the CO2 AGW theory.
Science does not progress by Concensus, in fact it stagnates because of it.
Actually that should read CAGW theory.
I’m just the stray dog that got on the pitch!
“Agreed”
QED.
“Agreed”
QED.
Say what you mean simply and clearly.
Don’t be cryptic and leave it to the reader to guess what you had in mind, if anything…
Ooh and ouch! – but all the same Leif, thanks for the concise informative answer about the solar interior. Beautiful information. Brett
“Say what you mean simply and clearly.
Don’t be cryptic”
I did. And I wasn’t.
Refer to my above post …. which got caught up in moderation (seems because of a certain persons name.
His surname being that of amnatural product that is ‘picked’, and goes to make clothes.
“Say what you mean simply and clearly.
Don’t be cryptic”
I did. And I wasn’t.
No you didn’t. And yes you were.
“agreed” to what?
“QED” what?
Don’t ask people to hunt around to see if what you said makes any sense.
Like I said – it should have followed immediately after the post that got caught up in moderation.
Which clearly explains the reason for the “QED”
So no hunting SHOULD NOT have been required.
But thanks for your concern.
We have the Nasa solar system data, the fact that Gamma = g/Cp etc., and yet some still play with models, valueless thought experiments, as if they meant anything. One does have to wonder what they are really pushing that is different to David Apelle, right down to the”sillimess” (sic). 4000ppm in the Eocene, lovely climate, no ice because the ocean circulation was not blocked ‘strategically’. Our ancestors did not fry or gasp to death then. Brett in a sane place, not Waterloo as it happens
Hi Don, I took a break. You said this in relation to my comment about Willis’s model:
“Not an answer, Stephen. I don’t even think the question is whether the atmosphere would be isothermal or not– who cares? The question is, if pressure is what’s making the atmosphere warmer than the BB temperature then how does it work on a model planet? The equation is T = PM/Rρ. There’s nothing about convection in that equation. ”
If there is no convection so that an isothermal atmosphere can develop then you are replacing a mobile, gaseous atmosphere with an immobile mass which then behaves like a solid. No convection and no decline in temperature with height because no work being done with and against gravity but plenty of conduction up the vertical column. In effect Willis is switching a solid for a gas so as to avoid the Gas Laws and then suggesting that the outcome is comparable.
The outcome is that the top of the atmosphere will be at the same temperature as the surface (you are effectively creating a new, higher surface so as to completely avoid the thermal effect of the mobility that goes on within ANY atmosphere) and both will be at the S-B temperature of 255k and NOT the observed temperature of 288k i.e. no ATE / Greenhouse effect. Then you DO need downward IR to create the radiative greenhouse effect and raise the surface temperature to 288k
Thus to get any ATE in a completely non radiative atmosphere you have to have convective overturning switching energy to and fro between KE and PE to get the mass induced greenhouse as per my step by step description.
Willis says he did not eliminate convection from any unworthy purpose. Others must make their own minds up about that.
Stephen,
I’ll have to think about your comment. What confuses me is why the top of the atmosphere would be the same temperature as the bottom, even in an isothermal atmosphere.
In a thinner atmosphere you’ll feel colder: there is less heat content even if all molecules are the same temperature. This idea of “temperature” seems a bit slippery.
Clearing this up would go a way to at least clearing up my confusion. After we take that step then I can re-read what you wrote and think about it.
“Willis says he did not eliminate convection from any unworthy purpose. Others must make their own minds up about that.” Is that really necessary, especially in light of prior complaints? I trust that we’re all good and honest people; some of us may be stubborn, some confused, etc., etc., but I’m going on the assumption that we’re all decent folk here who are trying to hash things out.
Don132
An isothermal atmosphere is, by definition, the same temperature from top to bottom. We are talking about the temperature of the molecules not the sensation of temperature one could perceive.
If there is no convection there will be no conversion of KE to PE as one goes up so no vertical temperature gradient.
It is an impossible scenario for a gas heated from below.
I withdraw the final sentence. Still affected by Willis’s and Leif’s far worse comments to me.
Don,
You now have your very simple response.
The radiative theory is only required to lift the surface above S-B if the atmosphere is isothermal.
No atmosphere is isothermal.
Convection prevents an isothermal atmosphere and also creates the potential energy store that is recycled back to the surface as KE to heat the surface above S-B
What more can be said ?
But the gas is heated from below. Plug in gas law equations: you should get temperature of surface atmosphere. If ATE is real then that temperature should be above surface BB temperature.
If this isn’t so, then explain the next step in the logic without presenting the entire theory with more questions than answers.
Don132
The Gas Laws don’t come into it if there is no convection.
The Gas Laws are applied to deal with the compressibility of gases.
If there is no convection there is no compression or decompression going on. It behaves just like a solid to which the Gas Laws do not apply.
So, no, you cannot ‘plug in’ the Gas Laws to Willis’s model.
Willis’s model , if applied to a non radiative atmosphere, has no greenhouse effect.
I’m not following.
If pressure has such an effect, then we should be seeing the effects of pressure.
You can plug in gas laws for upper atmosphere and lower and get difference result.
Therefore, according to the ATE theory, pressure matters.
Don132
Don,
The ATE only happens if there is a convective loop.
Hence the importance of my description.
Pressure per-se is not the cause if you lock am atmosphere in place.
You have to have an ongoing cycle of decompression and compression to get the ATE for a non-radiative atmosphere.
Willis does violate the laws of physics because you can never eliminate convection which inevitably leads to a decline in temperature with height due to conversion of KE to PE.
Willis just freezes a gaseous atmosphere in place as if it were a solid.
Is that not a violation of the laws of physics ?
Stephen: “The ATE only happens if there is a convective loop.”
That’s not what T = PM/Rρ says. It says what it says, and they’ve found Willis’ planet– just heard on the news from Pleiades, although not exactly the same but very, very close– and so I’d expect the equation to work.
It seems that if pressure is indeed making the near-surface atmosphere warmer, and if it makes the bottom of the Grand Canyon warmer than the rim, then it’ll work on Willis’ planet as well.
I don’t accept that Willis’ planet isn’t fair because from my understanding of the ATE theory, it applies to Willis’ planet as well. But maybe my understanding is just a misunderstanding, and that fact that I misunderstood what constitutes the temperature of a gas tells me I may be wrong. But then again maybe the whole issue revolves around the idea of temperature.
Don132
Don, “Concern Troll”. Brett
That’s right, Brett, I’m a “concern troll,” whatever that is. Is this an attempt to dismiss me? If you want to dismiss me then answer the objections stated below https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2583196
For now I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not resorting to name-calling instead of arguments from science or logic.
I expect those who support the ATE to rise to the challenge or else admit that there’s no solid foundation for the theory, and that it’s based on a proof that it turns out is no proof at all, but only circular reasoning.
Don132
Consider this.
When Willis’s atmosphere formed it took energy from the surface to support its weight against gravity.
Once formed it apparently stays in place with no convection.
Whilst stuck in place, further heat from the surface moves up the vertical column via conduction in order to bring the top molecules to the same temperature as the surface molecules.
And there it stays, isothermal and non moving.
So he has eliminated the downward leg of convection having permitted the upward leg to put the atmosphere in place.
You can’t do that.
As soon as the downward leg is permitted the descending air warms and releases more and more heat as it approaches the surface. After reaching the surface it flows horizontally to the next area of uplift and as soon as the loop closes the surface temperature rises above S-B without needing GHGs.
“You can’t do that.”
But Willis did. Physical laws apply. Although the planet might violate laws of imagination, it doesn’t violate laws of physics, so therefore I’d expect the ATE theory to apply if the ATE theory follows laws of physics.
Sorry, Stephen. I call them as I see them.
Don132
Willis just freezes a gaseous atmosphere in place as if it were a solid.
Is that not a violation of the laws of physics ?
“Willis just freezes a gaseous atmosphere in place as if it were a solid.
Is that not a violation of the laws of physics ?”
We don’t know how the atmosphere got there. We take it as a given that it’s there. Willis nowhere says that he freezes a gaseous atmosphere.
If the ATE is real then it must be applicable as an effect throughout the universe, even on strange planets.
Don132
Freezes in the sense of rendering immobile so no convection.
Still, according to the theory of NZ/Wilde/Holmes, pressure is doing something. What is it doing? I don’t care if the atmosphere is isothermal: pressure, as far as I can see right now, is affecting the temperature profile of the isothermal atmosphere (I think it’s weird that it’s called “isothermal”) because if a thermometer at the very top of an isothermal atmosphere measures the exact same heat content as the bottom, then I’ll eat my hat.
Do you see where this is going?
Don132
Pressure only leads to an ATE if you have a recycling convective loop up and down.
Don,
Thermometers do not measure heat content, they measure temperature.
The pressure change in the troposphere on Earth is caused by auto-compression;
Auto-compression is well known in underground mining and is used by ventilation engineers to calculate how hot the mine air will get, so that they know how much cooling air to provide at each level. The effect of auto-compression can be calculated by the following relationship;
Pe = Ps exp(gH/RT)
Where;
Pe = absolute pressure at end of column (kPa)
Ps = absolute pressure at start of column (kPa)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s²)
H = vertical depth (m)
R = Standard Temperature (Kelvin)
T = Final Temperature (Kelvin)
As can be clearly seen, this effect primarily relies on pressure and gravity, which will be different for each planetary body.
The thermal gradient/enhancement is caused by conversion of KE/PE during convection;
Note that we are examining a largely adiabatic process during convection. When a gas parcel expands adiabatically, as it does when rising in a gravitational field, it does positive work – and the kinetic energy drops and so the temperature drops. However, when a gas parcel is compressed, as it is when it descends adiabatically in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up. Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
Maxwell vs Arrhenius
There is a strong difference between the work and the views of the researchers Maxwell and Arrhenius. Maxwell’s work shows that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are primarily determined by convection and the atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity relationship. Arrhenius’s later work completely ignored this and determined that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are caused by the radiative effects of greenhouse gases.
Arrhenius was wrong.
Holmes,
“Maxwell’s work shows that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are primarily determined by convection and the atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity relationship. Arrhenius’s later work completely ignored this and determined that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are caused by the radiative effects of greenhouse gases.”
I believe you are correct.
What has always bothered me is that atmospheric pressure is actually huge, even though 14.7 psi doesn’t sound like much, and I find it hard to believe that the only thing it does is make the lapse work work.
Let’s see what objections arise.
Don132
Re: Roger Taguchi January 4, 2019 at 11:01 pm
“Hi Dan!
…
3. When this 341.5 W/m^2 is plugged into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be (using emissivity 1 for a perfect black body) 278.6 K (5.4 Celsius).
…..”
Wow, weekend is over and this thread is still (sort of) going. I briefly reacquainted myself with N&Z’s work and I remember now why I gave up on all the “disproofs” of their theory. Not that I’m claiming they’re right – I simply don’t know – but if somebody wanted to really shoot them down, it should be pretty easy.
N&Z start out by claiming that Earth’s gray body temperature actually calculates out to about 154K based on the idea that the earth is a sphere and not a 2D disk. They are are essentially claiming that warming, whatever the cause, is more than 100C higher than commonly accepted (above). Which, if true, means the commonly accepted amount of warming due to GHGs isn’t nearly enough to account for our actual temperature.
As far as I know, N&Z have never backed off this essential claim. Shoot it down and you’ve gone a long way towards discrediting their theory. And this claim is just based on math. My grasp of calculus has never been more than elementary, so I don’t know, but surely some PhD out there could prove them wrong (or right) since they provide their equations and logic.
Ok, Don
Let’s go a bit deeper into the Laws of Physics to show more clearly how Willis has violated them.
The Grand Canyon issue is quite simple. The difference in temperature between the bottom and the top is due to the lapse rate. Warm air at the bottom rises and in doing so it cools by expansion. Some of its KE becomes PE and PE is not heat.
If we apply Willis’s scenario which lacks convection there is no lapse rate because he proposes an isothermal atmosphere. The warmth at the bottom travels up the vertical column via conduction until both locations are at the same temperature. There can be no conversion of KE to PE in Willis’s model because there is no work done against gravity by rising air. In that scenario there is indeed no ATE as Willis says. No KE returning to the surface in descending columns does indeed mean no ATE if the atmosphere is non radiative.
Willis then uses that non convecting scenario to suggest that there also no ATE in a convecting regime such as the Earth’s atmosphere. That conclusion is clearly false.
Then there is your suggestion that a planet fitting Willis’s model might exist somewhere in the Universe.
In order to consider the possibility of that we need to consider the difference between solids and gases.
Solids have strong bonds between molecules that are different to break so over a large range of temperatures the molecules remain the same distance apart. No expansion or contraction to change the balance between KE and PE.
Gases have very weak bonds between molecules and will randomly vary their position relative to each other even at a steady temperature.
It is the random element that is critical because such randomness readily leads to density variations in all three dimensions and of course as per the gas laws density varies with temperature if pressure remains constant.
Thus, even in a stable temperature environment gases will form parcels of less dense molecules that will rise above more dense parcels and vice versa.
Now we all know by now that Willis proposes that, by having multiple suns and a smooth surface, convection can be eliminated so that an isothermal atmosphere can develop and, voila, no ATE in a non radiative atmosphere which is the whole point of his model.
Up to this point I have accepted for the sake of a simplified discussion that he could indeed eliminate all convection with multiple suns and a smooth surface and have just limited my point to the fact that such an arrangement is unrealistic.
But you have suggested that it might be possible somewhere in the universe so I have to go further.
I mentioned the random element in the movement of gas molecules such that irregularities leading to convection are inevitable even in a stable temperature environment
That applies even if Willis proposes a million exactly equal suns and a surface smooth at the atomic level.
Even in that scenario the random element in gas molecule behaviour will lead to convection and a coherent pattern of atmospheric overturning around the illuminated planet.
Willis’s model is indeed in breach of the Laws of Physics.
There is a reason that we need The Gas Laws
And if you add particulates in the atmosphere, rotation, movement through space, volcanic activity, the shifting of liquids at the surface and pressure from a solar wind all inducing irregularities within the atmosphere you can see that convection in any situation is inevitable within a gaseous atmosphere.
convection in any situation is inevitable within a gaseous atmosphere
Except that there is no convection at night…
Because the temperature at night increases with altitude up to 1000 feet…
Hadley and Ferrel cells and surface high and low pressure systems do not stop at night.
They are not convection [controlled by lapse rate], but circulation.
You have been told that repeatedly.
Low level convection develops into a broader pattern of circulation.
“Except that there is no convection at night…”
So, no night-time thunderstorms…
Are you sure about that?
Stephen,
At this point I’m concerned with the issue of what a thermometer is measuring at the top of an isothermal atmosphere, per my response to Joe, and I think that might clarify things, at least for me. If my thinking is correct, then a thermometer at the top of an isothermal atmosphere must measure less heat than one at the bottom, although I don’t think we have a word for what it measures if the “temperature” of a gas refers to the average kinetic energy of its molecules, without any reference to “per unit volume.” That had been my assumption all along, and that’s why I’ve always believed you and Holmes and NZ were correct.
So I’d like to focus on that for now.
Don132
Don
The thermometer will only register kinetic energy so if it tries to measure a volume of space with only one molecule in it the reading will be skewed downwards by the limited amount of kinetic energy in that space but the molecule will still be at the temperature of molecules on the ground.
However, in getting to the top of the atmosphere that same molecule has also acquired a whole load of potential energy which is not heat and the thermometer will not register it. If the thermometer could also register the potential energy plus the ground level kinetic energy held by the single molecule at great height then the temperature rise would be enormous It would show a temperature as high as if you moved that single molecule back down to the surface. It would then be way hotter than the surface molecules.
Which leads me to another breach of the Laws of Physics which I was holding back on due to the complexity that has already arisen.
Keeping the mass of the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium requires the upward pressure gradient force provided by kinetic energy to match the downward force of gravity at every height in an atmosphere.
If you have a high up molecule with ground level kinetic energy and very little atmospheric weight above to hold it down then the upward pressure gradient force will substantially exceed the downward force of gravity and the molecule will whiz off to space.
On average you have to keep every molecule at the correct temperature for its height along the entire lapse rate slope otherwise you lose the atmosphere to space. Convection and the conversion of KE to PE with height arranges that for every real world atmosphere.
So, an isothermal atmosphere is physically impossible due to two separate breaches of the Laws of Physics
Stephen:
“If the thermometer could also register the potential energy plus the ground level kinetic energy held by the single molecule at great height then the temperature rise would be enormous. It would show a temperature as high as if you moved that single molecule back down to the surface. It would then be way hotter than the surface molecules.”
What you say makes sense. I can find no fault in this logic, and it’s what I was getting at.
So if the “temperature” at the top isn’t the same as the “temperature” at the bottom, then what does this say about this influence of pressure?
I’m ignoring the rest of what you say because it isn’t relevant to the main issue at hand, which is, can an isothermal atmosphere have a temperature gradient, and the answer appears to be yes or no, depending on how we define “temperature.” But, I think your idea is correct, and I hope it gets everyone thinking about what the real problem is and why we can’t seem to resolve anything. Once we all define what we’re talking about then I think we can make progress; but, still no score, in my book it’s 0-0 even after, what is it, 1,383 comments?
Just like what PJF did to me (nicely done!) at one point one side or the other is going to be cornered in a logical contradiction with no way out. That’s what I’m aiming for and I have no idea which side will end up cornered.
Don132
Don, now that you have been through the GHG calculations with regard to Radiation budgets let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. How many Watts/M2 at the surface comes from the Sun.
2. How many Watts/M2 at the surface comes from the CO2 DWIR?
A C Osborn
Is that relevant to the current discussion?
I don’t care if the radiative theory is self-consistent or not, and that’s not the issue right now.
Don
The clincher is this:
Willis’s model seeks to remove convective overturning so as to create an isothermal atmosphere. The temperature is the same from top to bottom in his model but the type of energy contained by each molecule still varies between KE and PE as one goes up along the lapse rate slope.
Since it is the change in the type of energy that creates a temperature decline with height then you obviously cannot prevent convective overturning and as soon as you introduce that you get the ATE.
So, Willis inadvertently proves the gravitationalists’ case.
For a completely non radiative atmosphere the only difference between no ATE and an ATE is convective overturning.
Radiation doesn’t come into it so when one introduces radiation as an additional parameter you have to consider a whole raft of different issues but they appear to be irrelevant to the presence or absence of the ATE.
Nice to see Ned weighing in here, I was feeling a bit lonely.
Ned’s discovery is perfectly correct but it needs my description to explain it and Willis has accidentally proved me and Ned to be correct entirely contrary to Roy Spencer’s opinion.
“Ned’s discovery is perfectly correct..”
Ned’s self claimed “discovery” that global atm. surface pressure increases acting alone can increase Earth’s global surface equilibrium T (either the 289K or any other equilibrium T) violates 1LOT as shown in the top post.
Leif, surely circulation is caused by convection?
Of course. Very odd for someone as eminent as Lief to make such a schoolboy error.
In science it is important to be precise and to use generally agreed upon terminology.
“Meteorologists have different terms for horizontal and vertical movement of fluids: movement in the vertical direction driven by buoyancy is called convection, and movement in the horizontal direction is called advection. Convection contributes, with radiation and conduction, to the movement of heat in the vertical direction. But advection is essentially the sole process by which heat moves laterally over the surface of the earth.”
The Hadley cells etc are advective circulations and are not considered to be confused with the vertical convection cells. But, without any formal training you may be excused for not having known this. But, now you know.
The Hadley cell is a vertical structure.
Hadley circulation flows laterally on the way toward the poles.
Anyone know the percent of absorbed IR by the atmosphere that is radiated to space by stimulated emission where two photons are emitted to space rather than one as in spontaneous emission? Also the percent of solar IR stimulating emission back to Earth?
This is an appeal to all of you interested in actual science:
Instead of wasting time discussing the drivel that Roy Spencer posted on his bog and Anthony Watts repeated here, please consider reading our actual published papers at least 2-3 times while trying to follow the logic of data analysis and reasoning, which are really straightforward:
Volokin & ReLlez (2014): https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Nikolov & Zeller (2017): https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
While reading the papers, please apply a conscious effort to avoid the fundamental mistake made by Roy Spencer, Willis Eschenbach and many others in the past, which is to ARGUE against empirical evidence and data using a “theory”. This approach not only violates the Standard Scientific Method, but is quite unintelligent on its face. If there is a contradiction between your “theory” and the pattern emerging from observed data, what needs to be corrected (updated) is your understanding of the phenomenon. Don’t dismiss the data!
Wishing you success!
Ned, thanks for your comments.
As to arguing against “against empirical evidence and data using a “theory””, you have no “empirical evidence”. What you have is a wildly overfitted specially chosen equation. It has half the number of tunable parameters as the data points you are fitting.
Since you think your equation is correct, please apply it to the dwarf planet Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos. In both cases it gives wildly incorrect answers … as is totally common with wildly overfitted equations when used out-of-sample.
I do NOT dismiss the data. Instead, I dismiss your overfitted equation.
Finally, you have not identified any errors in my proof that no atmospheric processes (density, circulation, pressure, etc.) can raise the surface temperature higher than the S-B blackbody temperature. Nor have you identified any errors in my analysis of your overfitted equation.
Best of the New Year to you,
w.
PS—My simpler equation gives about three-quarters of the RMS error of your wildly overfit equation. Here it is:
Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)
Why is my equation not the “right” one?
Oh, I remember now … my equation is wildly overfit as well.
Willis,
Did you miss our Jan 17 2012 reply to your blog article? Here it is: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/
We explained the inadequacy of yours claims and the math errors you’ve made.
Now, you are not a scientist, and may not understand this, but “thought experiments” like the one you’ve concocted do NOT constitute a “proof” in physics! As for the direct effect of pressure on temperature, this has been known in atmospheric science for many decades. Google “adiabatic process” or “adiabatic lapse rate” to find out. FYI, the observed decrease of temperature with altitude is a manifestation of the adiabatic lapse rate and is caused by the drop of pressure with height. Also, the warmth brought about by Chinook and Santa Ana winds is purely a result of adiabatic (compression) heating experienced by air parcels descending down a mountain slope into higher-pressure levels. Adiabatic (pressure-induced) heating/cooling is at the heart of convection. You may want to watch these educational videos about adiabatic processes in the atmosphere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_M4jItiKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObnWb7yspxA
BTW, the term “adiabatic” means changing the internal energy of a gas system WITHOUT input or loss of heat into/from the system, i.e. without heat exchange with the environment. Adiabatic heating/cooling is strictly caused by pressure and it’s a very well understood process in Thermodynamics. Adiabatic process is the opposite of a “diabatic process”, where the system’s internal kinetic energy is affected by exchange of heat with the environment. You seem to be only aware of diabatic processes, but have no understanding of adiabatic mechanisms…. Our analysis of NASA planetary data revealed that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) a.k.a. “Greenhouse effect” is a form of ADIABATIC HEATING, i.e. a pressure-induced thermal enhancement, which is in complete agreement with Classical Thermodynamics and its fundamental laws. Specifically, as explained in our 2017 paper, pressure determines the Relative Atmospheric Thermal Effect (RATE), i.e. the Ts/Tna ratio. However, the absolute ATE (which is about 90 K for Earth) is determined by BOTH pressure and solar irradiance. In other words, the long-term average global surface temperature of Earth (and any other planet for that matter) is determined by a combination of both DIABATIC (solar-heating) and ADIABATIC (pressure-induced) processes.
So, your contention that “no atmospheric processes (density, circulation, pressure, etc.) can raise the surface temperature higher than the S-B blackbody temperature” is simply wrong and reflects a fundamental ignorance about Thermodynamics. Of course, you are excused because you have not had any formal training in physical sciences …
Pressure is a fundamental driver in any system, so much so that it’s impossible to have a kinetic energy and a temperature above zero in a system without some form of pressure present? That’s a fact! Even electromagnetic radiation has pressure. Did you know that the very unit used to measure radiation fluxes, i.e. W m-2 actually equals Photon_Pressure*Speed_of_Light. The Japanese even had a spacecraft entirely propelled by the pressure exerted by Solar Radiation … This is all described in our 2017 paper, which you have apparently not read/understood.
In regard to the “over-fitting” issue, it’s discussed in our paper as well, where we show that there is NO overfitting!
Wishing you success on your path to understanding atmospheric physics & climate science!
For those interested in meaningful discussions about our empirical discovery (yes, it’s NOT a “theory”, but a discovery!) and its implications for climate science, please visit my Twitter feed at
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience?lang=en
Thank you!
Ned, you carefully posted your reply, not here where I could respond to it, but over at Tallblokes where I’m banned from commenting. So no, I have not commented on it. I can’t. Well done!
Next, proofs in math and science occur all the time without any physical basis. They are done without any experiments. Mine is one of an entire class of proofs called “reductio ad absurdum”. From Wolfram Mathworld:
That is what I have done. I have taken your proposition, which is that GHGs are not necessary for the calculation of a planetary temperature, and shown that it results in a contradiction wherein the surface constantly emits more than it absorbs. Since that is impossible, your claim is proven to be false. And no physical experiment is necessary.
As to “no overfitting” … don’t make me laugh.
Finally, I invited you to apply your method to the dwarf planet Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos. Now, you’d think that a man like you would welcome the chance to further prove your method.
But no, you’ve said not one word about that, stayed perfectly schtum … and since I’ve tried your method on both bodies I know why …
w.
PS—Could you stop with the “you’re not a scientist” nonsense? I have five peer-reviewed works of mine published in the scientific journals, including a peer-reviewed “Brief Communications Arising” in Nature magazine … a short piece, to be sure, but how many of your peer-reviewed claims has Nature published?
And I have over 125 citations to my work in the scientific journals. Not bad for a man with absolutely no formal scientific training, I’d say … yes, I am totally self-educated, but your confusing that with “uneducated” is a foolish mistake.
Willis,
1. I did not post my reply to WUWT in 2012, because Anthony Watts refused to publish it at the time. You can ask Roger Tallbloke about this.
2. In our 2017 paper, we apply our model in a predictive mode to calculate the average temperatures of several bodies NOT included in the regression analysis. These are Mercury, Callisto, Europa and Pluto. The results indicate excellent model skill based on the available independent data thus far. I’m not aware of any published global temperature measurements for Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos, which is why we did not apply the model to these bodies. Do you have references reporting such data?
3. You can apply our model to any rocky body in the solar system you want using the equations provided in our 2017 paper. Note, however, that you need to follow the methodology outlined in that paper for this, which is somewhat different from the preliminary approach presented in the 2011 poster. Here is the direct link to to our 2017 paper again:
Nikolov & Zeller (2017): https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
Please read it carefully and do not confuse this with stuff found online from 7 years ago!
3. Your “conclusion” that eliminating greenhouse gases “results in a contradiction wherein the surface constantly emits more than it absorbs” may be consistent with your own “thoughts” but it is certainly not with the physical reality. It is also inconsistent with classical Thermodynamics as I’ve clearly explained above. Also, it is ludicrous to think that “thought experiments” can replace empirical evidence. This not how real science works!
If you feel that you have a legitimate rebuttal against our findings & conclusions, why don’t you write a scientific paper about it and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, because that’s how this process works. Can you do that?
Thanks!
Ned, your paper makes the claim each solar system object’s Ts can be found from atm. pressure alone (Fig. 4) red curve and Tna of Earth’s moon. You even list the surface pressures of Mercury, Callisto, Europa and Pluto. Then under “Model Application and Validation” you apply many other factors than surface pressure alone (albedo, illumination over the orbit so forth). Even you do not follow your own paper’s statements in “Model Application and Validation”.
Ned, Ceres is not a Solid Rock Planet, it appears to be a mixture of Rock and Ice and has a temperature of approximately -105C, it is also very small and discharges water in spouts.
Phobos is just a large Rock, it is minute by planetary standards being only 70Km in Diameter and a temp range of -4C to -112C and mean of -40.15C.
This data is according to these 2 sources.
https://space-facts.com/ceres/
https://theplanets.org/phobos/
Trick, no it doesn’t you seemed to have missed the word “forcing” in the “two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure.”
They explain that albedo is not a “forcing variable here
“The planetary Bond albedo (αp) was omitted as a forcing variable in our DA despite its known effect on the surface energy budget, because it is already dimensionless and
also partakes in the calculation of reference temperatures discussed b e l ow.”
”Trick, no it doesn’t”
What is meant by your “it”? Search the paper for “surface air pressure alone” then “night-side albedo” to find what is meant by my comment.
Trick the it is the expression is “Forcing Variable”, not just variables.
They explained that there are many variables, but they are not forcing variables.
It is a matter of classification, yours appears to be different to theirs, but they did declares theirs.
”Trick the it is the expression is “Forcing Variable””
Ok. Still, in Fig. 4, the only forcing variable in the caption is “total surface air pressure” for which they comment ATE is fully explicable by “surface air pressure alone”. Use the search strings I gave.
Oh, yeah, Ned, why no comment on my “discovery”, as you call it, that
Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)
Simpler and more accurate than your “discovery” … what’s not to like?
w.
Willis,
You’ve got to be kidding me! Your equation does not even come close in terms of accuracy to our original formula. I have exposed your confusion on this in our 2012 reply:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/
Ned,
You are addressing the issue of which how to use to solve the problem and that is your area of expertise.
I am observing that the how is necessary because of the complexity of the problem that the “divide by 4” rule hides.
Ned Nikolov January 8, 2019 at 5:45 am
Not true in the slightest. I gave you two equations, one of which I said was more accurate than the other. You very carefully pointed out that the LESS accurate of my two equations was slightly less accurate than yours …
… but gosh, Ned, somehow the dog must have eaten your homework because you didn’t even touch the equation I gave just above. Test that one and report back here with your results.
And when are you going to tell us the results from testing your equation on the dwarf planet Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos? Here’s your big opportunity to test your equation out-of-sample … why so shy all of a sudden?
w.
Ned,
On the 2012 thread (now closed) at Tallbloke’s blog you say here:
January 24, 2012 at 8:36 pm
For me, this is the absolute crux of the matter and a point that has been forcibly made many times elsewhere.
The purpose of the “divide by 4” (flat-Earth) rule was to provide a geometric short-cut to determine the quantity of OUTGOING thermal radiation from the complete and total surface area of a globe (both lit and unlit hemispheres). I call this ”divide by 4” rule a trick equation. This trick equation CANNOT be used to measure the distribution of energy by the intercepting lit hemisphere over the curved surface of that globe, even if a “divide by 2” rule is applied just for this lit hemisphere only.
So, why for the intercepting lit hemisphere, does a “divide by 2” rule also not work? It is correct to say that the total incoming energy captured from the solar beam is equivalent to a disk of planetary radius (with the caveat that the Sun also has a real disk and is not a point source of light). However, even a “divide by 2” incoming beam intercept equation does NOT provide an appropriate metric for the lit hemisphere that accounts for how the distribution of this incoming energy heats the Earth’s surface.
Both these forms of the trick equation fail to correctly account for the incoming energy’s “distribution effects” at the Earth’s surface relating to: –
Daily planetary rotation, seasonal axial tilt, curved surface orientation (its areal attitude) and the associated variations in solar beam intensity at the ground caused by the altitude and azimuth of the Sun in the sky.
Philip Mulholland
Good summary. Bookmarked, in a long thread.
Phillip,
The problem with applying the simple form of the Stephan-Boltzmann (S-B) radiation law to a sphere and why such an application leads to physically wrong results is discussed & explained in details in our 2014 paper. It has to do with a math rule called Holder’s inequality between integrals. The effective emission temperature Te calculated from the S-B law for a sphere is a NON-PHYSICAL quantity that has no relationship to actual kinetic surface or atmospheric temperatures. Hence, the 33 K estimate of the “Greenhouse effect” obtained via the S-B formula is physically meaningless:
Volokin & ReLlez (2014): https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
”such an application leads to physically wrong results”
No Ned, experiments prove this is wrong. S-B works fine on spheres in the real world.
Holder is math rule effect only, no effect on using S-B in the real world. When I point my IR thermometer using S-B at a glass of ice water with thermometer, both read 32F. Even if the glass of water is a sphere. S-B works just fine in the real world as it was developed from experiment and then proven with math.
Trick, are you suggesting that the “spherical” errors of a few inch glass of water equates to those of an 8,000mile diameter Earth?
ACO
Over the years I have found it best not to reply to Trick.
His strategy is to fill the thread with trite ‘discussions’ so as to push the important stuff up the thread until nobody bothers to read it any more.
He usually comes in late on threads that are going the ‘wrong’ way and seeks to neutralize them.
I find it odd how often he pops up, as though someone were searching for such threads and then calling him in where needed. Maybe my contributions are being shadowed by some algorithm.
Sadly, the message about the mass induced GHE / ATE will not get out into the mainstream until someone of authority with political ‘clout’ realizes the truth and is prepared to run with it in public.
Probably won’t happen in my remaining lifetime.
Ned Nikolov January 8, 2019 at 5:55 am
Gotta love how Ned cites “Volokin and ReLlez (2014)” as being independent researchers who are supporting his ideas …
… without mentioning that it is nothing but his own paper that he slipped into a scientific journal under an assumed name.
Bad scientist, citing yourself without mentioning that fact … no cookies for you …
w.
“Trick, are you suggesting that the “spherical” errors of a few inch glass of water equates to those of an 8,000mile diameter Earth?”
No! Of course not.
Satellite observations use S-B and their readout & thermometers readout are well enough the same for reasonable results. No need to use Holders with actual observations, only if you are working only with math does Holders raise its ugly head. Even then, it is not much of a big deal. You can get through a first course in atm. thermo. without encountering Holders.
“Sadly, the message about the mass induced GHE / ATE will not get out into the mainstream until someone of authority with political ‘clout’ realizes the truth and is prepared to run with it in public.”
Because mass induced GHE / ATE is not observed. All mass radiates, so any mass induced effect includes radiation in addition to mass motion (convection) which IS observed. Stephen’s imagination is robust and always has all the answers. Stephen is unhindered by observation & relies on a mysterious text book he can’t find or name anymore that he claims to have studied 50-60 years ago. This text book fully explained the mass induced GHE / ATE but has been lost in time unfortunately.
Willis: “Gotta love how Ned cites “Volokin and ReLlez (2014)” as being independent researchers who are supporting his ideas …”
Unsubstantiated ad hominem attack. Nikolov does not claim these are independent researches, and by now everyone knows who they are.
Don132
Don January 8, 2019 at 5:39 pm
First, “everyone” absolutely does NOT know who they are. That’s a crazy statement. There are thousands and thousands of people who read this site. Many, perhaps most, of them had no idea.
And Nikolov is implicitly claiming that they are independent researchers by not saying “here’s a previous paper of mine” …
Why on earth are you defending and justifying his underhanded actions, first in publishing under an alias and then in citing his own work without mentioning that fact?
Gotta say, Don … your reputation on my planet just went down the tubes.
w.
Willis,
Are you just looking for ways to attack your opponents’ characters?
Everything you say may be right except for one thing: I highly doubt it was Nikolov’s intent to deceive anyone by mentioning Volokin and Rellez, and I highly doubt that he intended to imply that they were independent researchers. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and say that from his point of view, everyone up-to-speed on the debate knows who Volokin is.
But everyone happy now? Volokin is Nikolov, and NZ submitted the paper with their names spelled backwards (hello? that’s not a “deception,” that’s a joke) to prove a point: they weren’t getting published not because their science was dodgy, but because their names had been associated with a highly controversial theory.
Don132
Don January 9, 2019 at 2:16 am
There’s no need for that, Ned has done a great job of ruining his own reputation.
I see. Before, your claim was that EVERYONE knows who Volokin is. Now you’ve adopted the circular definition that everyone who is “up to speed on the debate” knows who Volokin is. And how can we tell if someone is “up to speed on the debate”?
Why … they’re up to speed if they know who Volokin is!
And of course he didn’t want anyone to know who he was. He didn’t want his name associated with his ludicrous claims, so he tried to reset the clock by publishing under an assumed name. Perhaps on your planet that’s acceptable. In the world of scientific journals, that’s a big no-no. And when the Editors found out that he was doing that, they decided they didn’t want to publish his work … funny how that works. He lied about his name to try to get published … and then they wouldn’t publish him because he lied about his name.
Karma’s a bitch …
But sure, Don, keep on making endless excuses for Den Volokin. Don’t matter to me, it’s your reputation you’re harming, not mine.
w.
“So, why for the intercepting lit hemisphere, does a “divide by 2” rule also not work? ”
Because Philip a hemisphere is not a disc in regard to thhe angle of incidence of solar radiation.
Have you not noticed that that varies?
A lower angle of incidence means that the same intensity of energy is absorbed over a larger area (less W/m^2)
It is the reason we have seasons.
The area of a sphere is 4(Pi)r^2.
Yes?
The area of a disc is (Pi)r^2.
A factor of 4 smaller.
Solar SW is absorbed over the 4(Pi)r^2 during 24 hours of one rotation.
And not over (Pi)r^2.
“He didn’t want his name associated with his ludicrous claims, so he tried to reset the clock by publishing under an assumed name.”
“Volokin”: that’s how hard he tried to dissociate himself from his claims. No one could possibly associate THAT with Nikolov! And to complete the deception: “Rellez.” Who would ever guess?
We should be focusing on points of science instead of assumptions of character.
Back to the basic science and ideas: how can those who defend ATE say that we know that when we plug in T = PM/Rρ, then pressure is dominant? Those who say that the equation is meaningless because GHGs are implicit in the equation, well, where? Is it in ρ, near-surface atmospheric density? Does the equation assume that GHGs play no part in surface temp in order to prove it?
I admit I’m confused at this point. I’m probably not alone.
Don132
Great to hear it from the horse’s mouth but please, there is no need to characterize anyone’s understanding as “drivel.”
I would be very interested to hear what Ned Nikolov says of Willis’ hypothetical planet.
Don132
Don, same here! Brett
Ned foolishly and incorrectly says that thought experiments can’t ever prove anything, so he’ll just ignore it …
BZZZZT! Next contestant, please!
w.
Stephen:
“If you have a high up molecule with ground level kinetic energy and very little atmospheric weight above to hold it down then the upward pressure gradient force will substantially exceed the downward force of gravity and the molecule will whiz off to space.
On average you have to keep every molecule at the correct temperature for its height along the entire lapse rate slope otherwise you lose the atmosphere to space. Convection and the conversion of KE to PE with height arranges that for every real world atmosphere.
So, an isothermal atmosphere is physically impossible due to two separate breaches of the Laws of Physics”
I believe Stephen is correct, especially on this point: “If you have a high up molecule with ground level kinetic energy and very little atmospheric weight above to hold it down then the upward pressure gradient force will substantially exceed the downward force of gravity and the molecule will whiz off to space.” That seems to accord with what I know about why our atmosphere stays in place.
So it appears the your planet, although a valid “thought experiment,” isn’t one that accords with physical laws because as Stephen points out, any molecule that had more energy than the force of gravity exerted on it would fly off to space. This would mean that most molecules above near-surface, on an isothermal planet, could escape the force of gravity. An isothermal atmosphere is physically impossible.
Don132
Don132
Molecules do indeed “whiz off to space” in an isothermal atmosphere–as they do in our own atmosphere. It’s just that the number that attain escape velocity is so small that the effect is negligible.
Look, in my view there is indeed a theoretical problem with saying that the equilibrium atmosphere is perfectly isothermal, and in this respect I disagree with Mr. Eschenbach and Dr. Brown; if you dig into the math you find that the isothermal conclusion is actually just an approximation, a limit as energy approaches infinity; perfect isothermality in a finite gas would violate conservation of energy.
But for the temperatures and numbers of molecules that any practical problem will ever involve, the approximation is so exquisitely accurate that whether Dr. Brown is right or I am makes no difference.
Again, that “whiz off to space” argument is not compelling, because we don’t deny that it occurs.
I don’t see it Joe. In our own atmosphere, molecules high up don’t have the same kinetic energy as those lower down; I’m using your own definition, and the accepted definition, that a molecule’s kinetic energy is directly related to its temperature. However, in an isothermal atmosphere, all molecules have the same kinetic energy, and it follows that a good portion will have enough energy to escape the force of the gravitational field at the height they occupy.
Wikipedia: “More generally, escape velocity is the speed at which the sum of an object’s kinetic energy and its gravitational potential energy is equal to zero …. Once escape velocity is achieved, no further impulse need be applied for it to continue in its escape. In other words, if given escape velocity, the object will move away from the other body, continually slowing, and will asymptotically approach zero speed as the object’s distance approaches infinity, never to come back.”
Don132
Perhaps you’re missing the fact that, although the temperature doesn’t decrease with altitude, the concentration decays exponentially, so there are few molecules up there.
Moreover, at any given altitude, the number of molecules having a given kinetic energy similarly decrease with energy, so that for reasonable temperature the proportion at that altitude that have escape velocity is minuscule.
Don132:
Most of what you’re saying about an isothermal atmosphere just isn’t true. For one thing, it’s not true that “all molecules have the same kinetic energy.” Isothermal in this context means only that the mean molecular kinetic energy is the same at every altitude; the energy distribution among individual molecules, on the other hand, is exponential.
Maybe you need to take some time out and read the following plausibility argument for an isothermal atmosphere: https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.14138.
Joe Born:
“Most of what you’re saying about an isothermal atmosphere just isn’t true.”
So, it depends on what we mean by “isothermal.”
Don’t have time to read your link now but it’s an interesting puzzle.
But glancing at it … I don’t really think it matters if the mean distribution of kinetic energy is the same but individual molecules vary. What this means is that some molecules will definitely achieve escape velocity (because much more than average kinetic energy) and these will be replaced by other molecules, so on and so on, as we continually lose molecules at the top of atmosphere, and it seems we wouldn’t have much atmosphere left after that.
In Willis’ planet, it hardly seems likely, given the conditions, that the molecules would vary that much in kinetic energy. Everything is, by design, so much the same.
But, that’s just my first stab at it.
Don132
If Willis’ planet is physically impossible because the atmosphere would fly off if all molecules had the same kinetic energy, as Stephen pointed out, then that refutes Willis’ refutation of the ATE theory.
We can’t argue about physical principles using a planet that violates physical principles. That makes no sense.
Don132
The fact that some molecules “whiz off to space” does not make Mr. Eschenbach’s model physically impossible. As I just said, molecules “whiz off to space” from our own, real-world planet, a planet that most of us consider physically possible.
The molecules at the top of an isothermal atmosphere have tremendous kinetic energy compared to the force of gravity, which is very weak at the top of the atmosphere. As the molecules at the top of an isothermal atmosphere whiz off to space, they are replaced by other molecules that have the exact same kinetic energy, and they whiz off to space as well, and so on.
Don132
And the mass continues to reduce.
First, Joe Born is right as usual—the entire atmosphere would not “fly off”. That’s just more of Stephen’s attempts to prove the unprovable. Atmosphere loss is a function of the size and density of the planetary body, which is why the atmosphere of Mars is so thin and why asteroids have no atmosphere.
Second, I just have to shake my head at how some people state untrue things with such calm aplomb. For example, this howler:
Don January 8, 2019 at 2:42 am
Gravity falls off as one over the square of the distance. If we take surface gravity on earth as having a value of 1.0, then at an altitude of say a hundred kilometres, up around the top of the atmosphere, the gravity up there would have the value of 0.97 … hardly “very weak”.
w.
I’ll repeat my latest comment here for maximum visibility:
The clincher is this:
Willis’s model seeks to remove convective overturning so as to create an isothermal atmosphere. The temperature is the same from top to bottom in his model but the type of energy contained by each molecule still varies between KE and PE as one goes up along the lapse rate slope.
Since it is the change in the type of energy that creates a temperature decline with height then you obviously cannot prevent convective overturning and as soon as you introduce that you get the ATE.
So, Willis inadvertently proves the gravitationalists’ case.
For a completely non radiative atmosphere the only difference between no ATE and an ATE is convective overturning.
Radiation doesn’t come into it so when one introduces radiation as an additional parameter you have to consider a whole raft of different issues but they appear to be irrelevant to the presence or absence of the ATE.
Nice to see Ned weighing in here, I was feeling a bit lonely.
Ned’s discovery is perfectly correct but it needs my description to explain it and Willis has accidentally proved me and Ned to be correct entirely contrary to Roy Spencer’s opinion.
Ned, thanks for being so clear about adiabatic processes. I’ve been banging my head against a brick wall over that since around 2007. Even renowned climate scientists seem to be completely ignorant of the process and its implications.
Stephen, pumping a bicycle tire quickly increasing its internal P is an adiabatic process, the tire/pump temperature increases as no energy equilibrium with the surroundings in/out is established quickly. Then a diabatic process ensues to return to normal equilibrium with surroundings when the pumping ceases.
In your imaginary atm. convective process, there is no entity to do the continual pumping. Atlas isn’t doing it either. The adiabatic pumping process exists only in your imagination not the real world.
There is no diabatic component to the ongoing cycle of decompression and compression within an atmosphere otherwise it is not truly adiabatic.
The bicycle tyre analogy is flawed because it only allows half the process which does enable diabatic leakage to offset that half.
I don’t think you are going to get far with the suggestion that there is no convective overturning in atmospheres. No ‘entity’ is required other than density variations in the horizontal plane at the surface or within the body of the atmosphere.
“I don’t think you are going to get far with the suggestion that there is no convective overturning in atmospheres.”
I will get far as there isn’t anything like that actually observed, your use of “overturning” is flawed, imaginary. Just enter “convection” into a youtube search engine and observe what really happens to rising colums of fluid warmed from below in a gravity field. No downward columns form just upward columns.
Trick January 7, 2019 at 9:23 pm
“Stephen, pumping a bicycle tire quickly increasing its internal P is an adiabatic process, the tire/pump temperature increases as no energy equilibrium with the surroundings in/out is established quickly. Then a diabatic process ensues to return to normal equilibrium with surroundings when the pumping ceases.
In your imaginary atm. convective process, there is no entity to do the continual pumping. Atlas isn’t doing it either. The adiabatic pumping process exists only in your imagination not the real world.”
Reply
Stephen Wilde January 7, 2019 at 9:48 pm
“There is no diabatic component to the ongoing cycle of decompression and compression within an atmosphere otherwise it is not truly adiabatic.
The bicycle tyre analogy is flawed because it only allows half the process which does enable diabatic leakage to offset that half.”
I think part of the problem regards the heat sink for the atmosphere. Where is it? If you compress the lower atmosphere through pressure, how does the heat dissipate? The surface atmosphere is right up against the surface all around, and gravity is exerting a downward force all around– continuously. Gravity never stops. So whatever heat sink there is, it doesn’t seem to have nearly the same capacity as the heat sink (which is the entire atmosphere) surrounding the bicycle tire and yes, someone (gravity) is “pumping” the atmosphere continuously.
Don132
Don, part of that absence of a heat sink is the fact that surely to be Isothermal the Gas would also have to be Density Homogeneous as well. How can 3 molecules per cubic metre of gas at the top of the atmosphere have the same temperature as 3 billion molecules per cubic metre at the surface?
Isn’t the reason the gas is hotter is because it is denser?
Don, is the theory that the heat sink is the Planet’s Surface and that is what dissipates the energy to space?
Odd how Stars are formed by Gravity and burn due to density and it also controls their Temperature as well.
Don
The heat sink is the potential energy reservoir that holds the atmosphere off the surface. Thus it comprises the potential energy content of the entire atmosphere.
Decompression in ascending air replenishes it as fast as compression in descending air dissipates it.
The pumping action is simply density variations in the horizontal plane leading to convection.
There is no entity to do the “pumping”. The compression pump needed for Stephen’s and N&Z adiabatic heating doesn’t exist in nature.
Convective fluid is observed to rise up in a well enough defined column heated from below in a gravity field. Fluid replacing the rising fluid moves in laterally at the surface at the same T and same pressure just like at the top of the column where the fluid spreads out mostly laterally & disperses energy. That atm. process is not imaginary, it is real & what is observed.
Don writes: ”someone (gravity) is “pumping” the atmosphere continuously.”
If you put a large enough weight on top of the bicycle handle to force it down, gravity alone can make that happen (mgh). Gravity alone does not force the handle to go back up continuously for adiabatic heating process like a person fixing a flat tire.
…bicycle pump handle …
I can now more precisely describe the role of pressure.
A non radiative cloud of gas outside a gravity field will be almost all potential energy beimg at the temperature of space.
Applying pressure forces molecules closer together thereby converting PE to KE and the temperature rises.
Wrap it around a rocky planet using the force of gravity and the density gradient sorts the molecules so that they are closest together at the base.
Pressure at the base squeezes KE out of PE to generate heat.
The more pressure, the more KE can be derived from the gas at the surface.
The density gradient then determines the angle of the lapse rate slope and the lapse rate slope inevitably induces convection which prevents the KE at the bottom from dissipating by constantly renewing in a recycling process.
Stephen:
“I can now more precisely describe the role of pressure.”
I suppose that precision on your part was what I was looking for. I’m in the process of reading new comments but I think we’re all getting warmer and to the heart of the matter– namely, where the key misunderstanding is.
As it gets closer to the bone we can all be civil about it; no need to descend into name-calling of any sort. We’re all good people here, but obviously there’s some confusion somewhere that we’re trying to cut through.
Don132
“Applying pressure forces molecules closer..”
There is no entity in the atm. that applies the pressure to force anything like the person pumping the bicycle handle in the real process of adiabatic heating. Stephen is not a realist doing experiments or observations, Stephen just imagines processes to suit his purposes. This is why Stephen has failed to be convincing since 2007.