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]).
The thread is just about dead, but I just wanted to restate what I feel should be the main question here:
Nikolov and Zeller begin by claiming that the Earth without an atmosphere would have an average surface temperature of 197K. This, I believe, is their most recent calculation.
Current climate dogma is that the average surface temperature without an atmosphere would be about 270K.
Current climate orthodoxy depends on the ~270K figure being the correct one. N&Z’s current claims depends on the ~197K figure being correct. For this, their work depends solely on radiative physics. They also give several citations for prior work by others to support their methodology. I’m not mathematically adept, but I’ve followed their logic the best I could and it makes sense to me.
It’s only after making this claim that they go on, completely separately, to theorize why there is a ~73° discrepancy. Their answer, “atmospheric enhancement” is what everybody seems to be concentrating on. It’s really putting the cart before the horse. All you have to do is try to follow this thread to see why that is unfortunate.
To a layman, it seems like it would be pretty straightforward for somebody to prove, one way or the other, whether the 197K figure is correct. If it’s not, then mission accomplished. If it is, well then orthodox climate science has a problem. Then would be a good time to see if N&Z’s work has any merit.
That doesn’t follow at all since the precise figures are open to discussion in both theories.
What matters is that there is a temperature difference between the S-B prediction and the reality.
It is downward radiation or it is KE released from descending mass.
The issue will not be resolved here.
The issue has been resolved since Earth atm. is observed by and large to be hydrostatic, there is very little available PE to convert to KE. Stephen’s imagination just can’t comprehend observations nor radiation-convective equilibrium which has been known since the 1950s/60s.
“N&Z’s current claims depends on the ~197K figure being correct.”
N&Z do not distinguish between kinetic thermometer temperature & global brightness temperature which depends on surface emissivity and albedo across all illumination angles, frequencies and surface particle size. The equilibrium thermometer field of Earth’s moon is unknown.
There is some indication from Apollo in situ experiments that if the equilibrium global kinetic thermometer field were known, it would be much higher than 197K more like the brightness T 270K but that remains an unknown & source of much discussion on blogs. The topic is not of research interest presently.
Seriously, it wouldn’t be relevant to find out that the people who claim to know the Earth’s temperature to within a tenth of a degree 100 years from now are more that 70 degrees wrong on their initial assumptions?
Makes no difference to the mechanical processes involved what the actual figures are.
The gravitational field is conservative meaning that the work done when moving anything from point A to point B does not depend on the actual path taken, but only on the difference in potential energy at point A, U(A), and the potential energy at point B, U(B). Since A and B are the same [at the surface U(A=0) and U(B=0)], the difference is exactly zero: 0 = U(0) – U(0), therefore the gravitational field does not contribute to heating of the atmosphere. As simple as that.
Leif, gravity can continously contract an atmosphere and continously change mgh to KE (the gas giants not Earth atm.), curious how does your comment allow for that?
https://www.space.com/6229-earth-atmosphere-breathes-rapidly-thought.html
gravity can continously contract an atmospher
No, as the surface is a lower [solid] boundary where contracting must stop.
As the work done depends only on the difference between the potential energy at the starting point [surface] and the end point [the surface again] and not at all on the complicated path that a parcel of air travels from start point to end point and since that difference is zero [altitudes are the same, namely zero meter and zero meter], the work done is also zero and hence no heating results from gravity. This has been known for centuries.
”No, as the surface is a lower [solid] boundary where contracting must stop.”
Well, duh. Before that happens, I was asking about Neptune atm. say still undergoing major gravitational contraction. I’m curious how does your comment allow for that?
Leif,
The way you describe it is a tautology. If you start and end up in the same place, obviously there is no change in net potential energy. Is that the same thing as saying gravity does no work? A lot of energy must have been expended, moving the mass around on its journey before it returned to its start point. If I live on a hill and work in a valley, my car burns a lot of gas in my daily commute but it ends up in the same place at the end of the day so no net change in potential energy. In between, gravity does a huge amount of work. If I coasted down the hill to work I use no gas but gravity is doing a lot of work building up my speed to 60 mph. I then use gas to go up the hill back home. If I do this cycle every day, gravity is providing a lot of work over the week. The potential energy ‘replenished’ by the gas burned going back up hill, but gravity still did generate work each day.
…but gravity still did generate work each day.
Gravity is doing the same “work” all the time, regardless. It’s a curvature of space-time caused the presence of mass, and manifests as an acceleration. Whether you leave your car on the driveway or go off for a trip around the hills, gravity is (effectively) constant; it doesn’t do any more or less “work”.
My mind has changed. The ATE seems to be wrong. Holmes’ equation is circular reasoning; in fact the equation is a tautology and doesn’t prove anything about T or any of the other terms, except that they impact one other. I suspect that NZ have made essentially the same error.
Stephen can’t explain how surface T is enhanced by pressure using his KE/PE formulation. I just don’t get it. The temperature gradient produced by gravity/pressure in no way demonstrates that surface KE is above BB temp, and he refuses to pin down the exact mechanism for surface temperature enhancement or state it clearly, instead saying that I don’t understand (which may be true) or that I need to read this or read that. But, the mechanism is ESSENTIAL, and as such he should have it at the ready and be able to explain it in much less than an elevator speech. That’s the core of his theory and the rest is just refinements of how this fundamental mechanism is manifested in the climate system. If the mechanism can’t be clearly and definitely and succinctly stated then it can’t be attacked or challenged.
This has been long and I’m tired of it.
It was good of Anthony to let this drag on. And tip o’ the hat to Willis, too.
Don132
” I just don’t get it. The temperature gradient produced by gravity/pressure in no way demonstrates that surface KE is above BB temp, ”
.
Of course it does!
The BB temp is at the effective emission height.
From there, the pressure-induced temperature gradient starts (the lapse rate), and temperature rises down through the troposphere to the surface and even below that if there is a depression or a shaft.
The mechanism for temperature enhancement is equally simple; PE gives rise to KE.
Yet again;
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
All this is simple, well-known and established physics.
How is this so hard to comprehend?
Holmes:
“The BB temp is at the effective emission height.
From there, the pressure-induced temperature gradient starts (the lapse rate), and temperature rises down through the troposphere to the surface and even below that if there is a depression or a shaft.”
In a GHG-free atmosphere, the effective emissions height is the surface. So then how does the temperature rise above BB?
I think what’s so hard to comprehend is how pressure alone raises temp above BB. Your above demonstration does not prove this; in fact it refutes it, if we consider a GHG-free atmosphere.
PE gives rise to KE; I get it. I don’t get where the extra KE comes from for thermal enhancement above BB temp. Your above example assumes GHGs that raise emissions height above the surface.
Don132
Don, I would hypothesize as follows: a GHG-free atmosphere would, as you say, have its effective emission layer at the surface. So what would be wrong with concluding that the surface temperature would be the same as the BB temperature without any atmosphere? (Not taking into account the atmosphere’s ability to absorb heat from the surface as the planet is warmed on one side, while spinning, then releasing it on the other side – thereby reducing the night/day temperature swings to a certain extent, but not changing the average.)
(And note that’s not Earth we’re talking about, so it doesn’t have to match any actual observations of this planet, or any other one in our solar system.)
“So what would be wrong with concluding that the surface temperature would be the same as the BB temperature without any atmosphere? ”
Without an atmosphere there would be no atmospheric temp.
With a GHG-free atmosphere, I have no problem accepting that the near-surface atmospheric temp would be close to BB.
Don132
“How is this so hard to comprehend?”
Simple, it violates 1LOT as in the top post.
There is no compressor inhabiting the atm. compressing the gas parcels as you write: “When a gas parcel is compressed”. Takes energy to do that; Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wilde write as if the energy to do so is just created out of thin air. Only happens in their imagination. The top post is correct.
Trick
“Mr. Holmes ”
.
I am Dr Holmes to you.
Dr. Holmes and Mr. Wilde write as if the energy to do so is just created out of thin air. Only happens in their imagination. The top post is correct.
Trick
“Dr. Holmes and Mr. Wilde write as if the energy to do so is just created out of thin air. ”
.
And the GHE doesn’t just pull energy out of thin air?
Trick, you are too funny.
“And the GHE doesn’t just pull energy out of thin air?
No, 1LOT is observed with changes in the opacity of a planetary atm. (commonly aka GHE). Gases have mass thus radiate; some atm. gases are even appropriately referred to as IR-active. The top post is correct Dr. Holmes.
Trick
“No”.
.
That is interesting, that you think that the ATE must pull energy out of thin air and the GHE somehow doesn’t.
Dr. Holmes, the ATE has no way to get Earth’s global temperature median above 255K by increasing surface mean pressure P alone as explained by 2 different authors in top post. Yet 287.4K is where N&Z plot Earth’s green dot Ts/Tna from measurements @ur momisugly P=100 which includes the full IR opacity of the atm. (GHE). So N&Z do mix in Earth’s natural GHE as well as in the other green dots with atm.s.
There is no observed perpetual contraction of the Earth atm. adding 33K turning mgh (PE) into thermodynamic internal energy (KE) as there is for Jupiter. What IS observed is Earth’s atm. is by and large hydrostatic.
Trick
“There is no observed perpetual contraction of the Earth atm..”
.
Who said there was?
That is not the mechanism whereby the Earth reaches 288K at the surface.
.
“the ATE has no way to get Earth’s global temperature median above 255K by increasing surface mean pressure P alone as explained by 2 different authors in top post. ”
.
As already noted, it is not all about pressure. But they are wrong, and auto-compression exists.
What is not going to warm the atmosphere is IR opacity.
The atmosphere would simply expand and cool again in response to this forcing.
I have proposed a test to determine whether the GHE is correct or the ATE from auto-compression is correct (both cannot be correct).
This involves gas pressure, density and molar mass measurements on several planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, and varying amounts of GHG in their atmospheres.
”Who said there was?”
Robert Holmes said there was perpetual contraction of the Earth atm.: “This is because GHG are not what set the temperature of the lower atmosphere, insolation and auto-compression do…. auto-compression exists.”
”What is not going to warm the atmosphere is IR opacity.”
That’s actually correct. IR opacity does not warm the entire atm. as the process burns no fuel. Added IR opacity warms the lower, denser regions and equally cools the upper, thinner regions vs. ambient so Robert Holmes is wrong in that there is no reason the atmosphere would simply expand and cool again in response to sunlight IR opacity forcing.
”I have proposed a test to determine whether the GHE is correct or the ATE from auto-compression is correct (both cannot be correct).”
Someone already did so Robert, IR opacity warming was proven by experiment in an 1861 report to the Royal Society of London & ATE does not exist as it violates 1LOT. By all means replicate the testing and learn something about IR opacity of a gas with incident IR illumination.
Trick;
“Robert Holmes said there was perpetual contraction of the Earth atm.”
.
No I certainly did not. There is no perpetual contraction of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction.
You are constantly trying to divert from the science I’m presenting by throwing up straw men.
If the science of the GHE is so settled and strong, why do you need to do this?
.
“Added IR opacity warms the lower, denser regions and equally cools the upper, thinner regions vs. ambient ”
.
No it doesn’t.
.
“..there is no reason the atmosphere would simply expand and cool again in response to sunlight IR opacity forcing”
.
There is a reason; the gas laws.
.
“IR opacity warming was proven by experiment in an 1861 report to the Royal Society of London ”
.
An experiment in a laboratory will show this warming, but in the real atmosphere is different. No paper has ever been published which quantifies warming in the troposphere, and then attributes that warming to GHG.
Robert claims: ”the ATE from auto-compression…Auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction.”
Thus Robert states ATE is not perpetual (ATE is actually shown failing 1LOT in top post) while the IR opacity (aka GHE) is perpetual, proven by experiment and in situ observation & changes by changing grey absorbers in a planetary atm.
”If the science of the GHE is so settled and strong, why do you need to do this? No it doesn’t?”
I don’t need to use a strawman & I don’t, I use Robert’s own words verbatim. No it doesn’t…what?
The gas laws easily show a warmer region expansion in volume caused by increase in IR opacity equally offsets the cooler region reduction in volume for no increase in total atm. volume.
Experimenst in a laboratory show this warming just like in the real atm. Observations on the real atmosphere confirm the warming in the lab due to an increase in real IR opacity. All Robert has to do is catch up on reading & understand the papers published quantifying warming in the troposphere from observations, and that attribute that warming to IR opacity increases from GHGs (commonly CO2). Many papers have been published showing how increasing IR opacity works in the lab and in situ. Robert remains behind in his reading & learning about atm. IR opacity.
Thus, bereft of reading and learning from published basic atm. science, Robert resorts to a non-physical ATE as shown failing to comply with 1LOT in the top post.
Trick
“I don’t need to use a straw-man & I don’t, I use Robert’s own words verbatim. ”
.
Sure; in this same post where you said you don’t use a straw-man, and that you use my words ‘verbatim’, you have again misquoted me and introduced yet another straw man!!
Thus;
.
“Thus Robert states ATE is not perpetual.”
.
Of course I said no such thing.
What I said was that auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction.
It is perpetual, as long as there exists insolation from the Sun, but there is no perpetual contraction of the atmosphere.
There is nothing to be gained in a debate here, you are donkey who refuses to learn anything new, and basically you are just wasting my time.
”What I said was that auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction. (Auto-compression) is perpetual as long as there exists insolation from the Sun,..”
Again, Robert your wording is not clear; here you again apparently call auto-compression perpetual but now it is sun driven as this wording substitution is my best guess what is meant by “it”. Name calling is unproductive.
How is your so-called auto-compression process sun driven?
Holmes, let’s say you’re wrong, and that GHGs do indeed affect the atmospheric heat content. How would T = PM/Rρ be violated? Would GHG heating destroy the equation?
Of course GHG produce atmospheric and surface warming. Just consider these two data facts.
1) Satellites measure upcoming IR radiation. Comparison of the IR flux relative to BB temperature curves and known temperature lapse rates of the atmosphere indicate where in the atmosphere that IR originated. The wave lengths involved indicate what GHG produced that IR. (All materials must radiate IR at rates proportional to T^4. Much of your weather forecast depends on this kind of data.) Because radiation flux depends on T^4, that IR coming from the higher, colder atmosphere has a lower flux than IR emitted by the warmer surface and not absorbed by GHG. BECAUSE THE EARTH LOSES HEAT FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE AT A SLOWER RATE DUE TO GHG ABSORPTION, THE EARTH MUST WARM RELATIVE TO A BB.
2) Sophisticated IR radiometers located on the surface measure down-welling IR radiation from the atmosphere. This atmospheric IR commonly reaches ~350 watts/m^2 on a cloudless day. THIS IS MEASURED EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY DEPOSITED IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS RETURENED TO EARTH IN SIZEABLE AMOUNTS. The GHG warmed atmosphere can and does warm the surface.
1) No. In the upper atmosphere heat exchange is dominated by radiative transfers. The situation when density rises above 10kPa is different; there, heat exchange is mainly by other means such as convection.
2) Any IR back-radiation from GHG cannot warm the lower atmosphere. This is because GHG are not what set the temperature of the lower atmosphere, insolation and auto-compression do. And also because warming by ‘special’ gases like GHG are forbidden by the gas laws.
I can hear you say; So what happens to the back-radiation from GHG, and why doesn’t it warm the troposphere?
The net result of any forcing by GHG in the troposphere is to cause atmospheric expansion, and so a 100% negative feedback by cooling – this completely negates the forcing.
@R.H.
On 1) 10 kPa is about 15km altitude where temperature is usually less than -55C. As the great majority of IR emission to space from CO2 rarely shows a temperature below 215-220K (many satellite data), IR emission from <10gPa is essentially non-existent. This comment has no bearing on GHG warming by IR emission.
On 2) In one sense this comment is correct, but not for reasons you think. Warming of the surface and atmosphere occurs because solar radiance cannot escape to space as fast as it arrives, because GHG emission from high, colder atmosphere has slowed Earth's energy loss. Down-welling IR from atmosphere to surface is part of a large energy loop, the other part of which is energy from the surface upward (latent, sensible, IR). Down-welling IR is not the primary cause of warming but is one of the characteristics.
donb
“This atmospheric IR commonly reaches ~350 watts/m^2 on a cloudless day. THIS IS MEASURED EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY DEPOSITED IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS RETURENED TO EARTH IN SIZEABLE AMOUNTS.
The GHG warmed atmosphere can and does warm the surface.”
.
Yes, but; –
There is no justification for a leap to your concluding last sentence.
For a start, there is no scientific evidence at all that the GHG present have ‘warmed’ the atmosphere.
Show me the peer-reviewed paper which quantifies warming in the atmosphere,and then attributes all (or even some) of that warming to rising atmospheric CO2.
I won’t be holding my breath, because no such paper exists.
There IS energy ‘deposited in the (lower) atmosphere’ but it’s not from GHG.
“Show me the peer-reviewed paper which quantifies warming in the atmosphere,and then attributes all (or even some) of that warming to rising atmospheric CO2.”
There are dozens and dozens of ’em published starting even before 1861, apparently spoon feeding Robert will not help, Robert needs to learn from them on his own. Correct climate predictions from added CO2 ppm have even been made from the observational science so Robert is way, way behind in his studies of climate.
Trick
“There are dozens and dozens of ’em published… ”
.
Really?
Yet you cannot cite even ONE?
.
“Correct climate predictions from added CO2… ”
.
That is not what I asked for.
That is not quantifying a tropospheric warming and then attribution to CO2.
WHERE IS THE (IMAGINARY) PAPER?
”That is not quantifying a tropospheric warming and then attribution to CO2. WHERE IS THE (IMAGINARY) PAPER?”
What type of spoon feeding does Robert want? Plastic, pewter, silver or gold? I can cite many such papers from personal experience; the hard way by finding them & actually reading & understanding them.
Given Robert claims to be Dr. Holmes, Robert must be familiar with research library resources. Many reasonably reliable published papers quantifying tropospheric warming and then attribution to added CO2 ppm are therein and other sources are even available for free on the internet. Robert just needs to get busy, find them in the stacks or online then spend time reading & learning from them.
I would though, as I usually do, cite a couple beginner’s texts: Bohren 1998 on Atm. Thermodynamics and Bohren 2006 on Atmosphere Radiation. Dr. Bohren takes the time to cite the masters in the field right back to the original manuscripts he found by actually walking over to the college library, no spoon feeding for him. Have fun Robert.
Trick
“Many reasonably reliable published papers quantifying tropospheric warming and then attribution to added CO2 ppm are there..”
.
Really?
So why is it so difficult to cite even one then?
You are the one who claims that more CO2 will cause warming in the troposphere, the onus is on you – so where is the scientific evidence?
BTW;
This is the correct way to cite the literature;
Bohren, C. F. (1998). and BA Albrecht, Atmospheric Thermodynamics.
Bohren, C. F., & Clothiaux, E. E. (2006). Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation: an introduction with 400 problems. John Wiley & Sons.
”So why is it so difficult to cite even one then?”
It wasn’t diffivult at all, I easily cited two beginning 1st course meteorology texts (yes, Robert found them) for Robert to begin to understand that more CO2 will cause warming in the troposphere & equal cooling in the upper regions based on the scientific evidence. You have your work cut out for you Robert, get busy. Based on that learning, specialist paper reading will begin to make sense to Robert and no spoon feeding will be required.
Don
“Holmes, let’s say you’re wrong, and that GHGs do indeed affect the atmospheric heat content. How would T = PM/Rρ be violated? Would GHG heating destroy the equation?”
.
No, GHG heating would only anomalously change pressure or density or both.
With a climate sensitivity of 3C, this change would be very large and easily measurable.
This is laid out in detail in my last paper, and is a test for the existence of the GHE.
Holmes:
“No, GHG heating would only anomalously change pressure or density or both.
With a climate sensitivity of 3C, this change would be very large and easily measurable.”
So GHG heating wouldn’t change T?
Or is the change in T not proportional to the change in pressure and density? If not, why not?
Don132
If the mechanism can’t be clearly and definitely and succinctly stated then it can’t be attacked or challenged.
That is precisely what the proponents are counting om…
I believed in the ATE theory because I had a basic misunderstanding of how it works.
When I want to understand how it really works and those who uphold the ATE can’t answer a simple request for a statement of their foundational mechanism for raising the necessary KE to provide thermal enhancement above BB temp, that makes me suspicious. Why not? How long have we been arguing this, not just here but elsewhere? How many essays and papers on it? And they can’t state that core mechanism clearly and distinctly?
Don’t tell me that a formula or an equation that’s a tautology proves anything– hello? If you want to “prove” it then the bottom line is you have to have a clear mechanism for the thermal enhancement– a clear, well-stated, explicit, concise, succinct, no-BS, logical, physically plausible mechanism– not a roundabout theory that you claim that everyone has to read and if they don’t wade through it they can’t understand. The mechanism is central and I’m not falling for the “you just don’t understand” strategy. I don’t understand because it’s not stated in an understandable manner, and so proponents talk about PE and KE and atmospheric circulation and this and that and what the hell were we talking about and who cares about the foundational mechanism it all sounds like a good story.
I’m dumb but I’m not stupid.
When they start accusing me of being a troll I get more suspicious.
Don132
Conducted energy recycled indefinitely.
How succinct can one be ?
Stephen:
“Conducted energy recycled indefinitely.
How succinct can one be ?”
It’s succinct. It purports to state that thermal surface enhancement is caused by conducted energy recycled indefinitely. So far as I can see, that explains perfectly how KE conducted from the surface can be recycled in the atmosphere indefinitely and in a GHG-free atmosphere, provide a surface temperature near the average temperature of the KE at the surface. But from there to a surface temperature enhancement is a leap with no connecting steps provided.
That’s a key step. For a theory that’s been around as long as yours, the answer should be at the ready.
I’d always thought that surface density due to pressure was the key, but I was mistaken and as has been repeatedly stated here, temperature measures average kinetic energy and doesn’t care about density.
So how does it work?
Don132
Don, just ignore the name calling, you are on the right track. The top post is correct.
The additional KE required for the ATE is simply KE taken from the surface by conduction and then recycled indefinitely.
There should be no difficulty appreciating that.
No one has noticed that you don’t get an ATE even if you add radiative gases to Willis’s model.
DWIR would initially heat the surface above S-B but that heat would then conduct up the vertical column to create an isothermal atmosphere as before but the top would then be radiating to space at 288k which is more than incoming so the system temperature would then decline back to S-B of 255k. NO ATE with or without radiative gases.
If you then introduce convection to BOTH radiative and non radiative versions then as per my description you get an ATE for both and if atmospheric mass is the same for both then the ATE will be the same.
It is evident that radiative gases have nothing to do with it. It is all about convective recycling of previously conducted KE.
Stephen:
“The additional KE required for the ATE is simply KE taken from the surface by conduction and then recycled indefinitely. There should be no difficulty appreciating that.”
If the KE taken from the surface is then recycled indefinitely, then that explains how KE from the surface can be recycled indefinitely and I have no problem appreciating that. That statement by itself in no way explains the extra KE needed to provide thermal enhancement.
Don132
You have continuing insolation providing 255k
You have 33k recycling via the surface.
Please advise me as to how you think that they should NOT be additive.
How could the recycling 33k have a zero thermal efffect at the surface ?
And do not use the zero sun argument because zero sum does not mean zero energy.
And take into account that the 33k represents energy delayed in its exit to space from the system and as such is bound to add heat to the system via basic thermodynamics.
“You have continuing insolation providing 255k
You have 33k recycling via the surface.”
I think the issue is the 33K recycling. If the above statements are true, then I agree. But I think that a lot of the side arguments going on have been over that issue, and I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to them. In a non-GHG atmosphere you have 255K at the surface, and that’s what can be conducted. The atmosphere can’t be affected by IR radiation. I see how you can get 255K at the surface and that decreases with the lapse rate, and it recycles indefinitely. Where does the extra 33K come from? What’s the key mechanism?
Don132
Once the atmosphere is in place the 255k at the surface does not recycle. It radiates straight out to space at a rate commensurate with a surface temperature of 255k.
Only the 33k recycles and due to the recycling being zero sum does not affect the 255k throughput.
That 33k develops during the formation of the atmosphere (before the first convective cycle ends and the loop closes) as a result on non radiative absorption by the atmosphere via conduction and convection.
Every molecule in an atmosphere has the same total energy but at the top it is cold PE and at the bottom warm KE.
The extra 33k at the surface is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.
It is entirely separate to the background radiative throughput of 255k and so must be added to it to give 288k at the surface.
It is also pressure related because conduction efficiency increases at higher densities (caused by higher pressure) which increases atmospheric absorption via non radiative means and raises the amount of KE held by the atmosphere at ground level.
“That 33k develops during the formation of the atmosphere (before the first convective cycle ends and the loop closes) as a result on non radiative absorption by the atmosphere via conduction and convection.”
“as a result of non radiative absorption by the atmosphere via conduction and convection” = 255 K surface temperature and kinetic energy corresponding to that. How does that make an extra 33K? Where does the extra kinetic energy come from ? What’s the key mechanism that holds your whole system together?
The extra 33k at the surface is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.
It is separate from the background radiative throughput of 255k.
I’m not sure that any form of words or figures will satisfy you if that doesn’t do it.
Don, that 6:55am et. al. is just Stephen trying to convince you the 33K above 255K for Earth is from a past miracle, produced out of thin air sometime ago and still hanging around. In Stephen’s long held view (since pre-2007), there is no such thing as the changing IR opacity of an atm. But of course, there is such a thing as “at the top it is cold PE “.
The imagined existance of cold PE seems to be new from Stephen. You may want to ask questions about cold PE too.
I meant Stephen’s 5:55am et. al.
Stephen:
“The extra 33k at the surface is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.
It is separate from the background radiative throughput of 255k”
What energy has the atmosphere simply absorbed? From conduction? OK you’ve got your 255K. You need an extra 33K and you’re not answering how you get this except by what I consider a very evasive answer: “… is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.” What????? How? Mechanism? Logic? Steps? Physical processes?
You aren’t making your own case very well.
“I’m not sure that any form of words or figures will satisfy you if that doesn’t do it.” State the physical mechanism for the extra 33K. What physical laws do you invoke that make it so? If you can’t do that then I think it’s obvious to everyone that there’s nothing but magic behind it.
Holmes says T = PM/Rρ. But IF there is actually atmospheric warming from GHG, then what would T= PM/Rρ say? Something different? Why would it? It’s a tautology. Both sides must equal out. So Holmes’ proof is built on an assumption that turns around and then proves itself. Is that what science is?
You can’t state your basic mechanism, or so far have not been able to, despite that it’s foundational to your theory!!!
Don132
Don,
I have made it clear repeatedly in many different ways. I have not been at all evasive.
It is simply that you don’t seem able to follow it which I find very strange given that you seem bright enough.
All I can suggest is that you go through my original narrative which can be found near the top of the thread.
Conduction and convection take time and therefore slow down solar energy throughput. That is bound to increase surface temperature. Basic thermodynamics.
This thread is long enough already with exhaustive and accurate responses from me throughout so no need to question me further.
Trick: “Don, that 6:55am et. al. is just Stephen trying to convince you the 33K above 255K for Earth is from a past miracle, produced out of thin air sometime ago and still hanging around.”
I’d like to see where this goes. I realize that there has so far been no convincing explanation for it, other than the assertion that it happens.
Don132
“All I can suggest is that you go through my original narrative which can be found near the top of the thread.”
Can you please link to the exact narrative to which you refer?
I’ll read it carefully.
See below, I’ve run it past a number of people in case I was missing something and they had no problem following the logic:
“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 drops to 222K. 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 so the surface goes back up to 255k from 222k.
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 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
You have again displayed the patience of Jove and laid the obvious out in excruciating detail for these global warming (via ATE) deniers.
Well done.
”I’d like to see where this goes.”
Stephen’s comments will never take you anywhere worth going as Stephen will always resort to imaginative responses instead of being a realist about actual climate observations. Many commenters, of course including myself, have tried extensively to realistically reason with Stephen as you are doing, it’s entertaining but the evidence shows totally unproductive in advancing Stephen’s understanding of atm. thermodynamics.
“Where does the extra 33K come from? What’s the key mechanism?’
.
I have explained this repeatedly to you.
in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ ~255*Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law; this being the ‘effective’ or the ‘base’ level. And a gravitationally induced thermal gradient caused by auto-compression provides the ‘other’ ~33*Kelvin, termed the ‘residual’, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin.
The key mechanism;
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
Holmes:
“And a gravitationally induced thermal gradient caused by auto-compression provides the ‘other’ ~33*Kelvin,.” How? Because of this?: “The key mechanism;
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”
I understand why the KE of a gas rises when it descends. You have “x” amount of KE at the surface; it rises, becomes PE and thus loses an amount of KE proportional to the gain in PE, then descends and again has “x” KE. But you’re saying that it’s really “X+33K” of KE. How?
Don132
Don
“I understand why the KE of a gas rises when it descends. You have “x” amount of KE at the surface; it rises, becomes PE and thus loses an amount of KE proportional to the gain in PE, then descends and again has “x” KE. But you’re saying that it’s really “X+33K” of KE. How?”
.
I see where you are confused now.
You don’t have “x” amount of KE at the surface, you have “x” amount of KE in the atmosphere at the top of the convection cycle; THEN as we descend through the troposphere we gain MORE KE until we reach the surface, where we then have “x” + 33K of KE.
It’s the descent through the troposphere which adds the 33K of KE.
The 33K comes from auto-compression, (or if you like, the lapse rate).
Stephen:
“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 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.”
If the atmosphere isn’t absorbing or radiating any IR, and if both the dark side and the light side surfaces are 33K warmer than they would have been, then isn’t the planet radiating 288K, which is 33K more than it receives?
How can that be?
Don132
You haven’t followed it have you?
I can’t help you.
Perhaps I can just point out that when conduction is active it draws energy from the surface so that if you take 33k into the convective loop from the surface at 288k then the surface temperature should drop to 255k but if you are also feeding in another 33k at the same time then the surface stays at 288k and does not drop to 255k.
You then get a surface at 288k radiating to space at 255k and conducting into the atmosphere at 33k.
It is an accounting issue which you cannot seem to grasp.
The ‘extra” that you may think is unaccounted for is actually in storage within the atmosphere as 33K worth of PE which does not show up as heat so that the ENERGY (not heat) budget fully balances.
“You then get a surface at 288k radiating to space at 255k and conducting into the atmosphere at 33k.”
So the atmosphere is at 255K plus 33K = 288K? Or is the atmosphere at 33K, which I don’t consider any type of thermal enhancement? If the atmosphere is at 255K and is recirculating 33K, then the surface temp is enhanced by 33K — correct me if I’m wrong but that’s the whole point. Then of necessity the atmosphere is conducting some of the 33K to the surface, which as you say (I think) is at 255K, plus at least part of 33K = more than 255K, and so therefore the surface must be radiating more than it takes in.
????
That’s some accounting.
Don132
@Don
Both surface and atmosphere are at average temperature of 283.
Imagine the surface is at 255 and not GHG warmed. Suddenly add full measure of GHG. Now the surface + atmosphere still receives the same solar insolation, BUT the surface can no longer lose that energy at the rate of before. GHG have slowed the loss process. What happens? The surface + atmosphere must warm because they are gaining heat faster than before. They warm to 288K and now solar energy in equals IR out and equilibrium is established again at 288K
Consider the crude overcoat analogy. You don an overcoat on a cold day. Because conduction of body heat through the overcoat takes time, your body is not losing heat as rapidly as before. Eventually, a new equilibrium will be established between rate your body produces heat and the rate it loses it through the overcoat. The rate of heat loss will again be the same as before the overcoat (because body heat generation is the same), BUT your body has warmed in order to maintain that energy loss. Your body now has a lower radiation emissivity, just as the Earth does with presence of GHG.
QED
Stephen:
“33K worth of PE which does not show up as heat so that the ENERGY (not heat) budget fully balances”
And when the 33K worth of PE that does not show up as heat, when it gets to the surface it does show up at heat, which I thought was the point???
Bottom line, you are asserting that the near-surface atmosphere gets up to 288K surface temp (that’s the whole point!) and if so then it MUST conduct with the surface and raise the surface temp, causing the surface to emit more than it receives.
If you’re saying that the atmosphere is absorbing 33K worth of energy and so the total incoming isn’t 255K but 255 + 33 from absorption of surface KE to atmosphere, and the energy balances out because incoming isn’t actually 255 K but rather 255K surface + 33K incoming to atmosphere via surface (so that in effect the atmosphere is acting like an extension of the mass of the surface through its conduction with the surface) and so even if the atmosphere warms the surface above 255K (which it must) so that it radiates above 255K, energy in (including energy in to the atmosphere) still equals out, then maybe I’d accept that. But you haven’t stated anything like that except in the most convoluted, obscure, and roundabout way.
Anyhow I just want this to be over, I’m tired, and I’ll probably have to set up a block on WUWT so I don’t have to look at any of this any more.
Don132
PE does not register as heat. Therefore PE is cold.
Joe, that is an interesting comment and the math is a bit involved for a casual perusal. But I am very skeptical that there is any mechanism that can “cull lower-velocity molecules from a gas as it ascends”. That sounds like a Maxwell’s Demon. Remember, it’s not the entire gas that’s ascending (or descending) here – it’s individual molecules. I think the authors of that paper have simply swept the kinetic to potential energy conversion under the rug and pretended that it doesn’t happen. What do they presume happens to the lower-velocity molecules that get “culled”? They just vanish? If not, those molecules will change the energy distribution at lower altitudes relative to higher ones. In other words, if some process is affecting the vertical distribution of lower-velocity molecules but not higher-velocity ones in the column, then that would contradict your statement that the (kinetic) energy probability distribution of groups of molecules is the same all the way up.
Without a gravitationally induced pressure difference resulting in a temperature gradient, how would the authors of this paper explain the dry adiabatic lapse rate? Solely by radiative transfer? Or perhaps by convection? A purely nitrogen atmosphere would not have a DALR?
Also I am not at all convinced that either Willis or Dr. Brown is relying on this analysis, even if it were correct, which it doesn’t sound like it is. Instead, both of them came up with nonsensical (and different) counter-arguments, to buttress their beliefs, which leads me to believe that they “remembered” no such thing.
Anthony Banton tried to suggest up thread that Gravity was not responsible for the molecules descending, he said the cause was Convergence.
But this is the definition of Convergence
Definition of Convergence aloft.
“Convergence aloft causes surface pressures to rise
Air diverges from high pressure systems at the surface
Surface winds flow clockwise and outward in NH
Air sinks, warms, and dries, inhibiting cloud formation”
Air sinks, why does it sink if not Gravity?
Air Warms, why does it warm if not from compression, if it warmed from contact with the warmer lower atmosphere then that would cool the lower atmosphere twice?
Steve Keppel-Jones:
No. They fall. If two vertically ascending molecules have respective upward velocities of
and 
at 
, the first, slower one will be “culled” at 
because that’s where its upward travel stops and its downward travel starts. But the second, faster one will survive that altitude and climb all the way to 
.
And of course it’s individual molecules rather than the entire gas that’s ascending or descending; otherwise the molecular velocities we’re talking about aren’t those on which temperature is based.
Also, I’m pretty sure that at least Dr. Brown had the exponential distribution in mind. Coombes and Laue were widely discussed in the comments on his head post, because in arguing for isothermality he said, “Exponentials are self-similar functions,” and it is that self-similarity that results in isothermality, as you’d have seen if you’d gone through my math or Coombes and Laue’s.
As I say, I disagreed with Dr. Brown because I think the distribution only approximates exponential, whereas he thinks it’s exact. But, again, the approximation is so good as not to make any difference in practice from exactly exponential.
Beyond that, I can’t help you; the math says what it says, and you just say you don’t believe it. With all due respect, do you really think you’re entitled to an opinion if you can’t do the math?
Joe, sure, the math says what it says, but math and the real world have to be carefully correlated in order to be useful. I’m not convinced the correlation has been done correctly here. The velocity distribution of molecules in a gas (given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation) is not a simple exponential, so drawing conclusions from the basic self-similarity of exponentials in general seems to be a stretch. It is also dependent on absolute temperature T, which we are hypothesizing is dependent on altitude because of the exchange of kinetic and potential energy as molecules rise. And the shape (not just the magnitude) of the distribution curve varies quite widely as T changes. So you can’t use any observations about the shape of that distribution to make any conclusions about the variability or constancy of T with altitude. That would make a circular argument.
Finally, there are significant problems with trying to use equations defined for ideal gases, like Maxwell-Boltzmann, for real gases, which do not behave the same as ideal gases – especially when the pressure is not 0. The size of the problems vary with the pressure.
What am I missing? Especially since experiment seems to agree with me, according to Graeff… I’m a big fan of believing in theories that agree with experiments.
Steve Keppel-Jones:
But the Maxwell-Bolzmann velocity distribution implies a simply exponential kinetic-energy distribution.
Look, I’m sure you honestly believe everything you say. But it’s as though the math in your universe is different from the math in mine. So I doubt that further any further effort on my part will lead to any further enlightenment on yours.
But I did try to help.
Don, if you will not check what I told you, and I have given it already, you prove one thing. You are merely like any 1st year Arts student rabbitting on about he knows not what. A total waste of time. Brett
Sorry Brett, but I’m not sitting here with all the time in the world to check what everyone is saying. I’m taking it a bit at a time; so far I’ve discovered that Holmes is just engaging in circular logic, as has been noticed before me, and right now I’m focused on seeing if Stephen makes any sense.
If you want to persist in attacking my character then I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Don132
Don
“so far I’ve discovered that Holmes is just engaging in circular logic..”
.
Where is the circular logic?
I have already explained this several times, there is no circular logic.
.
“So GHG heating wouldn’t change T?”
.
Yes of course it would.
If pressure or density changes the GHG heating would change T according to the formula.
Again; – this is a proposed test of both my hypothesis and the GHE hypothesis!!!!
Who was the smart person who once said;
“When you are really tired of explaining something, that is only when others just start to hear it!”
If you’re claiming that T = PM/Rρ for all planets and that proves your theory, then that’s circular logic. However, I’m not sure you’re claiming that. I don’t think that formula is anywhere near the foundation of your theory.
But now I’m a bit suspicious of what people claim or think they claim; when I earlier stated that “density” is the key because I misunderstood the theory, Stephen chimed in and said yes, that’s right. But no, it’s not right.
The idea that incoming energy must include energy incoming to the atmosphere as well might make some sense. By that logic, the earth isn’t taking in 255K really; it’s taking in 255K plus what the atmosphere is absorbing not through radiation, but through conduction/convection. But that’s a layman’s logic so would be interesting to hear the pros debate it.
Don132
I just said that density is relevant because greater density increases the efficiency of conduction but density is just a consequence of mass and gravity creating pressure.
It is all linked together via the gas laws.
This Web page illustrates a sequence that has played out time and again over the years and will be repeated for years to come.
Someone who knows the physics tries to help the tyro. The explainer cites a fact that, for people who had received the logic gene, would dispose of the matter. When the tyro then seems to grasp the fact, the explainer initially thinks he’s succeeded. But then the tyro reaches a conclusion just the opposite of what the facts imply; it turns out that the tyro just hadn’t received the logic gene. It’s no moral failing on the tyro’s part; he didn’t ask to come out illogical. But that’s what happened.
Finding it hard to accept that anyone could fail to grasp something so clear, the explainer may persist for a while. But he ultimately recognizes the futility and gives up.
I explained above, for example, that energy can enter or leave a perfectly transparent atmosphere only by conduction from or to the planet’s surface; a perfectly transparent atmosphere can’t radiate. (Convection moves energy around only within the atmosphere, not between the atmosphere and the surface, although it can affect where on the surface the conduction occurs.) The logical conclusion is that on a long-term basis the net conductive flow between the entire atmosphere and entire surface has to be zero if the atmospheric temperature is not to have a trend toward zero or infinity.
Therefore, no one who has the logic gene would say something like, “the earth isn’t taking in 255K really; it’s taking in 255K plus what the atmosphere is absorbing not through radiation, but through conduction/convection.” But people will indeed say things like that. Some people just didn’t get the logic gene. That doesn’t make them trolls; it just makes them immune to instruction.
So the people who really know what they’re talking about just give up and leave the field to delusional disputants like Mr. Wilde who beguile the tyro with falsehoods and irrelevant facts. Regrettable, but ’twas ever thus.
There speaks the chap who thinks an atmosphere out of hydrostatic equilibrium can be retained.
The thing is that the convective overturning model is agreed to show a net zero energy transfer between atmosphere and surface. It has to be net zero to avoid destabilising the background solar energy throughput of 255k otherwise one would lose the atmosphere.
The radiative theory, in contrast, is NOT net zero and is therefore unsustainable.
Every time back radiation warms the surface a little of the upward radiation from that warming is bounced back down again in a infinite feedback loop.
Not possible.
”There speaks the chap who thinks an atmosphere out of hydrostatic equilibrium can be retained.”
Earth atm. out of hydrostatic equilibrium happens in every storm system and yet the atm. in the storm system is retained as wind speeds do not reach escape velocity. Meteorologist Edward N. Lorenz explained that in 1955, Stephen just doesn’t understand existing basic meteorology.
Good comment Joe Born, I learned a new word, the tyros like Stephen comment unwisely since they don’t bother to read up on & learn from basic meteorology knowledge that’s been readily available since 1955.
Joe Born:
I take your comments to heart. Which means that I don’t have enough understanding of physics to be able to say much of anything.
It would be hard for me to believe that through my past accomplishments and my philosophy degree that I don’t have the logic gene, as I think you’re addressing me at least indirectly (maybe directly!) I’m willing to admit that I talk nonsense at times but that’s because I’m a layman trying to understand a field he has virtually zero training in. Maybe that’s a big mistake and a waste of everyone’s time.
Let me point out that convection is simply conduction within a fluid atmosphere. Therefore conduction from the surface and convection in the atmosphere are linked processes. I state that with calm aplomb, and I may be wrong.
“Some experts do not consider convection to be a fundamental mechanism of heat transfer since it is essentially heat conduction in the presence of fluid motion. They consider it to be a special case of thermal conduction, known as “conduction with fluid motion”. On the other hand, it is practical to recognize convection as a separate heat transfer mechanism despite the valid arguments to the contrary.” https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/heat-transfer/convection-convective-heat-transfer/convection-vs-conduction/
“Although sometimes discussed as a third method of heat transfer, convection is usually used to describe the combined effects of heat conduction within the fluid (diffusion) and heat transference by bulk fluid flow streaming.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Conduction
I think that makes this statement of yours wrong: “Convection moves energy around only within the atmosphere, not between the atmosphere and the surface, although it can affect where on the surface the conduction occurs.”
Feel free to point out the flaws in my logic. I’m always willing to learn.
Don132
Stephen:
“Density is indeed the critical issue as I’ve been saying since 2007.
The reason being that greater density leads to more effective conduction.” But that does not lead to higher KE!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2574193
Highly misleading, and wrong!!!
Don132
Density is derived from mass and gravity which together determine pressure which leads to density.
Density determines the efficiency of conduction and therefore KE.
Not misleading and not wrong.
Stephen,
Correct answer: “Sorry, I was wrong. Density isn’t central to the theory but derivative. Other factors are much more important. What I said was misleading.”
Don132
Density is the consequence of other factors but still the primary influence on the effectiveness of conduction so not really ‘derivative’ at all.
But this isn’t about mere semantics.
Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE.
Radiative imbalances are neutralised by convective adjustments:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
Established science.
”Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE”
ATE fails 1LOT as in top post. Observationally auto-compression KE gain in descent is exactly balanced by the auto-expansion KE loss in ascent for no 33K of warming from conduction/convection.
Gravitational field of earth is not in power units only an acceleration. Stephen has never shown 33K derived from these two remaining measurements: atmospheric mass plus the acceleration of Earth gravity field
g=9.807 m/s^2
Earth mass: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
Yet radiative-convective equilibrium can calculate both the 288K and 255K from observed input.
In Stephen’s link, the author is merely discussing atm. exhibits neutral buoyancy along the lapse rate slope which is established science.
Don132:
Perhaps you have it but in this thread have just hidden it well. Or perhaps you’re among the many who mistake learning for logic. Consider in this connection your last response’s focus on my parenthetical remark about why I didn’t mention convection.
It’s true, of course, that different people describe convection differently and that the way I prefer to look at it isn’t everyone’s preference. But a logical thinker would recognize that nothing turns on whether my parenthetical statement was correct.
The point is that radiation is the only way in which energy enters or leaves a planet, and, if the planet’s atmosphere is perfectly transparent, that way is limited to absorption and emission at the surface. This is true independently of whether you call the heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere conduction, convection, or both.
The atmosphere doesn’t radiate, that is, so at steady state the surface radiates all that the planet receives from space and no more, while on average the net heat flow between the surface and the atmosphere must be zero: a non-radiative atmosphere can’t make the surface radiate more than it would in the atmosphere’s absence.
It was therefore a tangent to focus on my parenthetical remark, and going off on tangents is what illogical people tend to do.
Give a person facts and you give him knowledge.
Teach a person to logically think and you give him wisdom.
Stephen:
“Density is the consequence of other factors but still the primary influence on the effectiveness of conduction so not really ‘derivative’ at all.
But this isn’t about mere semantics.
Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE.
Radiative imbalances are neutralised by convective adjustments.”
Instead of focusing on what could be a key issue for you, which you glossed over (apparently still unrecognized!!!), you just keep repeating things like “Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE.” This is a restatement of your belief but is in no way a demonstration of its validity.
What do you expect me to think? That you’ve got all the answers but that no one understands because they keep on insisting on logical steps that follow physical laws?
And your density answer is still BS. It’s not the key to any part of your theory; we all know what density is and does and NO ONE disputes it. NO ONE is arguing over it. The confusion I had was over your statement that it was key; it took a logical conundrum presented by PJF to convince me otherwise. And I’m still pissed that you let me believe that it had much at all to do with your theory, and that you’re not man enough to admit that what you said was misleading. For cripes sake we all make mistakes or say things we shouldn’t have, and then we generally apologize afterwards. But apparently not HE WHO CANNOT BE WRONG.
And yet you continue! Hello? Do you think we’re all that stupid? The only think you’re accomplishing is adding to the conclusion that maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about after all, and just insist on being right in your own world no matter what the rest of the world says. You’re doing a great job of making the case against yourself.
So at least in all this tremendous, huge waste of time and energy we can see one thing: you cannot be wrong. Even if you are.
Don132
What logical conundrum from PJF ?
Myself:
“the earth isn’t taking in 255K really; it’s taking in 255K plus what the atmosphere is absorbing not through radiation, but through conduction/convection.” The atmosphere is absorbing energy through conduction/convection, which leads me to think that maybe when we assume the energy “in” without GHG (or even with) must be 255K, it might actually be closer to 288K because now the atmosphere isn’t radiating but the heat in the atmosphere is being directed back toward the surface. With GHG the extra energy is radiated by the atmosphere.
Just a thought. Just thinking. Just a statement. It came directly from what Holmes said and was because I was thinking about what he said, although I notice that neither Holmes not Stephen has elaborated on that. Show me how that’s wrong– not that I’m going to hang around any longer– and I’ll do what I’ve done several times here: admit I’m fu*king wrong. If I were as illogical as you say then I’d insist on things that weren’t true, and although I can be accused of not understanding enough physics to be intelligent about all this, I can’t be accused of sticking to facts that have been demonstrated to be wrong, as several times here I’ve openly and explicitly admitted I was wrong and that I had the wrong idea.
I’m looking at both sides and trying to figure it out the best I can, and I want to hear the logic of both sides, and in case you haven’t noticed I’ve been pretty hard on Stephen and Holmes.
So piss off.
Don132
Well, you have been hard on me and Robert but I see that as a legitimate exercise as long as you are polite about it.
With GHG the extra heat is radiated down from the atmosphere but every time that happens there is some of the extra heat radiated back up and then back down again for an infinite positive feedback loop that would destroy hydrostatic equilibrium. Since we still have an atmosphere that cannot be happening. It is a non zero sum process.
With the mass induced effect there IS a zero sum surface / atmosphere exchange so that hydrostatic equilibrium is preserved.
We still have an atmosphere so which is more likely correct ?
I still don’t see what your problem is with the concept of a solar radiative throughput of 255k straight through the system plus a discrete conductive / convective loop requiring enough energy to support an additional 33k at the surface.
The extra 33k obviously comes from recycling the same energy over and over after an initial charge up period so I really don’t see why you keep asking where that extra 33k comes from.
After all, one cannot have the same unit of kinetic energy being radiated out to space at the same time as it is conducted to another molecule.
That would be the true breach of 1 LOT but that doesn’t trouble Trick at all.
@Don123
You should study the concept of EMISSIVITY, which is a measure of the efficiency by which a body can lose energy by radiation and which depends on the nature of the body surface.
By possessing a lower emissivity, an object (e.g. the Earth) can receive energy at some rate, but be unable to radiate away that energy at the same rate. Consequently, the body must warm in order to lose energy at the rate acquired. Greenhouse gases lower Earth’s emissivity.
The emissivity concept is often used in industry to estimate temperature where other means are impractical.
My question/statement about the atmosphere’s absorption of energy was a direct response to this from Holmes:
Holmes:
” Mechanism;
Now we get to the objection.
The objection is that a non-GHG atmosphere would offer no resistance to the outgoing energy radiating from the surface.
My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.
The vast majority is lost via other means, primarily convection, this is because in regions of atmospheres where the pressure is >10kPa, a thermal gradient (i.e. the lapse rate) is always set up, and as long as solar insolation keeps coming in, convection will also ensue.”
So conduction/convection may not be important to Joe Born, but apparently they are to Holmes.
Since Joe Born doesn’t like it that I restate Holmes’ position in a way that might make sense– by way of getting him to explain exactly how the extra 33K comes into being– and accuses ME of presenting an illogical statement, then I think instead of me butchering Holmes’ idea of absorption and emissivity it’s up to Holmes to speak for himself.
I’m pretty sure that Stephen doesn’t make any sense. I was trying to find out if Holmes did.
All of us can understand bare-bones logic if the arguments are laid out in an unambiguous manner, and my suspicion is that Joe Born knows a bit less about logical arguments than he thinks he does.
End of venting.
Don132
Don
“And when the 33K worth of PE that does not show up as heat, when it gets to the surface it does show up at heat, which I thought was the point???”
.
Don’t mix up heat and temperature (KE) They are NOT the same.
PE essentially becomes KE during descent in an adiabatic process!!
“PE essentially becomes KE during descent in an adiabatic process!!”
The PE becomes KE at the same temperature and density as the surroundings in adiabatic process, there is no warming which is the reason the process is termed adibatic. The top post is correct, any warming from that kind of process violates 1LOT which Robert ought to know.
Stephen just always imagines warming occurs in such a process, an imagination does not have to comply with natural laws like 1LOT.
Trick
“…there is no warming which is the reason the process is termed adibatic.”
.
Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself again.
That is not the reason the process is adiabatic, its termed adiabatic because there is no warming from any external source.
When PE essentially becomes KE through this process;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
Then there is a temperature rise.
”its termed adiabatic because there is no warming from any external source.”
Correct Robert!
No surface warming (no ATE) from any external source as PE essentially becomes KE during air parcel descent in an adiabatic process as explained in the top post. The descending air gain in KE from ATE does no surface warming above ambient 255K as that is ruled out by 1LOT – since there is no external source of energy for autocompression or warming above ambient.
The descending air is continually equilibrated to local ambient density, temperature and pressure for no warming from an external source like there is from IR opacity increases due IR illumination (sunlight) which can increase surface atm. temperature from 255K to 288K while equally cooling the upper regions consistent with conservation of energy (1LOT).
Of course there is a temperature rise but only from diabatic processes.
Leif, you starmen make the mistake of thinking all gases behave as if in Criticallity. That is not so. Maxwell knew that, N+Z do and I do too. As for the silliness of those who falsely allege, continually, that the sun is not our ‘heating’ agent when the AU ratio is a factor in the ATE along with gravity ‘g’? Past parody. A false flag operation, sad. Brett
You make no sense. Try again.
And BTW I’m really a geophysicist.
The Sun is an incidental interest of mine.
FINAL ANSWER to 1LOT
Let’s back-track a little.
The no-atmosphere BB for Earth is said to be 255K.
The actual is measured to be 288K.
Therefore there is assumed to be an effect from the ‘presence of atmosphere’ of 33K.
Let’s take this as a postulate for the moment.
Where does this 33K of ‘extra’ warming come from?
Well, we know that the mean radiating height, and its associated temperature of 255K is high up in the troposphere.
And we also know that there exists a lapse rate, which averages 6.5K/km down from that level to the surface.
So if the mean radiating height is around 5km, then this lapse rate accounts for all of the ‘presence of atmosphere’ warming of 33K.
OK.
So where does the lapse rate come from?
I propose that this is actually both a thermal gradient and the 33K thermal enhancement itself, and if there is a cause for this other than the greenhouse effect, then it would leave no room at all for a greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases.
Can it be shown that there is another cause?
I would argue yes.
I also would argue that the 33K thermal enhancement would be exactly the same whether there were ‘GHG’ in the atmosphere or not.
Mechanism;
Now we get to the objection.
The objection is that a non-GHG atmosphere would offer no resistance to the outgoing energy radiating from the surface.
My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.
The vast majority is lost via other means, primarily convection, this is because in regions of atmospheres where the pressure is >10kPa, a thermal gradient (i.e. the lapse rate) is always set up, and as long as solar insolation keeps coming in, convection will also ensue.
Now, what is the nature of this thermal gradient, and why does it appear in all planetary atmospheres in regions of >10kPa?
It is auto-compression. At any one time, basically 50% of the atmosphere is descending, and 50% is rising.
Now, remember what temperature actually is;
Temperature in a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas.
When a gas 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 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)
In short, kinetic energy is gained during descent; remember that kinetic energy is essentially what we measure with a thermometer – so the temperature goes up.
There is no paradox.
Also there is no room for any warming from greenhouse gases – all the 33K of warming has already been accounted for.
Why don’t the GHG warm the troposphere?
Because, as soon as a forcing appears from them, in that instant the atmosphere expands a little – and cools. This is a 100% negative feedback to any GHG forcing.
Why?
Three reasons;
This is because the ideal gas laws (and its derivative, the molar mass version) disallow any ‘special’ gases.
And because the GHE is not what determine planetary temperatures; basically only insolation and auto-compression do.
And because back-radiation from a colder surface cannot warm a warmer surface.
I’ve not followed comments closely for the past day.
Holmes: “The objection is that a non-GHG atmosphere would offer no resistance to the outgoing energy radiating from the surface.
My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.
The vast majority is lost via other means, primarily convection, this is because in regions of atmospheres where the pressure is >10kPa, a thermal gradient (i.e. the lapse rate) is always set up, and as long as solar insolation keeps coming in, convection will also ensue.”
That’s an intriguing answer that makes sense to me. I didn’t notice the response to one of my earlier comments that stated that the atmosphere in a sense acts as an extension of the surface, so that energy “in” = energy hitting the surface as well as energy continually recirculating in atmosphere; i.e., not just the surface receives the sun’s energy.
What I see is that Stephen claimed this is a one-time event at the formation of the atmosphere (if I understand) whereas you’re saying that conduction/convection is always drawing energy off from the surface.
If the above is correct, then that’s the key mechanism for the theory to work. Interesting to hear of objections to that.
Don132
Don.
Looks like a rest has helped you.
There is indeed a one time event to charge the atmosphere with PE in the first place but after that it runs as proposed.
“The no-atmosphere BB for Earth is said to be 255K.”
That’s a strawman put up by Robert who then fights his own strawman.
Actually the premise for debate is a nearly transparent Earth atmosphere (surface emissivity rounded to 1, say all N2 ) with constant albedo 0.3 is said to be about 255K as that is the global brightness temperature of Earth as satellite measured over 4-12+ annual periods.
Don writes: ”you’re saying that conduction/convection is always drawing energy off from the surface.”
Yes, and the objection is that conduction/convection is always returning energy in the exact same amount of energy/sec per unit area removed back TO the surface (downdrafts, precipitation observed over multi-annual periods) as the process cycles without the burning of a fuel. The sun powers the cycle by burning a fuel.
Contrary to Robert’s & Stephen’s prose, the atm. is observed by and large hydrostatic so there is very little atm. PE available to turn into KE at any given time in Earth’s atmosphere. To learn about this basic meteorology, read meteorologist EN Lorenz’ 1955 paper google string: Available Potential Energy and the Maintenance of the General Circulation
I can’t understand Lorenz’s math!
Granted that net energy the atmosphere absorbs (via conduction/convection) would be returned to the surface in exactly the manner you say in a GHG-free atmosphere, my question is, wouldn’t the atmosphere continually have energy beyond what the surface has because it’s absorbed energy from the surface, which is recirculating as it were?
If the earth emits 255K and the surface atmosphere is 33K higher, then doesn’t that mean that somewhere GHG’s are emitting 33K? If not, why not?
Simply questions maybe, but answers would help clear up my understanding/misunderstanding.
Don132
I think the correct answer is, “who cares?” We’re not going to burn up from CO2, so it doesn’t really matter to us laymen which theory is correct. The people who know about this stuff are arguing endlessly so I can’t have any hope of sorting it out.
I just can’t devote any more energy to this; enough is enough. It’s been sucking way too much of my time.
Don132
Just reading Lorenz’ prose is good enough to understand Robert’s, Stephen’s arguments about PE to KE are not supported by basic meteorology. Ignorance of the law or the math is no defense for them.
”Interesting to hear of objections to that.”
The 1LOT based objection to increase above 255K in the top post remains undefeated by Robert.
Robert’s explanation: “It is auto-compression. At any one time, basically 50% of the atmosphere is descending, and 50% is rising.” causing the 33K temperature increase above 255K fails the 1LOT as the adiabatic process described must then create 33K of KE out of nothing as it alone burns no fuel. Observationally auto-compression KE gain in descent is exactly balanced by the auto-expansion KE loss in ascent for no 33K of warming above 255K.
Stephen terms these processes adiabatic which is true, no 33K net warming above 255K can occur from them. Stephen’s solution is imagining a miracle source of 33K energy above 255K happened in some diabatic process eons ago and remains today. If that imagined process confuses Don, it should.
Trick, I agree with what you say.
If there’s any hope for the ATE theory then it seems to be sinking in a sea of circular reasoning that continually misses the point– as if Holmes and Stephen don’t understand their own theory. At the very least, so far as I can see they continually evade the heart of the matter, the extra 33K, or else explain it “again and again” in a way that I can’t say makes any sense. Sorry.
I’m really pissed off at Stephen’s “density” comment which was uncalled-for and basically BS and led me down the wrong path. So although I can’t say my mind is completely made up– I try to keep an open mind about these things (!!!!!)– I’m beginning to think the ATE theory might just be self-deception.
I really gotta go. Maybe someone will say something that answers some questions I have about my own misunderstanding and then I can pitch in, but otherwise I really gotta go.
Don132
Don;
“..not just the surface receives the sun’s energy.’
.
Yes of course; the entire atmosphere receives and is warmed by the Sun’s energy, as well as the surface.
The Sun emits radiation in all frequencies, including in the LW.
Here is the Solar emissions curve, which is 6 million times bigger than Earth’s;
Sun.org black body spectrum, (2017). Accessed 4/4/2017 http://www.sun.org/uploads/ima
ges/mainimage_BlackbodySpectrum_2.png
Here is the fake Solar curve, often pushed by climate alarmists;
American Chemical Society, (2017). Accessed 17/3/2017 https://www.acs.org/content
/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html
Holmes,
Your links aren’t complete: have to include both lines.
You’ll have to tie it all together because there are a lot of skeptics and I’m acting as a neutral observer who wants to see the arguments laid out clearly and honestly.
“My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.” As you say. So what are the implications of this for your theory? A lot of us are having trouble understanding how, even as PE/KE circulate, that can lead to an extra 33K above the 255K emissions temp. It looks to me like there are some steps missing; if it’s in your paper I’d have to re-read but would be best for all if you could just restate so everyone knows exactly what you’re referring too.
Don132
Robert
Best to ignore Trick, he satisfies the definition of a troll.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt for years but to no avail.
He misrepresents both other posters’ comments and his technical sources and then gets all patronizing as a boost to his own ego.
That’s wrong Stephen 4:26am, I quote sources verbatim with clips such that the context can be easily found. On the other hand, Stephen quotes NO reliable published meteorological sources and relies 100% on Stephen’s own imagination of atm. processes instead of actual observations and experiment. Readers can take their pick of which commenting style is actually reliable and more informative.
Stephen
I think you are right.
He constantly misquotes me or throws up straw men.
He even denies that when PE converts to KE that this does not cause a higher temperature – even though temperature itself is only a measure of KE!
It is impossible to debate someone who denies basic gas thermodynamics.
I think I made that pretty clear a couple of days ago, all 3 of us have “previous” on other threads on this subject.
The discussion so far appears to me to have been heavily dominated by alternative theorists of disparate kinds whose only points of common agreement are that a) the greenhouse effect (GE) is fundamentally wrong in concept, and b) atmospheres are somehow elevating the surface temperatures above their black-body temperatures without needing any additional energy-inputs besides insolation.
Well, all that I can say about (a) is that I am still waiting for someone to show me how the theoretical concept of the greenhouse effect is fundamentally – or even superficially – wrong and that whatever the alternative theorists’ reasons for rejecting it might be, I’ve never seen them properly expounded or explained.
With regard to (b) I have somewhat more to say.
First, I think there may have been some confusion about whether people have been discussing surface temperatures, or near-surface atmospheric temperatures. It’s a tricky issue because the actual surface from which energy is radiating may have a different temperature to the lower atmosphere, even where the lower atmosphere is in actual contact with the surface. If you can get your atmospheric gas laws sorted out properly, you may be able to predict actual near-surface atmospheric temperatures, but that still will not necessarily enable you to predict actual surface temperatures. According to N&Z’s 2017 paper, their proclaimed “discovery” only applies to near-surface temperatures. And as far as I have been able to understand, Stephen Wilde’s and Robert Holmes’s theories do likewise.
However, the basic principle of the greenhouse effect relates explicitly to the actual surface-radiation and does not involve the specific thermodynamics of the atmosphere. Therefore it cannot be refuted by any argument from atmospheric thermodynamics.
Second, a planetary body’s so-called “black body temperature” is an ideal theoretical temperature that is the maximum possible global mean surface temperature which the absorbed insolation could support by itself and without being supplemented by energy from another source. That is why the discovery in our solar system of actual planetary surface temperatures well above their ideal black body temperatures demanded a second energy source besides the absorbed insolation to explain it in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics (a.k.a. the “energy conservation law”). The greenhouse effect fulfils this requirement, but all the alternative theories which I have seen so far don’t.
Third, I notice that there has been quite a bit of discussion here about the temperature of the air at the bottom of the atmosphere and the fact that the temperature of a gas is a metric for the average kinetic energy of its molecules. A C Osborn has asked me to name the “driving variables” which determine the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere and I thought it might be a good idea to reply to him here where any other people who are interested in the same issue might have a better chance of seeing it, instead of replying directly under his request higher up in the thread.
I think the driving variables of the global near-surface atmospheric temperature (GMAT) can be seen from the basic formula for the kinetic energy of a single body, which is:
K.E. = ½mu²,
where m is the mass of the body and u is its speed.
However, here we are dealing with many small bodies (i.e. molecules) and so this formula needs to be modified slightly to take account of that. The modified formula is:
K = ½MU²,
where K is the average kinetic energy of the molecules, M is the average molecular mass and U is the average molecular speed.
It follows from this last formula that M and U are basic driving variables for the global mean near-surface atmospheric temperature (GMAT). I think this implies that any variations in the value of the GMAT must be caused by corresponding variations either in the value of M, or in the value of U, or in the values of both.
However, there are further component variables involved in the determination of M and U, of course. The value of M is simply the total mass of the atmosphere divided by the total number of molecules within it and that quantity is invariant with respect to variations in temperature and all other atmospheric conditions so long as the size and relative chemical composition of its atmosphere remain constant. So on any given planet with such a constant atmosphere, any variation in its GMAT must be caused by a corresponding variation in the value of U, which implies a corresponding variation in energy-input to the bottom of the atmosphere. I can envisage that this may be caused by a corresponding variation in absorbed insolation or perhaps a variation in the strength of its atmospheric greenhouse effect. Obviously though, the question of which cause is the correct one would have to be determined by observation and empirical measurement in each individual case.
“their proclaimed “discovery” only applies to near-surface temperatures. And as far as I have been able to understand, Stephen Wilde’s and Robert Holmes’s theories do likewise.”
.
Complete nonsense.
In my last paper I included Venus, Venus at 1atm, Earth, Earth’s South Pole, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Titan.
I specifically included Earth’s South Pole to overcome any objections about average near-surface temperatures; this applies to all areas of all atmospheres which are over 10kPa in pressure.
A thought experiment is also included to use as a test for the existence of the so-called greenhouse effect. An anomalous change in density or pressure would confirm the existence of a GHE, no anomalous change would invalidate the GHE.
Cassio January 13, 2019 at 5:13 pm
Thank you for your replies.
However they are most unsatisfactory when dealing in general with the Near Surface Atmospheric Temperature.
The first major problem is that fact that you talk about “a second source of enrgy, so I assume that your are saying that CO2 molecules are a source of Energy.
Second you state “However, the basic principle of the greenhouse effect relates explicitly to the actual surface-radiation and does not involve the specific thermodynamics of the atmosphere. Therefore it cannot be refuted by any argument from atmospheric thermodynamics.”
Which makes absolutely no sense to me whatever as it totally contradicts your premise that the greenhouse effect is involved.
Third you also state that “I am still waiting for someone to show me how the theoretical concept of the greenhouse effect is fundamentally – or even superficially – wrong and that whatever the alternative theorists’ reasons for rejecting it might be, I’ve never seen them properly expounded or explained.”
All I can say is that you haven’t looked, or you have an opinion that they cannot shake.
Moving on to my question of “Drivers” we have.
Fourth you talk bout using the “Average speed” of the molecules in the Atmosphere.
How then is the Atmosphere so much hotter near the surface?
You would have to use the Average Speed in single layers for that to make sense.
Fifth you state that you consider the drivers to be Mass & Speed, neither of which is a “Driver”, Mass is just mass and speed is the outcome of an energy input, ie a driver.
You then go on to say that “Insolation” is the cause of “U” which makes it the driver and I think we can all agree on that.