Tallbloke's Talkshop

Planetary cloud albedo level is a function of solar energy absorption and atmospheric pressure

tallbloke — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:47:29 +0000

Pioneer photo of Venus in the UV

OK, I think we have more clarity on the difference between N&Z and Harry Dale Huffman’s interpretation of Venus and Earth data.

> On 1/29/2012 12:34 PM, Rog Tallbloke wrote:
>
> Hi Ned,
>
> I think I’ve managed to get Harry Dale Huffman to state what
> the key point he has at issue is:
>
> “I deduced nothing about the “proportion” or “amount” of solar
>energy absorbed by the atmosphere. I deduced something about
>the fraction of solar energy absorbed by the atmospheres of both
>Venus and Earth: They absorb the same fraction, and it is in the infrared. The amount they absorb is different,
>as the definitive fact is, Venus absorbs 1.91 times as much solar power as the earth (so its atmospheric
>temperature is 1.176 times that in Earth’s atmosphere, at a given tropospheric pressure), because it is closer to
>the Sun (and not for any other reason).
>
> I am waiting to see that fact acknowledged as such by all, in all the debates.”
>
> Harry Dale Huffman
>
> Is this something you would agree with him on? If so, we can tell him that, and move forward together.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Rog

Galileo photo of Earth in the UV

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:13:55 -0700, Ned Nikolov wrote:
> Rog,
>
> I agree with Huffman’s general finding that the temperature of
> Venus’s atmosphere should be about 1.176 times that of Earth’s
> atmosphere at the _same_ pressure level. This is fully consistent with
> our theory! Indeed, the solar irradiance at the top of Venus’
> atmosphere is about 1.92 time larger than the solar irradiance above
> Earth’s atmosphere. Since temperature is proportional to the 4th root
> of radiation, it follows that 1.92^0.25 = 1.177, which is very close
> to the ratio reported by Huffman
>
> However, Huffman needs to correct his terminology. The ratio 1.91
> (or 1.92 in my calculation) is NOT how much more radiation Venus
> _absorbs_ than Earth, but how much _larger_ the SOLAR IRRADIANCE (i.e.
> solar constant) of Venus is compared to that of Earth. This is the
> solar flux ON TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE (TOA) and BEFORE correcting for
> the albedo. The actual_ absorbed_ radiation by a planet is calculated
> by the formula: S*(1-A)/4, where S is the TOA solar irradiance, and
> A is the albedo. Since A = 0.75 for Venus while A = 0.30 for Earth ,
> Venus actually absorbs some 31% LESS radiation than Earth despite
> being closer to the Sun and having a larger solar irradiance!
> Huffman states “…_Venus absorbs 1.91 times as much solar power as
> the earth_ ..”, which is INCORRECT! Venus is ILLUMINATED 1.91 times
> stronger than the Earth, but it absorbs 31% less radiation than Earth.
>
> There is a very interesting phenomenon here, which is that surface
> temperature apparently scales with TOA irradiance rather than with
> actual_ absorbed_ radiation. We discuss this in our full paper. The
> implication of this is that the atmospheric albedo (cloud cover
> reflectivity) is a function of the internal energy of the system
> maintained by solar heating and pressure. In other words, the cloud
> albedo is mostly a _byproduct_ of the atmospheric energy, not an
> independent driver of planetary climate as assumed by the current GH
> theory.
>
> – Ned
>

Exciting stuff!!

Harry’s says this in his original article:

“This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth — the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus’s clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.)”

However, the Albedo of Venus is what it is, and can be measured quite accurately from it’s brightness. Harry told me that:
“I deduced something about the fraction of solar energy absorbed by the atmospheres of both Venus and Earth: They absorb the same fraction, and it is in the infrared.”

I pointed out that convection currents are set up in shallow lakes on Earth, from the heat absorbed in the dark coloured bottom. Clearly, Earth does not absorb anything like as much of the incident solar radiation in the atmosphere as Venus does, since almost none of it reaches Venus’ surface. There seems to be some contradiction in what Harry says, but I’ll let everyone help tease it out in comments.

1000 scientists and counting boycott Elsevier journal publishing

tallbloke — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:29:22 +0000

From El Reg

The Independent Printing Press

H/T Tim Channon.

The ongoing world protests against SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA have helped inspire a revolt among scientists over the role of academic publisher Elsevier and its business practices.

British mathematician Tim Gowers kicked-started the campaign with a scorching blog post outlining numerous complaints against the publisher, which sells over 2,000 academic journals such as The Lancet and Cell. Gowers claims that Elsevier charges unacceptably high prices and forces libraries to subscribe to bundles of publications en masse – some of which have little, if any, scientific credibility.

He also noted the company’s involvement in lobbying for SOPA, PIPA, and the Research Works Act (RWA) currently going through the US Congress, which would introduce charges to access publicly funded scientific research.

I am not only going to refuse to have anything to do with Elsevier journals from now on, but I am saying so publicly. I am by no means the first person to do this, but the more of us there are, the more socially acceptable it becomes, and that is my main reason for writing this post.

———————————————————————

I firmly believe the day of the big journals publishers is nearly done. They are an anachronism. Their restrictive practices go against natural justice on fundamental issues around the sharing of knowledge and the progress of humanity.

I want to take the opportunity to say a huge thank you! to scientists like Hans Jelbring and Ned Nikolov who bring their science to the people for free here on the talkshop. They are in the vanguard of a new movement which is bringing real and exciting new science out into the light where the public can share a draught at the wellspring of knowledge and participate in it’s advancement and refinement. A huge thank you! to WordPress as well, our excellent hosts, who calmly resist the attack on free speech and knowledge being waged against us.

We do not need or want privately owned corporations in science behaving like Rupert Murdoch and forcing our library institutions to accept bundles of substandard, partisan and corporate driven material to dilute what should be ranked amongst the finest of human achievements.

After we have driven this goliath to the ground it will be time to tackle the cliques who have taken over the administration and editorial control of the big science institutions. For too long we have allowed the interests of power and finance to control public perception of truth and fact.

Bring on the renewal of the enlightenment! Independent publishing via the internet is the new medium we must nurture and protect.

The Mystery of Planet 8

tallbloke — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:34:08 +0000

Neptune is the eighth and farthest planet from the Sun in the Solar System. Named for the Roman god of the sea, it is the fourth-largest planet by diameter and the third largest by mass. Neptune is 17 times the mass of Earth and is slightly more massive than its near-twin Uranus, which is 15 times the mass of Earth but not as dense.^[12] On average, Neptune orbits the Sun at a distance of 30.1 AU, approximately 30 times the Earth–Sun distance.

Neptune’s more varied weather when compared to Uranus is believed to be due in part to its higher internal heat.^[83] Although Neptune lies half again as far from the Sun as Uranus, and receives only 40% its amount of sunlight,^[13] the two planets’ surface temperatures are roughly equal.^[83] The upper regions of Neptune’s troposphere reach a low temperature of −221.4 °C (51.8 K). At a depth where the atmospheric pressure equals 1 bar (100 kPa), the temperature is −201.15 °C (72.00 K).^[84] Deeper inside the layers of gas, the temperature rises steadily. As with Uranus, the source of this heating is unknown, but the discrepancy is larger: Uranus only radiates 1.1 times as much energy as it receives from the Sun;^[85] while Neptune radiates about 2.61 times as much energy as it receives from the Sun.^[86] Neptune is the farthest planet from the Sun, yet its internal energy is sufficient to drive the fastest planetary winds seen in the Solar System. Several possible explanations have been suggested, including radiogenic heating from the planet’s core,^[87] conversion of methane under high pressure into hydrogen, diamond and longer hydrocarbons (the hydrogen and diamond would then rise and sink, respectively, releasing gravitational potential energy),^[87]^[88] and convection in the lower atmosphere that causes gravity waves to break above the tropopause.^[89]^[90]

At high altitudes, Neptune’s atmosphere is 80% hydrogen and 19% helium.^[17] A trace amount of methane is also present. Prominent absorption bands of methane occur at wavelengths above 600 nm, in the red and infrared portion of the spectrum. As with Uranus, this absorption of red light by the atmospheric methane is part of what gives Neptune its blue hue,^[49] although Neptune’s vivid azure differs from Uranus’s milder cyan. Since Neptune’s atmospheric methane content is similar to that of Uranus, some unknown atmospheric constituent is thought to contribute to Neptune’s colour.^[15]

Neptune’s atmosphere is sub-divided into two main regions; the lower troposphere, where temperature decreases with altitude, and the stratosphere, where temperature increases with altitude. The boundary between the two, the tropopause, occurs at a pressure of 0.1 bars (10 kPa).^[13] The stratosphere then gives way to the thermosphere at a pressure lower than 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁴ microbars (1 to 10 Pa).^[13] The thermosphere gradually transitions to the exosphere.

In contrast to the relatively featureless atmosphere of Uranus, Neptune’s atmosphere is notable for its active and visible weather patterns. For example, at the time of the 1989 Voyager 2 flyby, the planet’s southern hemisphere possessed a Great Dark Spot comparable to the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. These weather patterns are driven by the strongest sustained winds of any planet in the Solar System, with recorded wind speeds as high as 2,100 km/h.^[16] Because of its great distance from the Sun, Neptune’s outer atmosphere is one of the coldest places in the Solar System, with temperatures at its cloud tops approaching −218 °C (55 K). Temperatures at the planet’s centre are approximately 5,400 K (5,000 °C).^[17]^[18]

For reasons that remain obscure, the planet’s thermosphere is at an anomalously high temperature of about 750 K.^[53]^[54] The planet is too far from the Sun for this heat to be generated by ultraviolet radiation. One candidate for a heating mechanism is atmospheric interaction with ions in the planet’s magnetic field. Other candidates are gravity waves from the interior that dissipate in the atmosphere. The thermosphere contains traces of carbon dioxide and water, which may have been deposited from external sources such as meteorites and dust.^[50]^[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune

Wikipedia is still pretty good for some stuff we’ll be needing.

Another X-class solar flare cycle 24

tchannon — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:35:41 +0000

Hat tip to Vuk.

We’ve not had a solar activity thread recently so when Vuk points at spitzundsparken it seems a good idea.

The sun has been flare active recently and given my opinion it’s not that far off solar max this makes sense (he says justifying himself

If flare activity carries on until mid week the likely very cold weather as a result of a blocking high over Europe will lead to clear skies in many places, good conditions to see the Northern Lights.

Meteox image is a model forecast for date marked

A quick post, can add to this article later.

Newcomers to Tallbloke’s:- Prior to the police raid in December there was usually more than one active article, where people with different interests can take part without things getting too mixed up. At the moment there is so much comment traffic this doesn’t work well.

Posted by Tim Channon

Back to basics: History of the gas laws

tallbloke — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:36:28 +0000

Ned Nikolov says:

January 25, 2012 at 11:54 am

Richard M

Where have we claimed that we replace the greenhouse effect with gravity?

What we state is that the GH effect, when measured as a dimensionless number (Ts/Tgb), i.e. the relative thermal enhancement, is completely explainable by pressure. Is pressure a gravity? No! Pressure is a FORCE resulting from the atmospheric mass per unit area AND gravity! What is the kinetic energy of a gas that determines its temperature? It is a product of Pressure and Gas Volume (PV), i.e. FORCE x Distance = Joules. In other words, you cannot have kinetic energy and temperature of a gas without a FORCE. On a planetary scale the force of pressure is INDEPENDENT of solar heating, atmospheric volume, or temperature, because we have on average an isobaric thermodynamic process at the surface. So, changing the mass of the atmosphere will change the FORCE generated by gravity at the surface, therefore, changing the temperature. Our non-dimensional NTE factor (the relative thermal enhancement) is a manifestation of that physical characteristic of pressure called FORCE … How is that for a physical explanation? We elaborate more on this in our Reply Part 2 …

The key to grasping our theory is understanding the actual physical meaning of different parameters such as pressure, irradiance, temperature, and energy and the best way to do that is to properly deciphering the units …

Let’s see if we can help Ned get the message across in terms everyone can understand. We’ll start with a potted history of the gas laws in this post.

The Science of Pressure

An investigation that was resolved over centuries.

Archimedes of Syracuse Approximately 287-212 BCE

Archimedes was a creative engineer, physicist and mathematician whose seminal contributions to the sciences provided points of entry for the development of Geometry, Calculus, Physics and engineering. Archimedes experiments with buoyancy and density contributed to our understanding of the basic properties of matter.

Galileo Galilei 1564-1642

Remembered as an astronomer and the scientist who developed fundamental concepts about falling bodies. He was in fact a physicist and an ardent practitioner of the Scientific Method. In one experiment Galileo demonstrated that air had weight (and thus, mass). Gallileo also built devices that demonstrated the the change in density relative to the change in temperature of a fluid. Through the process of inquiry and experimentation, Gallileo opened the door for the slow development of the kinetic theory of gases.

Evangelista Torricelli 1608-1647

A student of Galileo, who is remembered for developing the Mercury Barometer. More important, Torricelli reasoned from his experiments that we are “Surrounded by an ocean of air”(The earth’s atmosphere) and that this ocean of air can impart a force (weight).

Blaise Pascal 1623-1662

Blaise Pascal died young, but in one brief period of scientific creativity he authored a book on Geometry, invented a calculating machine that was a precursor to the computer, laid the foundation for probability theory and laid the conceptual framework for the independent discoveries of Archimedes (buoyancy) , Galileo ( weight of air) and Torricelli the weight of the ocean of air in which we live)

His observations led to the conclusion:

Pressure in a confined fluid (and gas) is transmitted equally and undiminished in all directions.

In a single statement he defined a new term, pressure, and he expressed it as a simple mathematical relationship.
Pressure (P) = Force(F) per unit Area(A)

P = F/A

conversely

F = PxA

Understanding this simple algebraic expression will allow us to mathematically model and predict the performance of the pneumatic systems we design. This simple algebraic expression explains how it is possible to dramatically multiply forces within cylinders and transmit them significant distances through tubes and circuits within a pneumatic system.

Robert Boyle 1627-1691

While he is popularly regarded as the father of modern chemistry, Boyle made many significant contributions to the field of physics. Not least of which is a physical law that bears his name. Boyle realized that the product of the pressure and the volume within a closed system was constant (PV=k). He also noted that within a closed system, the pressure of a gas varies inversely with respect to volume. Increase the volume,and the pressure drops. Conversely if the volume is decreased, the pressure rises.

The algebra could not be simpler. A more useful expression comparing the effects of pressure and volume on a fixed amount of gas would look like this.
(see Figure 2.3.1)

What Robert Boyle gave us was more than just an observation. He gave us the one of the essential tools of pneumatic engineering. Boyle provided us with a tool that could be used to mathematically predict the behavior of a system.

Let’s look at the implication of what Pascal observed and what Boyle quantified.

Pascal noted that pressure was a force acting equally throughout a fluid or a gas. Boyle explained that if we reduce the volume of a given amount of gas by 1/2 then we double the pressure. The pressure is then doubled and acts equally on all surfaces of the contained gas!

The development of a universal gas law was nearing completion.

Jacques Charles 1746-1823

Jacques Charles enjoyed experimenting, and he was a daring inventor. In 1783 he heard news that the Montgolfier brothers had flown in a gas balloon. It is not certain that he knew they had used hot air to create the necessary bouyancy.He began to ponder how they may have accomplished this feat. He reasond they had filled the necessary volume with hydrogen, a recently discovered gas that was more than 10 times lighter than air. After several experiments Jaques Charles accomplished his solo flight in a hydrogen filled balloon!

Jacques Charles provided some key components necessary to formulate the ideal gas law.

He performed experiments that that allowed him to conclude that Pressure was proportional to temperature.

Pressure = Temperature x K (An constant) The algebra looks like this: P = Tk

Jacques Charles quantitatively measured the relationship between Temperature and pressure in a fixed amount of gas, and found the two quantities to have a proportional relationship. That is to say that a graph of changes in temperature with changes in volume forms a straight line.

The algebraic statement that expresses the relatinship between Volume and Temperature in gasses with fixed pressures looks like this: (see Figure 2.3.2)

Jacques however used a Celsius scale. In this case the proportionality was not a direct proportion. The line of a graph plotting the change in Celsius temperature plotted against a change in volume did not pass through the origin of is temperature and pressure graph (0 degrees Celsius/0 cm3). It was not until Lord Kelvin discovered that if he added 273 to every degree Celsius, that the proportionality of volume and temperature in a fixed amount of gas became a direct proportion! The concept of absolute temperature was another step towards defining the ideal gas law.

If temperature affected the volume or pressure of a gas, the implication was clear. Gases, at their fundamental molecular levels, are mechanical in nature, and the laws of kinematics could help predict the behavior of gases.

This algebraic tool allows us to predict the effects of changes in temperature, volume and pressure within a closed pneumatic system.

While temperature is certainly a factor in controlling pressure, this fact will not be considered in the problems that follow. Students are not expected to have temperature controls on their pneumatic systems. Never attempt to increase pressure by heating pressurized gas reservoirs.
Amadeo Avagadro 1776-1856

Amedeo Avogadro was, like many great scientists of his era, both a physicist and a chemist. He is credited with having coined the word molecule, and establishing the formula for water, H2O. Avagadros contribution to pneumatics lies in his most remembered work, the establishment of a law that bears his name, as well as a fundamentally important concept, Avagadros number.

Avogadro\’s law states that equal volumes of different gases at the same temperature and pressure contain equal number of molecules!

Avogadros Number 6.02 * 10^23 This number refers to the number of molecules of a gas at standard temperature and pressure.

The volume occupied by one mole of any gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure is called its molar volume. This volume is the same for all gases. This volume is equal to 22.4 liters (a little more than 3/4 of a cubic foot).

The gram weight of the molar volume of any gas molecule can be found by adding the atomic weights of the atoms that combine to make the gas molecule.

A molar volume is always 22.4 liters. With this information we can compute the grams per liter of any gas as well as the weight of any quantity of any gas whose molecular formula is known. [NIST historical definition of Mole, see appendix --Tim]

Avagadros research contributed to the development of the Ideal Gas Equation. The Ideal Gas Equation describes the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume, and provides engineers with the tools they need to mathematically predict the behavior of gases under a variety of conditions.
Emil Clapeyron 1799-1864

Emil Claperyon is credited with having formulated the ideal gas law in 1834. Take a minute to look at the algebra that describes the relationship between Pressure, Volume, Temperature and the quantity of gas in a system. This simple statement represents the culmination of the work of dozens of scientists over hundreds of years and it includes the discoveries of the scientists recognized in this lesson.

The Ideal Gas Equation

PV = nRT

Where:

P = pressure in atmospheres

V = volume in liters

n = moles

R = Ideal gas constant = 0.0821 liter* atmospheres/mole* Kelvin

T = Temperature in degrees Kelvin

The understanding exhibited by this simple equation is used by men and women who design and manufacture safe reliable pneumatic systems. The fundamental laws that govern gas behavior were discoverd sequentially by men and women who made incremental contribitions to development of our understanding of the behavior of gasses. Each in turn, contributed to this growing body of knowledge. This is a story of pneumatic science, and it is representative of the story of science in general.

Appendix

NIST historical definition of the unit mole

1. The mole is the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12; its symbol is “mol.”

2. When the mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified and may be atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or specified groups of such particles.

The atomic weight (sum of the weight/mass of all 6 protons + 6 neutrons + 6 electrons) of a carbon-12 isotope atom is set at 12, as basis for comparison of all other atoms. 12 grams (0.012 kg) of carbon contains Avogadro’s number of atoms.

Internet freedoms under attack again: Act now!

tallbloke — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:35:07 +0000

Most EU states sign away internet rights, ratify ACTA treaty
European Parliament observer resigns in protest

By Iain Thomson in San Francisco • Get more from this author

Posted in Government

Representatives of 21 of the EU’s member states, including the UK, have signed off on the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – the European version of the US SOPA and PIPA rolled into one and cranked up to 11.

Only Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Slovakia, and the Netherlands have held off on signing the treaty, which will give authorities even more power to enforce copyright than was contained in aforementioned online-piracy legislation currently on hold in the US.

n a signing ceremony in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Mr. Hans Dietmar Schweisgut, head of the EU delegation, said in a statement that ACTA “aims to improve enforcement mechanisms to help its members combat IPR infringement more effectively.”

It seems he’s quite isolated in this opinion, however. Thousands of protesters took to the streets in Poland to protest the signing of the treaty, which was developed behind closed doors by media industry lobbyists and politicians, and hackers have been busy registering their protests online.

In an unprecedented move, the French European Parliament member assigned to monitor the treaty proceedings, Kader Arif, resigned in protest at the signings, and issued a strongly worded rebuke, saying that the EU was trying to have as little public debate on ACTA as possible, and that right-wing groups were trying to ram it into law with no oversight.

“This agreement might have major consequences on citizens’ lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter.

Read the rest at El Reg here.

I have previous experience of getting the EU Parliament to vote down ill considered blanket legislation. To make it happen we had to mobilise 40,000 motocyclists to go and camp outside Brussels and spend the saturday riding round and round the city streets, bringing the place to a halt. We told the EUrocrats we would be back every month to do the same unless they ditched the stupid legislation they were planning to impose.

They backed down.

It’s different with the internet. Whereas with the biking fraternity, we had grassroots organisations spread europe wide and a real physical presence, the internet community is far more widespread, but much less organised and motivated to defend their freedoms.

That will have to change quick or we’ll be crapped on by the corporate interests and their political lackeys. I propose we find out which corporates are behind this, and stop buying their stuff. One thing the internet does well is spread the word quickly. So let’s get to it.

MEP Roger Barton stands with the bikers against EU diktat in 1992 WE WON.

http://www.stopacta.info/

Intellectual property must be protected, but it should not be placed above individuals’ rights to privacy and data protection.

Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), issued a report on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), claiming that it could prove unworkable under current European Union data protection laws.

ACTA is legislation laundering on an international level of what would be very difficult to get through most Parliaments

Stravros Lambrinidis, Member of European Parliament, S and D, Greece

The European Parliament has had no representation in ACTA negotiations. Just accepting or rejecting an agreement is not an exercise of democracy as under the Lisbon Treaty.

Zuzana Roithova, Member of European Parliament, EPP, Czech Republic

It is extremely regrettable that democratic debate has been eliminated from talks that could have a major impact on such a fundamental freedom as free expression.

Reporters without Borders, European Parliament Sakharov Prize Winners

Any measures concerning people’s right to go online need to be brought in through the proper democratic channels, not via self-regulation, and made into EU law

Andrea D?Incecco, public affairs manager from EuroISPA (Business association of European Internet Service Providers)

Third party liability for Internet Server Providers is like making the post office responsible for what is inside the letters they send.

Alexander Alvaro, Member of European Parliament, ALDE, Germany.

We can only assume that the final text could do great harm in developing countries and undermine the balance between the protection of intellectual property and the need to provide affordable medicines for poor people.

Rohit Malpani, OXFAM, from a press release criticising possible impact of ACTA.

We are in danger of ending up with the worst of both worlds, pushing IP rules, which are very effective at stopping access to life-saving drugs but are very bad at stopping or preventing fake drugs.

Michelle Childs of Médecins Sans Frontières, Nobel Peace Prize winners, has issued a very critical statement on ACTA.

Sign the Wellington declaration!

“ACTA is legislation laundering on an international level of what would be very difficult to get through most Parliaments”

Stravros Lambrinidis, Member of European Parliament, S and D, Greece

Gavin Schmidt: Climate Homeopathy

tallbloke — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:04:59 +0000

Visit Cartoons by Josh

With our renewed understanding of the omnipresent force of gravity, and its profound effect on the heat distribution in planetary atmospheres via the pressure gradient it causes we can start to appreciate the numbers involved. If there was no gravity and we wanted to change the pressure of our atmosphere from its mid altitude value of 500Hpa to the near surface value of ~1000Hpa for the lowest kilometre, the force we would have to exert is vast. Our power stations churfing out enormous volumes of carbon dioxide 24/7 to power the compressors required would soon deplete all our fossil fuel reserves to hardly begin keeping up with the task.

Gravity does it for free. Effortlessly. Not a joule expended. It just ‘uses the force’, Jedi Knight style. We don’t know how it does its gravity thing, not even Sir Isaac Newton did, but we’re glad it does what it does to surface air density, because that’s what keeps the surface of the planet a lot warmer than it would otherwise be. Gravity. It’s big, and it’s strong. Equivalent to many millions of Megawatts over the surface of Earth. Teamed up with 1360W/m^2 of sunlight pouring into the dayside of the planet’s atmosphere, they’re a hot proposition, raising the grey-body temperature at the surface by more than 100K according to new figures calculated by our friends Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller.

Compare and contrast with a trace gas in our atmosphere, carbon dioxide. Some people believe it acts to warm the surface of our planet, with the power of the longwave radiation it emits towards the ground. Others say it raises the effective height of emission of radiation to space to a cold place high in the sky, about 0.1km higher than it used to be before we emitted more of it over the last 60 years. They say the 90 parts per million increase is mostly responsible for the perhaps ~0.5K warming of the surface since 1950. It comprises 0.039% of the atmosphere, but can give the planet a fever. Reduce it by a mere 200 parts in a million they tell us, and we would face a big chill in ice age conditions.

I was tickled last week when I was browsing on the realclimate website and came across an exchange between our old friend Vukcevic and Gavin Schmidt, who pooh-poohed Vuk’s proposal for an effect on arctic circulation relating to changes in Earth’s magnetic field, another vastly powerful force. Gavin didn’t think the energy equivalent involved would be sufficient.
“Or do you have some magic mechanism?” he jibed “climate homeopathy perhaps?”

Et tu Gavin.

Greenhouse gases cool planets: Volcanos warm them

tallbloke — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:14:55 +0000

Thinking about the logical outcomes of Nikolov and Zeller’s ‘Unified Theory of Climate‘, a couple of ideas emerge which turn conventional climate science ‘wisdom’ on its head. It has long been believed that ‘greenhouse gases’ cause warming of the planet’s surface. While this may be true at the local level near the surface at certain times of day, I think I agree with Markus that the overall effect of ‘greenhouse gases’ is to cool planets. Here’s why:

Nikolov and Zeller have shown that by far the greatest influences on the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere are their distance from the Sun, and the pressure generated at the surface by gravity acting on atmospheric mass. Planets with more GHG’s relative to their surface pressure, like Mars, are cold relative to their distance from the Sun. Planets with less GHG’s relative to surface pressure like Earth and Venus are warm.

GHG’s are necessary for a planet with an atmosphere to be able to lose heat to space efficiently. This is because you can’t conduct heat to the near vacuum of space. There’s almost nothing to conduct it to. Likewise with convection. Convect into what? Nikolov and Zeller point out that planets and Moons with atmospheres tend to have precipitable gases. On earth, it’s water. On Titan, Methane. Phase change of these substances can be via evaporation or sublimation. The key point is, they transport heat up from the surface against the gravity well, through the pressure gradient, and radiate it to space. It’s similar to the way a household fridge works. Venus seems to be the exception, you’d need a substance with a boiling point above 460C there.

Onto the second half of my outrageous claims. (We’ll find out how wrong they are in comments )

Volcanos have been observed to cause cooling, according to the world’s most eminent climate scientists. As exemplars they hold up the recent big eruptions which have occurred during the space age when we have had better instrumentation to observe temperature response. However, a while back, I posted a thread showing that a lot of other big eruptions over the last 120 years didn’t cause cooling at a global scale. Also, Pinatubo coincided with a drop in solar activity, and global temperature had been on an upswing prior to the eruption anyway, and was about ready for a downswing looking at the general oscillation of ENSO in historical terms.

But all this focussing on the short term of which the climate science mainstream seems so fond is blinkering us to the bigger picture. Volcanos add mass to the atmosphere. On geological timescales, they add a lot of mass to the atmosphere. And more mass means more surface pressure. More surface pressure means less evaporation from the oceans, and higher surface temperatures. Now to some extent, you might think, these two might offset each other. This needs more investigation, perhaps through the study of the growth of rock formations in caves where dripping water forms speleothems.

One strong piece of evidence is the story told by the bones of pterosaurs. The body mass deduced from bone structure means that they shouldn’t have been able to fly. Katsufumi Sato, a Japanese scientist, did calculations using modern birds and decided that it is impossible for a pterosaur to stay aloft.^[31] In the book Posture, Locomotion, and Paleoecology of Pterosaurs it is theorized that they were able to fly due to the oxygen-rich, dense atmosphere of the Late Cretaceous period.[32 . We know there was plenty of volcanic activity back then, and so more atmospheric mass, greater surface pressure, and so greater air density. As Konrad’s experiment shows us, greater pressure and density in air subjected to sunlight causes higher temperature to evolve. The gas laws developed over the last 300 years tell us the same thing. From Guillaume Amontons at the start of the 1700′s, through JosephLouis Gay-Lussac and Stanislao Canizarro and on to the development of the ideal gas law, it has been well known for centuries that there is a fundamental relatiionship between pressure, mass by volume, and temperature.

But surface pressure on Earth has been falling for many millions of years, look at this graph I’ve poached from the Chiefio’s website:

This would seem to explain why there was sufficient plant life to sustain lots of big dinosaurs and why we have been though an ice age for the last few million years.

So what causes the drop in surface pressure?

Loss of atmosphere.

What causes loss of atmosphere?

Good question. Gases can be fixed by biological life and lost to the atmosphere in rock formation. The solar wind can get lairy from time to time. That might blow some of it away into space. Especially if Earth’s magnetosphere was weak at the time. As global cooling becomes the new global warming, maybe we’ll have to ban windmills because the back EMF from the turbine alternators is counteracting the Earth’s magnetic field… I can imagine that would have about the same effect as cutting co2 emissions.

That was the week that was: Personal perspective

tallbloke — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:20:09 +0000

Well! After a week which started with a bit of a laugh over something funny Gavin Schmidt said (more on that soon), things went rapidly downhill, with ~~Wyatt Erp~~ Willis Eschenbach getting “a bit gruffy” about my decision to prevent Joel the AGW phantasy phixated physicist from making the threads here “a bit ragged and Shore worn”. What this self proclaimed “climate heretic” wants with the sheriff’s job is beyond me. Who ever heard of heretics getting into law enforcement? Is it a case of “If you can’t beat em, join ‘em, and beat someone else up”?

The following day, the “reformed cowboy” let fly with another blast against Nikolov and Zeller, the two scientists who have wandered casually into the climate blogosphere with their interesting and promising ‘Unified Theory of Climate‘ first published here at the end of last year. They thought they would get a welcoming reception from the sceptical side of the climate community because their theory shows that ‘greenhouse gases’ don’t have a whole lot to do with warming planetary surfaces up. They didn’t expect that some of the most prominent ~~lukewarmers~~ guest posters on the world’s biggest climate site would completely misrepresent what they were saying and try to strangle the newborn babe and bury it pronto. Why would this be? they wondered. Don’t we all?

Meanwhile, old hand Hans Jelbring watched patiently and kept up work on his new paper, which the Talkshop proudly presented to the world on his behalf in the small hours (UK time) this morning. Konrad Hartmann conducted a simple and nicely executed experiment verifying N&Z’s theory section on atmopheric temperature enhancement. I’ve been seriously busy overseeing the culmination of two years work, and British Telecom screwed up my internet connection so I’m back to using a mobile phone and a netbook again.

Climate blog butterfly and troubador Markus spotted a nice quote from new WUWT guest post star Robert Brown (originally promoted here at the talkshop after a stonkingly interesting comment at WUWT), in which Robert seems to be retreating from his earlier hardline anti N&Z position. Willis of the wild west has had to swallow a couple of setbacks in his anti N&Z tirades too. A large number of WUWT commenters have given up in disgust and headed on over here for a pleasanter debate. They are welcome.

So where will it go from here? Nikolov and Zeller plan to publish the second part of their ‘response to comments’ here at the Talkshop in a week or so. Willis would rather crawl across broken glass to have red hot needles poked in his eyes than visit a site which has barred him from gobbing off there, so we might get a few days peace to consider it in too. Meantime, a few of the consequences of their theory are starting to emerge in the thoughts of out of the box thinkers like Harry Dale Huffman, Bill Gilbert, Lucy Skywalker, Wayne job and Stephen Wilde among many others. The future for climate science is looking clearer and brighter to me, thanks to the solid work of real scientists who remain unmoved by the hystrionics of amateurs whose pet theories are in danger of being made irrelevant. We wish them well with their plans for eventual journal publication and keep our door open to considerate airspace sharing people with genuine, thoughtful, and polite contributions to make.

Hans Jelbring: An Alternative Derivation of the Static Dry Adiabatic Temperature Lapse Rate

tallbloke — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:16:39 +0000

An Alternative Derivation of the Static Dry Adiabatic

Temperature Lapse Rate

Hans Jelbring

BSc, meteorologist, Stockholm University, Civil engineer, electronics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, PhD, institution of Paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University

Abstract

The ”static” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is derived for a hypothetical energetically isolated model atmosphere lacking advection and convection. The method of derivation is to investigate the energetic situation for two small equal atmospheric air masses at different altitudes in a vertical column of air. The difference of total energy between these masses is calculated. The ideal gas law is assumed to be valid. This derivation is just one version of several others but might be easier to understand for laymen. The adequate theory needed should have been learnt at high school in natural sciences.

Background

The “dynamic” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate can be and has been derived in different ways and it turns out to be dT/dz = –g/Cp* where g is the gravity constant and Cp* is the heat capacity of air at constant pressure. By “dynamic” it is meant that the derivation is based on following an energetically isolated “air parcel” of constant mass when moving vertically which is the reason for the epithet “dynamic”. One method to derive the result is to use the equation of state P = ρRT, take its total derivative and do a lot of calculus ( ref 1).

It has been shown by Jelbring 2003 (ref 2) that the an energetically closed planetary atmosphere under the impact of gravity which is allowed to come to rest for a long time (no winds and no temperature inversions) has to develop a “static” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate that is equal to the “dynamic” one mentioned above. That derivation rests on the use of first principle physics (1:st and 2:nd law of thermodynamics).

This derivation considers two air parcels of equal and suitable mass (a billion molecules) which have to carry an equal amount of total energy regardless of their altitude if an adiabatic condition is assumed. It seems that the proof delivered in reference 2 has been hard to understand both by professional scientists and by laymen. Hence, the major reason for writing this article using an alternative method for the derivation. This is to make it easier for anybody to grasp the physics behind the observed temperature (energy) structure that can be observed in our atmosphere and in an even more illuminating way in the Venusian atmosphere.

It is conceptually important to accept that the “dynamic” and “static” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rates are approximately identical. The kinetic (vertical) energy in the first one is very small compared to other energies involved and can be omitted. The existence of the “static” adiabatic temperature lapse rate directly implies that there has to be a substantial “Greenhouse Effect” (GE) on any real planetary atmosphere as long as there exists agents in the atmosphere that are able to emit IR radiation to space from altitudes above the surface of the planet. Observational evidence shows this to be the case in all known planetary atmospheres. These agents can be any solid or liquid matter suspended in the atmosphere (dust, clouds and salt particles) and also so called “greenhouse gases”.

Methodology

The energy states of two air parcels in a vertical air column with identical masses m1 = m0 and m2 = m0 at two locations (L1 and L2) are investigated. The altitudes of L1 and L2 is z1 and z2 where z2 > z1.m1 and m2 are carrying the total energies E1 and E2. ∆E = E1 – E2 is investigated and described with the help of mathematical formulae. The adiabatic relationship is found by setting ∆E = 0.

The following assumptions are made:

The atmosphere is energetically insulated.
There are no winds in the enclosed atmosphere.
The atmosphere consists of a mixture of ideal gases and the Ideal Gas Law is valid.
Gravity (g) is considered constant at L1 and L2.
Cp* = Cv* + R* The star indicates that the dimension is (Joule/(kg K)).

Cp* = 1004, R* = 287 and Cv* = 717 Joule/(kg K) in air.

Statement:

The static dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate dT/dz = – g/Cp* will develop in any model planetary atmosphere that is insulated from energy input and output at the surface and through a concentric spherical shell that surrounds the troposphere.

Proof:

The following equations describe the energy situation for m1 and m2 both equal to m0.

E2 = E1 + m0 g ∆z + m0 Cv* ∆T + (P1 V1 – P2 V2) ( 1)

∆E = m0 g ∆z + m0 Cv* ∆T + (P1 V1 – P2 V2) (2)

The first term at the right hand side is gravitational potential energy difference. The second term is the increase (actually decrease since ∆T is negative) in molecular kinetic energy and the third term is the change in work done on the atmosphere by m1 and m2 at the two static locations under consideration.

It follows from P1 V1 = m0 R* T1 and P2 V2 = m0 R* T2 that

(P1 V1 – P2 V2) = m0 R* (T1-T2) where ∆T = T1-T2. Enter this into equation (2) and we get

∆E = m0 g ∆z + m0 Cv* ∆T + m0 R* ∆T (3)

R* = Cp* – Cv* gives

∆E = m0 g ∆z + m0 Cv* ∆T + m0 Cp* ∆T – m0 Cv * ∆T or

∆E = m0 g ∆z + m0 Cp* ∆T (4)

The definition of an adiabatic energy situation is given by ∆E = 0 which leads to

g ∆z + Cp* ∆T = 0 or (5)

∆T/ ∆z = -g/Cp*

When ∆z goes to zero, ∆T/ ∆z goes to dT/dt. Therefore we get:

dT/dz = -g/Cp*; dT/dz = – 9.81/1004; dT/dz = -0.00978 K/m or 9.78 K/km

Some comments

It is obvious that the temperature profile at a specific location depends on latitude (solar insolation), orography, water vapour, tides and whether the surface happens to be land or ocean. In other words, the temperature profile at a specific location depends on several physical factors but the most important one is very probably the tendency for Earth’s (and the atmosphere of any planet) to seek an energetic equilibrium. This is what the existence of the static dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate shows and that is why it is important. On earth the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is best verified by observations during afternoons after a sunny day or in Antarctica where very strong katabatic winds prevail. In these situations dT/dz is close to -9.8 K/km. On the other hand the US 1976 Standard Atmosphere has a temperature lapse rate of -6.5 K/km under 10000 m altitude and is isothermal at the tropopause. Hence, the static dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is directly confirmed on earth during specific physical conditions that don´t always prevail. But it does evolve close to Earth’s surface every sunny day over land.

The absolute best observational evidence of the impact of “energy dissipation” according to the second law of thermodynamics is found in the Venusian atmosphere where the lapse rate is close to the theoretical adiabatic one from the surface to about 40 km altitude. The reason is simply its thickness which facilitates an approximate even total energy distribution per mass unit in its atmosphere, from the surface to its upper troposphere.

It has been known for a 100 years that the surface of Earth is warmer than it should have been if radiating as a “black body” into space. This is the reason why a “Greenhouse Effect” (GE) has been suggested. The accepted value of GE is 33 K which is used by NASA. The value can be challenged. There is no doubt that most of this effect can be traced to the physical process of energy/mass equalization in the atmosphere of earth. It follows from this insight that other physical processes affecting GE must have a relatively small impact. It is possible today to quantitatively examine how much of the GE is created by a number of physical processes but there is little initiative to do so since the cause of GE creation has been almost solely attributed to the impact of “greenhouse gases”. IPPC should be more than ashamed to translate a complex scientific climate problem into a reductionistic one variable political statement relating to the unproven danger of carbon dioxide increase in our atmosphere.

References:

Holton J.R., An Introduction to dynamic Meteorology, second edition, Academic Press, 1979, pp 47-49
Jelbring H. “The Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass.”, Energy & Environment, Vol 14, 2&3, 2003, 351-356