Back in late 2011, the Talkshop splashed the story on a ‘Unified Theory of Climate’ developed by PhD physicists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. They set out to show that the ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a phenomenon arising out of the absorption and reemission of outgoing long-wave radiation by the atmosphere (as thought for 190 years), but is a form of compression heating controlled by solar radiation and the total atmospheric pressure at the Earth’s surface. Pressure is in turn a product of the gas mass contained in a column of air above a unit surface area, and the planet’s gravitational effect on that mass.
It’s been a long and treacherous road involving many revisions and refinements of the original study. On several occasions the manuscript was rejected unread, but Ned and Karl have finally got their greatly improved and expanded paper published. This latest version is a tour de force strengthened by the rigors of criticism from an army of peer reviewers at several journals along the way.
Using dimensional analysis (a classical technique for inferring physically meaningful relationships from measured data), they show that the long-term global equilibrium surface temperature of bodies in the solar system as diverse as Venus, the Moon, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton can accurately be described using only two predictors: the mean distance from the Sun and the total atmospheric surface pressure. This type of cross-planetary analysis using vetted NASA observations has not been conducted by any other authors. It represents the first and only attempt in the history of climate science to assess Earth’s surface temperature in the context of a cosmic physical continuum defined by actual planetary-scale observations. The result is a new insight that planetary climates are independent of the infrared optical depth of their atmospheres arising from their composition, and that the long-wave ‘back radiation’ is actually a product of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.
The implications of this discovery are fundamental and profound! It turns out that gravity and the mass of a planetary atmosphere, rather than its composition, are the crucial factors in determining the uplift in temperature the surface enjoys compared to the temperature that the surface would have if there were no atmosphere above it. This means that human industrial activity cannot in principle affect the global climate, since we have no influence over the atmospheric mass.
Another implication is that the planetary albedo is largely an emergent property of the climate system rather than an independent driver of the surface temperature. A further key inference is that, on centennial timescales, Earth’s climate is rather stable, since the mass of the atmosphere changes relatively very slowly under the influence of solar wind and the gradual emissive and absorptive gas processes on Earth. Centennial variations of the cloud albedo on earth induced by fluctuations in solar magnetic activity are limited to surface temperature changes in the order of ±0.65 K. This is because of stabilizing negative feedbacks within the system (e.g. a reduction of cloud cover causes surface warming, which in turn tends to increase evapo-transpiration, thus promoting cloud formation).
Ned and Karl’s published study brings to the attention of researchers the role of atmospheric pressure as a direct controller of planetary surface temperature. Pressure has been misunderstood in climate science for well over a century. The current greenhouse theory only allows for an indirect effect of pressure on ground temperature through the atmospheric infrared opacity via absorption line broadening. This is despite the fact that, in classical thermodynamics, gas temperature is known to be closely dependent on gas pressure. For example, the diesel engine harnesses this dependence (a.k.a. the principle of compression heating) into a practical technology we’ve been enjoying for 120 years. These points are well explained in this latest version of the paper.
To further validate their new model, Ned and Karl have made predictions for the surface temperatures of celestial bodies which have not yet been studied close up by probes, but are scheduled to be visited over the coming two decades. Theories live and die on the success and failure of predictions made from them, so kudos goes to Ned and Karl for sticking their necks out!
This expanded and revised version of Ned and Karl’s theory is outstanding in its comprehensive treatment of the subject, citing over 130 previous papers from the scientific literature. I highly recommend you download and read it at your leisure to fully appreciate the profound implications it has for our understanding of the physics of planetary atmospheres and the near-surface thermal enhancement hitherto known as ‘the greenhouse effect’.
___________________________________________________
Full paper available here
Footnote for Willis Eschenbach:
Math-illiterate amateurs won’t be responded to again unless they get their criticism published in a journal. 🙂
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Thank you, Roger for the kind introduction!
We now have a full-blown alternative theory to the current Greenhouse (GH) hypothesis. Unlike the GH concept, however, our theory is based on vetted planetary observations spanning an enormous range of physical environments in the Solar System. The GH hypothesis began its life as a theoretical conjecture in 1827 that the atmosphere worked like “the glass of a hothouse” (see the writings of Fourier). Of course, we now know that this is completely erroneous … Yet, the core assumption of the GH hypothesis, namely that a free convective atmosphere could ‘trap’ radiant heat, has never been validated or demonstrated experimentally. Such a validation has been lacking for 190 years simply because heat-trapping by free gases is physically impossible in reality!
All those planets and moons saying the same thing. Looks good to me!
Good timing for the new N&Z paper…
Reuters: Trump to announce decision on global climate deal on Thursday
Trump said in a Twitter post on Wednesday night that he would make the announcement at 3 p.m. EDT (1900 GMT) on Thursday in the White House Rose Garden, ending his tweet with “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-climatechange-idUKKBN18S50O
Ned: It’s a pleasure and a privilege to work with scientists who take so much care over their work, and who stay true to their principles of free enquiry and open knowledge sharing. Congratulations to you and Karl for staying the course and getting this published.
Just as a small additional comment, Fourier himself was aware of a pressure effect on Earth’s near-surface temperature, but never found a way to quantify it. See the post I made here:
This observation coupled with your treatment of Holder’s inequality in your previous paper shows great insight:
“The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform“…”It is equally probable, that in respect to most of the planets, the temperature of the poles is little above that of the surrounding space, with respect to the temperature which each of these bodies owes to the sun, it is not known; because it may depend on the pressure of an atmosphere and the condition of the surface”
And this observation shows he had some idea of the ‘line broadening’ effect as well as the ‘direct pressure effect’:
“The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the ice of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light [Fourier understood that long wave ‘back radiation’ doesn’t heat the oceans!], which returns in a contrary direction to open space. The pressure of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same kind: but an effect, which, in the present state of the theory, and from want of observations compared with each other, cannot be exactly defined. Whatever it may be, we cannot doubt that the effect which should be attributed to the impression of the solar rays upon a solid body of very large dimensions, by far surpasses that which would be observed in exposing a common thermometer to the same rays”
Amazing insight for 1827!
OB: Yes indeed! This is the current ‘pinned tweet’ on my twitter page:
We believe in the independence of science from politics! Unfortunately, a purely physical problem such as Earth’s climate has inappropriately been converted into a ‘moral’ and ‘political’ issue by politicians and extreme environmentalists with tragic consequences as can be seen from the Billions of Dollars spent thus far to ‘save’ the planet based on a nothing more than a misconstrued science hypothesis from the 19th Century!
To understand the roots of physical misconception in the current Greenhouse theory I highly recommend reading these 3 classical papers (now available in PDF format):
1. Arrhenius S (1896) On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground (http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)
2. Callendar GS (1938) THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE (http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/callendar_1938.pdf)
3. Fourier JBJ (1827) On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. A translation of Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier’s ”M´emoire sur les Temp´eratures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Plan´etaires,” , which originally appeared in M´emoires d l’Acad´emie Royale des Sciences de l’Institute de France VII 570-604 1827.
(https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf)
None of these papers would have passed the modern standards of peer review and scientific rigor if they were to be submitted as new manuscripts today. Yet, these publications are being cited as the foundation of the current GH concept and the supposed human impact on global climate …
Roger,
I agree – Fourier had some intuitive insight about the direct effect of pressure on temperature, but he could not say more at that time, since this was about 25-30 years prior to the discovery of the Ideal Gas Law …
This has been my contention for years and I have described the physical processes involving conduction and convection in detail on multiple occasions on various blogs.
Stephen Wilde: We commend you for your early insights on this subject. Around that time, I was groping towards better understanding the ‘gravito-thermal pressure effect’ originally put forward by Loschmidt in the 1890s too. Ned and Karl have taken those ideas to the level of a fully defined and quantified theory, generalised to include celestial bodies across the solar system, and now published in the literature.
Be happy for them!
Hi Rog.
I’ll submit my most recent description of the physical process to you when I get back from the US next week.
Jo Nova has had it for a while but has not yet used it.
The observed greenhouse effect is a product of the delay in radiation to space of energy conducted from an irradiated surface to the mass of an atmosphere and then engaged in convective overturning of that mass.
It all involves that adiabatic energy loop that I proposed several years ago and you kindly published an early version here.
I am very happy that Ned and Karl have produced a theoretical proof.
Their theory and my practical description sit well together
Congratulations to N&Z for earlier today, on the Climate Projections thread, I linked to my findings that conclude essentially the same as N&Z but using the ‘Consensus’ numbers to do it. Obviously, I would be seen to be biassed but as far as I am concerned, back-radiation warming is demonstrably incorrect theory. The re-radiation, in and of all directions, derives from the effect and is not the cause.
I’ll put my link again here. I hope the diagrams assist.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/owmd2rp7f899hxx/Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf?dl=0
Ned and Karl have come up with something that even I, a self-professed innumerate, can understand. I am very happy that they have persevered in their effort to produce a new paradigm that not only makes sense but can be applied to any rocky planet anywhere! This is groundbreaking stuff and Ned and Karl deserve high praise for their effort!
PMK
Stephen: Great, I look forward to getting your updated article.
McNeil: Your article looks interesting. Maybe you could describe in a comment how your conclusion is “essentially the same as N&Z” as I don’t see an explicit treatment of atmospheric pressure there. The article seems to be a discussion of a modified radiative greenhouse theory?
McNeil,
We arrived at the conclusion that the ‘greenhouse back’ radiation is a result of the atmospheric thermal effect (ATE) rather than a cause for it based on on our Fig. 4.
Be careful with using the effective emission temperature (Te = 255 K) in any analysis, because this is a non-physical quantity with respect to a sphere. The thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is not 33 K, but 90.4 K. This is explained in our 2014 paper:
“On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect” (https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723)
Results from that study are also used in our current paper.
There are a number of fundamentally new elements in our study that need to be carefully examined in order to grasp correctly … 🙂
So did gravity change during the ice age
Sorry to introduce a politics element to the thread again, but there’s this: 🙂
UPDATE And now this!
I will believe it when President Trump actually says it.
He should be rushed a copy of this paper to help him make up his mind.
Ned Nikolov,
Thank you for looking at my post. I have used the ‘Consensus’ numbers because back radiation is the consensus theory. I perform no calculations at all but describe the mechanism of surface warming that can be supported by the links I give. It was intended for general consumption.
Tallbloke,
Thank you for hosting. Perhaps ‘essentially’ is the wrong word. Possibly ‘specifically’ is more accurate as I conclude that the ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is no different from the omnidirectional re-radiation that permeates the troposphere as a result of greenhouse gases. It is that radiation which dictates atmospheric volume. It does not add to surface flux.
Then there is augmentation of GE. That occurs because of emissivity changes. Radiative imbalance during augmentation is accommodated by volume changes, not surface flux changes.
I don’t pretend to a new theory but to a critique of the existing one pointing out its flaws in logic.
Anyhoo, this is the N&Z thread.
My apologies for my exuberance.
McNeil: No problem, welcome here.
There a link to a live feed of the announcement on Paris at 8pm in this comment
Ned, Karl and Tallbloke, Thanks. Consider my ice cycles, I do not believe your theory is at odds with my theory. I think they play together.
How does this paper square with Jupiter? gravity 24.79 m/s2, Does the temperature follow the pressure gradient to the observed lower depths of the atmosphere?
Jupiter is a gas giant, the paper specifically excludes gas giants because they don’t work like rocky planets.
Water vapor, however, has a strong influence on the periodic changes in troposphere temperatures associated with El Niño. Temperature changes of the tropopause show that the troposphere expands during El Niño.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Currently troposphere is shrinking.
dscott: The paper deals with rocky planets and moons, not the gas giants, which don’t have an identifiable surface.
Yes, correct. The new planetary temperature model ONLY applies to surface conditions. There is a discussion in the paper that specifically warns not to apply the new relationship to predict vertical temperature changes in a planet’s free atmosphere!
OMG! finally real science brought to the discussion.
I’d read similar theories from well educated men and women in the last couple years. I’m glad to see a rigorous paper on it. The whole greenhouse idiocy was patently stupid. The Mid Tropospheric hot spot has NEVER appeared for instance (and never will, of course).
What a breath of fresh air. I wondered what happened with the N&Z hypothesis and now I know. I have been a proponent of the gravity/mass pressure explanation for planetary atmospheric surface temperature profiles for almost a decade. I will read the new paper and hopefully comment later. Hans Jelbring should also be pleased.
There is probably a similar relationship between pressure and temperature at the gravitational centre of a gaseous body but that is beyond the scope of the current discussion.
There is some evidence that external irradiation from a sun is not then necessary, merely the fact that the temperature of the external universe is above absolute zero which is enough to allow accumulation of kinetic energy within the mass of a convecting body of gas held together by gravity.
That would explain how suns can be born within gas clouds in space.
Well, yes. I have seen gas giant data that shows the same lapse T characteristics as rocky planets/moons. Gas laws rule! And no reason why not. Measurements have been taken from the Voyagers onwards, with no significant disagreement about ATE. Only the GHE mob lacked even that knowledge. IIRC, it can be found here, and at Hockeyschtick etc..
This can also refer to the higher layers of the atmosphere, as long as it is thick enough. Can you calculate the temperature for example at 1000 hPa on other planets?
Ned,
I’m a great admirer of your work and have independently replicated your calculations for the Atmospheric Thermal Effect. It certainly does create a paradigm shift in thinking about the Earth’s temperature. Extending this to pressure effects across other bodies in the solar system comes as no great surprise to me since the ATE depends on surface-atmosphere heat transfer and both conductive and radiative transfers are pressure dependent. The overall heat capacity of the atmosphere is also pressure dependent.
I do, however, question your statement on section 4.3, ‘Since convection (and especially the moist one) is orders of magnitude more efficient in transferring energy than LW radiation …. As ready support for my difference I point out that at in the upper troposphere radiative transfer takes over completely and copes fine in transporting energy to space.
My strongest support would come from my recent calculations for the Radiative Delay Effect which show that rather than ‘trapping’ heat the radiative gasses just slow its exit a little, but these results are yet to be reviewed. They would provide a simple explanation for why you find RGs to play no significant role.
Regardless, one thing that can be confidently stated is that the use of the words ‘opacity’ and ‘optical depth’ to describe atmospheres containing RGs is incorrect. They only apply to inactive absorbers. Our atmosphere is awash with collision induced IR which shifts heat in all directions. Rather than being ‘opaque’ it is better viewed as ‘luminescent’ and ‘translucent’.
dai
Ned Nikolov,
Your graph, reproduced in the headpost here, shows a ratio of Ts/Tna ranging from 1.0 to >3
where;
Ts is defined as Global Mean Annual Near Surface Temperature (the dependent variable).
Tna is defined as average surface temperature.
I believe the resultant plot to be for planets in equilibrium conditions. If so, would not Ts/Tna = 1.0 in all cases? I ask this as Tna is the source of all IR radiation and Ts (when radiative gases are present) the recipient of that IR?
Additionally, as Ts>Tna, it would appear that ‘back radiation’ is warming the surface?
Look at the pattern for the gas pressure. As the pressure grows faster than the density, the temperature rises.
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/pressure.html
This in an excellent piece of work, I have skipped through the paper and it looks very thorough, I will read in detail later. As has been pointed out this builds upon ideas that have been mentioned before, going back as far as Loschmidt in the 1870s but also involving others like Stephen Wilde, R Graeff, Doug Cotton & others.
Although the science is most interesting what I would like to comment on now is how these ideas have been treated in the past. There has, with very few exceptions, been a considerable degree of outright rejection and even censorship withing the Anti-AGW camp as I call it. For blog sites who claim to want to look at the AGW theory with the proper scientific method this is abhorrent.
I have had my own comments censored when mentioning the gravitationally induced temperature gradient theory at even the renowned site of WUWT. Apparently even suggesting “No GHG” is a sin in certain areas which makes the Anti-AGWs look as “religious” as the Pro-AGWs.
Tallbloke blog was marked down as one of the sites a bit more open to these ideas (IIRC you banned Doug Cotton because he was obnoxious!) and I did recently suggest you could be a trend setter on this topic by being different and open to these type of theories. Well done Roger !
What will be VERY interesting is how the Anti-AGW blog-sphere handles this news. I suspect it will be ignored or continue to be censored. It would be very easy to do so for them, after all its just publication of a scientific paper. The existence of this new theory needs as much publicity as possible. So I ask all readers, if you partake in other blog site discussions, please raise the issue and try and get a discussion going. Most of these Ant-AGW sites do have some open minded highly qualified scientists/engineers as members and we just need to get a few of these clever people involved to get really useful discussions going.
If someone (the authors?) can get a copy to teh Donald (with summary/covering letter) that might be very useful to.
In other words, the intensity of solar radiation on the surface changes the gas pressure at the surface at constant density.
To: McNeil
Ts is the equilibrium GMAT of a planet with an atmosphere.
Tna is the equilibrium GMAT of a planet without an atmosphere (the subscript na means ‘no atmosphere‘).
The dimensionless ratio Ts/Tna defines the Relative Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (Effect) or RATE. It is a new definition of the ‘greenhouse effect’ if you will. By this definition, Ts/Tna >= 1.0.
These definitions are very clearly explained in the paper!
I urge everyone interested in the subject to please carefully read the full paper before making conclusions. There is a lot of new information and terminology in our article that requires a careful and perhaps repeated examination in order to fully grasp …
ren says: “… the intensity of solar radiation on the surface changes the gas pressure at the surface at constant density”
I’m afraid this is incorrect! The average surface atmospheric pressure on a planet is set (defined) by the mass of the atmospheric column above a unit area and the gravitational acceleration. So, the average surface pressure does not depend on solar radiation! Instead, the air density changes as a result of solar heating – a higher rate of heating causes lower density as the atmosphere expands upward, while a weaker heating leads to higher density as the atmosphere shrinks … The difference in solar heating is the main reason that Titan’s lower troposphere has nearly 5 times the density of Earth’s lower troposphere (of course, another contributing factor is Titan’s 50% higher pressure, but this is of secondary importance).
Ned Nikolov,
My apologies. In an attempt to get an idea of the paper I looked first at the graphic of its conclusion then for a definition of its axes. The first mention of Tna is “The second method attempts to estimate the average surface temperature of a planet (T na )…” My bad.
Your paper is mathematically intense by my measure of that and I prefer to think in terms of relationships which then can lead to diagrams. However;
1. I completely concur that re-radiated energy within an atmosphere is effect and not cause of the so called GE. This alone blows the GCM’s out of the water.
2. If the so called GE is ~ 90degK by correctly applying geometry and S-B then so be it. That temperature occurs, in the Standard Atmosphere, at ~ 78km, well above the stratosphere. If correct, as comment 1.
3. Well, we all wait on that one!)
I consider that it is interesting to consider the gas giants, even if they have no planetary surface akin to the rocky surface of a planet like planet Earth.
When considering gas giants, the first question to consider is to what depth does solar irradiance penetrate the atmosphere?
If solar does not penetrate the atmosphere to a very deep depth, it is unlikely that solar becomes a significant player in the temperature profile of the atmosphere of the gas giant at any significant depth. However, the atmosphere is still warm, and it gets warmer with depth. What does that tell us?
In these circumstances, it is likely that the temperature of the atmosphere is more driven from conditions below, powered upwqards through conduction and convection, than from solar at the TOA.
After all Jupiter is a bit like a cold sun giving off about twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. This is thought to be due to the slow/partial gravitational collapse of the mass of its atmosphere, and that in itself indicates that gravity and resultant pressure impacts upon the temperature of a gaseous atmosphere, and there is no reason why this is not always the case irrespective of whether the planet is a gas giant or not. It is just that the effects are more noticeable with the greater gravity of a gas giant and/or the greater density of its atmosphere.
To me, the radiative model that excludes this phenomenon is suspect, especially as we see this phenomenon at work here on planet Earth with the lapse rate. There appears to be a failure to fully appreciate the gravitational convective nature of the Earth’s atmosphere and the impact that this has on surface temperature of our planet.
The funny thing is that when I was young, my dad always told me that the reason why Venus was so hot at the surface was due to the pressure of its atmosphere, and the reason that Mars was so cold at its surface was because it did not have an atmosphere.
The climate is not stable and can change from glacial to inter glacial conditions rather fast at times how do they explain that?
Dr. Spencer does not agree wit this theory . I am with him on this issue.
Ned Nikolov
It seems that the temperature changes in tropopause confirm your words.
Let’s see the temperature chart of tropopause. Clearly visible are increases in ENSO. Trend 0.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Regards.
Ned Nikolov says:
June 2, 2017 at 8:27 am
How does gravity cause a thermal gradient in the atmosphere?
You say
The average surface atmospheric pressure on a planet is set (defined) by the mass of the atmospheric column above a unit area and the gravitational acceleration.
You say pressure is set by mass and gravity
By that I take it you mean air pressure is caused by weight. This is the consensus theory of air pressure.
Mechanism
Gravity + mass—weight- -pressure–temp
You also say
So, the average surface pressure does not depend on solar radiation! Instead, the air density changes as a result of solar heating – a higher rate of heating causes lower density as the atmosphere expands upward, while a weaker heating leads to higher density as the atmosphere shrinks
The mechanism is
Solar heat+ gravity-density-temp
You appear to describe two different mechanisms for how gravity causes temperature. There can only be one mechanism.
I support solar heat+ gravity–density–temp
McNeil: 2. If the so called GE is ~ 90degK by correctly applying geometry and S-B then so be it. That temperature occurs, in the Standard Atmosphere, at ~ 78km, well above the stratosphere.
The thermal enhancement at Earth’s surface due to the presence of its atmosphere is 90K but I’m not sure why you would want to link that with the altitude at which the absolute temperature is 90K? As Ned said earlier, the theory shouldn’t be applied to trying to understand the vertical temperature profile of an atmosphere.
Salvatore: The climate is not stable and can change from glacial to inter glacial conditions rather fast at times how do they explain that? Dr. Spencer does not agree with this theory . I am with him on this issue.
I’m not sure anyone has a convincing theory for this change, particularly from interglacial to glacial while the CO2 level continues rising for a couple of thousand years as temperatures fall. What is Dr Spencer’s hypothesis for that? If he doesn’t have one, then how good a position is he in to be criticising someone else’s theory for not having one either?
I have sent a message via the White House contact page to Scott Pruitt and President Trump:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Congratulations to Scott Pruitt and President Donald Trump for their sensible approach to the Paris agreement.
In support of their position, I would like to draw their attention to a new physics paper published yesterday, hours before their announcement.
It details a new theory demonstrating that the so called ‘greenhouse effect’ is in fact due to the mass and pressure of the atmosphere, not the so called ‘greenhouse gases’ in it. The implication is that industrial and agricultural emissions by humans cannot be the cause of any change in the surface temperature on Earth.
A summary of the paper and a link to it can be found on my website at this address.
Please could this message be passed to Scott Pruitt who is in a position to ask some of the physicists at the EPA to read and assess this groundbreaking new research.
Thank you, and God bless America
Roger Tattersall BA(hons)Hist/Phil Science.
Ned Nikolov PhD
Karl Zeller PhD
NN. “The thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is not 33 K, but 90.4 K.”
TB “The thermal enhancement at Earth’s surface due to the presence of its atmosphere is 90K but I’m not sure why you would want to link that with the altitude at which the absolute temperature is 90K?”
0degC + 15degC – 90degC = -75degC = 198degK which occurs at ~ 78km.
I am assuming that the thermal enhancement is that quantity above (a differently calculated) S-B radiant temperature?
Roger,
This is a great message to the White House and Scott Pruitt. Thank you!
Could the difference between 33k and 90k be accounted for by the kinetic energy originally conducted from the surface which is thereafter stored by convection in the vertical column but in potential energy form?
To Salvatore Del Prete:
The fact that Dr. Spencer does not understand the direct effect of atmospheric pressure on Earth’s global temperature does not invalidate our results and conclusions. Physical science is based on observed data and sound mathematical analyses, not on personal opinions! I’m sure that Dr. Spencer will change his mind after reading the latest version of our paper… I have already sent him an email with a link.
Richard,
I was also taught in the 1950s that the surface temperature differences for Venus,Earth and Mars were due to their different atmospheric masses and pressures.
Since nobody retains old textbooks I have been unable to find sources but some may come to light if the issue now comes properly into play instead of being suppressed.
Roger Clague
“The relationship between pressure, density and temperature explains what happens when a small mass of air is heated above the temperature of its surroundings. When air is heated (and this may be due to the transfer of sensible heat, radiative energy, or latent heat), the molecules in the air move more rapidly. They therefore exert a greater push on the surrounding, cooler air. In other words, they exert a slightly greater pressure on the surrounding air than the surrounding air exerts on the heated air. On small spatial scales, there this little to resist this excess pressure, with the result that the heated air expands to locally restore the pressure balance. That is, the heated air attains a lower density as the result of the initial heating.
This is described by the equation p = R r T in the following way:
The rapid equalisiation of pressure means that we can regard the pressure as constant.
Since the term R is also a constant for any gas, we can write: r x T = constant
In turn, this means that for higher temperatures, the density is lower.”
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/pressure.html
This is happening with the water vapor over the equator.
In the north and south ozone is visible, above the equator water vapor.
To wildeco2014:
The 90 K absolute thermal enhancement of Earth’s atmosphere is a result of both pressure (i.e. air compression) and solar irradiance. Pressure only determines the RELATIVE enhancement (RATE), which for Earth is about 1.46. RATE does not change with solar irradiance, but the absolute ATE magnitude does! This is explained on p. 14 in subsection Effect of pressure on temperature of the paper .
Again, please read the entire paper. You will find answers to pretty much all questions related to GMAT … Thank you!
Ned,
I am banned from Roy’s site for putting forward the pressure effect so I will be pleased if he listens to you.
Water vapor in action.
Who would be daft enough to believe that a planets temperature was a result of atmospheric composition and not Atmospheric Mass, Pressure and changes to the atmosphere by forces acting upon it, Names please!! lol 😛
I have a question, (more of a helpful thought) is there an inverse relationship between the ‘rocky mass’ and the ‘atmospheric mass’ of a planetary body? if there is more ‘atmospheric mass’ than ‘rocky mass’ wouldn’t the planetary surface appear to be cooler than the atmosphere thus giving the impression that a planet is cooler than it is supposed to be? The planet Uranus comes to mind…
Ned
Is my point inconsistent with your paper?
The ATE is split between increasing surface temperature and supporting the weight of the atmosphere off the surface so one can apply it as to 33k surface temperature enhancement plus 60 k in potential energy form spread up along the lapse rate slope
Sparks,
It is really unknown whether or not the ‘gas giants’ have a rocky core. Some say they do …
Granted…. Pressure of an atmosphere & Distance from it’s Star….. But….. I’d think composition of That Planet’s atmosphere should also be of significance…… When it refers to tempature. Different elements have different melting tempatures….. & That would effect pressure & tempature of an atmosphere on any given planet. Change the composition of a planet’s atmosphere….. You change the pressure & tempatures….. Regardless of distance from the Sun……
Actually, Ned, perhaps I should suggest that the other 60k is spread along the lapse rate slope in kinetic form thus creating the slope in the first place?
Does that square with your work?
wildeco2014:
The 33 K GE quoted in textbooks is in reality a mathematically wrong estimate totally devoid of any physical meaning. We demonstrate this beyond doubt in our 2014 SpringerPlus paper. So, one cannot really use this estimate with any physical reasoning …
itisabigbiguniverse: change the composition of an atmosphere and you will change its mass. According to this theory, it’s the change in mass which will change the temperature, not the composition. However, given that all planets in the study lie on the curve defined by pressure and distance from the Sun, regardless of atmospheric composition, it is concluded that emergent properties such as albedo take care of compositional differences.
wildeco2014 says: June 2, 2017 at 2:41 pm
“Since nobody retains old textbooks I have been unable to find sources but some may come to light if the issue now comes properly into play instead of being suppressed.”
Can I suggest that you contact Tim Cullen at https://malagabay.wordpress.com/ as I know he has dug up some original Atmospheric information that may help you with that.
As you say it was the excepted view in those days.
Thess are some of very many old texts he has come across.
Per Ice Age Glacials:
It’s the water….
End stage glacials are verydry dusty times. Less water vapor means less pressur from less mass. Similarly, end stage glacial has surface of glaciers a couple of miles higher and surface of ocean 100s of meters lower. Both the pressures and surfaces changed.
It might be an interesting proof of sorts if the new theory predicted the recorded temps under those conditions… might not be enough data to calculate all the surface values, though…
To E.M.Smith:
We are already moving in this direction. We have developed a new numerical hypothesis for the cause of the Ice Ages, and yes, it does appear that periodic changes in total atmospheric mass and pressure have been the actual drivers of glacial-interglacial cycles. These results will be presented in one of our follow-up papers … Stay tuned!
Great work!
I appreciate the fact that this paper is the beginning of an understanding of Earth’s temperature variations over geologic time, and that subsequent papers will explore the ice ages and more transient temperature changes. But the reader is left with little at the moment to go on in understanding the causes of transient temperature changes in this new theory. Perhaps some speculation might help here? Just what and how much of the two factors, distance from the Sun and atmospheric pressure, OR other minor factors might cause the somewhat regular ice ages and interglacials. Perhaps there is room here for some Milankovitch and other factors?
To Sidney Somes:
Our analysis suggests that Ice-Age cycles have most likely been caused by periodic variations in total atmospheric mass and surface pressure. We have a strong (although indirect) evidence supporting this hypothesis. Known orbital changes in Earth’s obliquity (axis tilt) and eccentricity (a.k.a. Milankovich cycles) have immeasurably small effects on Earth’s global annual average temperature. The big task is identifying the actual mechanisms for accelerated removal of atmosphere from the top during Earth’s descent into an Ice Age and for a rapid replenishment of atmosphere (apparently through nitrogen production in the mantle) during deglaciation periods. We suspect that both removal and replenishment of atmosphere are driven by the magnetic and electric activity of the Sun, but how exactly is unknown at the moment.
In general, variations in Earth’s climate are caused by changes in cloud cover and cloud albedo on time scale of decades to centuries, and by changes in total atmospheric mass and pressure on time scales of thousands to millions of years. The albedo-induced changes are rather small, while the pressure-caused changes can be quite large (up to 17-19 C in global temperature). The 1.2-1.4 C global warming observed since 1650 is likely caused by a Sun-induced decline in planrtary albedo in the amount of 1.2% – 1.4% due to a reduction in cloud cover…
A mile or two of ice puts the surface 5000 to 10000 ft more elevation. Once the ice starts to build, due to Milancovitch changes, it is warm ocean, lots of vapor so high mass flow building ice. Each addition of ice raises height, lowers temperatures, and lowers the vapor in the air, so colder still. Repeat until a mile or two of ice, very dry and very cold sir at the poles, and ocean 100s of feet lower.
Low sea level means high temperatures equatorially (more land absorbing heat, more inland distances warmer. More atm height at equatorial shores, the inverse of less atm height (higher ice) at the poles.
The Glacial period is making poles higher and colder, equatorial lower and warmer, but the average doesn’t change much… until… so much CO2 is removed and the air is cold enough to be dried out so much that we see enormous dust storms in the ice. Thin dry air, huge deserts, life only in small areas.
At the interglacial inception the feedbacks reverse. Dust makes the ice darken. Lack of plants lets volcanic CO2 build up. Likely SO2 as well. Air starts getting more dense. Summers at the north pole are longer. Ice formation turns to ice melt. Humidity rises. Lower polar height causes more precip as rain not snow. Sea level rise lifts the starting point of mean sea level. The melt moves rapidly as all these feedbacks build and rain causes glacial calving while sea level rise unground Arctic ice. Much higher mass flow rate out as burgs than in as snow…
I’ve left out some details, but that ought to be the big lumps. Things like increased foliage causing more humidity and forest darker than desert. More ocean surface area raising humidity too.
I looked into the atmospheric temperature profiles of planets/moons in this solar system back around 2009. If my memory serves me well what I found was: at a depth into each atmosphere such that the gas pressure is equivalent to “1 standard earth atmosphere” the temperature is essentially the same as the average of the earths surface temp. How do greenhouse gases know how to do that?
To E.M.Smith:
This is a nice poetic picture of how Ice-Age cycle might have developed, but unfortunately it is not what the data reveal! For example, temperature proxies have revealed that, during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) some 21,000 years ago, the Equator was 4-6 C colder than it is today despite the fact that it remained far from the thick ice sheets present at higher latitudes in the NH and possible SH as well. This is opposite of what you suggest … Ice Ages were forced phenomena rather than caused by internal feedback mechanisms. For instance, the ice-albedo feedback, you propose, cannot explain the magnitude of the observed climatic shifts in the geological record. Researchers have tried this in numerical models and it does not work … Results from our analysis also indicate that ice-age cycles were NOT driven by internal feedbacks.
It is worth remembering that the amount of CO2 strongly depends on the growing seasons. The map clearly shows that the amount of CO2 is now lower in the southern hemisphere, but it is beginning to decrease in the north.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
It can be said that the mass of CO2 is controlled by the range of vegetation of algae and plants.
It was my intention to waste no more time on “Climate Science” given that it is more about politics than a search for truth.
However, N&Z impress me with their zeal, intellectual honesty and love of equations. My job jar now includes an “in depth” analysis of their new paper. In earlier work (Unified Theory of Climate) they made a good case for the idea that atmospheric composition is unimportant compared to total atmospheric pressure.
While I was impressed by N&Z’s Unified Theory of Climate I disagreed with their conclusion that our moon’s average surface temperature was 154 K. Finite Element Analysis shows that the average surface temperature should be 42 K higher:
In “Off Line” correspondence Ned Nikolov, Tyler Robinson, Scott Denning and several others are close to agreement on the issue of our moon’s surface temperature. However, what they say in public is up to them but my estimate remains 196 K.
wildeco2014 says, June 2, 2017 at 2:31 pm
“Could the difference between 33k and 90k be accounted for by the kinetic energy originally conducted from the surface which is thereafter stored by convection in the vertical column but in potential energy form?”
“Consensus” science says that the GHE is 33 K. Everyone agrees that the Earth’s average temperature is 288 K so the interesting question is what would Earth’s temperature be “Sans Atmosphere”?
“Consensus Scientists” calculate 255 K as the temperature of an airless Earth using impeccable mathematics. It follows that the GHE is 288 – 255 = 33 K.
“Consensus Scientists” made the unrealistic assumption that an airless Earth would be at a uniform temperature.
So what is a realistic assumption? Thanks to the Diviner Lunar Radiation Experiment we know that the moon’s average temperature is 197.3 K. That would be the temperature of an airless Earth if it rotated at the same rate as the moon and if its surface was made of regolith (moon dust).
At least five people including this camel and the late Tim Channon have independently modeled the moon’s surface temperature with excellent accuracy. My model came out at 196 K or roughly 1 K lower than the Diviner observations. I used my model to answer questions such as:
1. What would the moon’s temperature be if it rotated in 24 hours?
2. How would the temperature change if the moon’s surface was ice instead of regolith?
My model estimates the average temperature of an airless regolith covered Earth as 209 K. For an icy surface the temperature should be 234 K. So my GHE estimate is 79 K (regolith) or 54 K (ice). I have no idea how that 90 K GHE was calculated.
I apologize for debunking the elegant theories of “Consensus Scientists”…….reality can be messy.
@Ned:
Presenting complex trends over time in a bistable oscillator in a couple of paragraphs is prone to poor presentation and difficult reception. I’ll try to correct that.
I meant to say (and thought I said) that at the start of a glacial episode the oceans and tropics are warm. Initial ice buldup from polar deposition would lower sea levels while raising up poles, piling more mass and depth over the equator, warming it a little, and driving more precipitation mass flow to the poles, a positive feedback. Some time later, with much high mass of ice at the poles, the whole globe will cool. CO2 stripping and water vapor removal dropping atmospheric mass and pressure. Like the way you first lean a bike the “wrong way” to enter a turn the other. End state much cooler, drier, and lower CO2. Initial state warmer, wetter, higher CO2. Transition initiation having a warm pulse at the equator and cold swap at the poles.
Much like Heinrich Events preceed cold drops. Warm swapping to cold.
Interglacial initiation is caused by Milancovitch state warming the North Pole enough to start melting. Then many positive feedbacks enhance the melt including ongoing insolation 65 N gains .
Yes, of course it is a forced cycle. The data shows it is and Milancovitch worked out the why of it. Longer summers at the north pole is the only thing that exits us from a glacial. 100% driven by planet orbit and tilt mechanics.
BUT there are many positive feedbacks driving the hysteresis both ways. Albedo adds some. Ice grounding during glacial inception blocking warm water arctic polar melting is another (And ungrounding to cause rapid melt on interglacial inception going the other way). Precipitation as snow on the coldening, but turning to rain during warming trends. Vegetation interactions with albedo and humidity another. Dust storms of massive size as you approach glacial maximum shifting albedo to absorbe more being a hysteresis switch element waiting for TSI 65N to rise enough. Ocean current rearrangement (a major hysteresis contributor- Florida warms when Europe cools as the Gulf Streem backs up heat in the Gulf of Mexico. Grimm 2006 IIRC) Eventually Florida joins the long term cooler trend, but at the start, it has winters take on Summer pattern for thunderstorms and pollens.
No one feedback or effect driving the system, but all interacting with arctic summer heating to form the bistable latch. Part of which will also be the air density effects. All on different time scales too. 3000 year lags on ocean heat, but only a few years lag on Gulf Stream rearrangement. 100000 years of mass flow to reach max ice, but only centuries to melt most of it.
The common light switch demonstrates these properties. It takes some external push to reach the switching point, but then feedbacks cause it to THUNK on over and stay there. There is a metastable point in the middle where it can flop either way. Florida lake pollens and other proxies show the Gulf Stream (as one example) has a more stable mode during interglacials, but then goes unstable with just modest cooling, allowing the rapid switch to cold state currents.
Such natural switch hysteresis systems are the bistable latch, but Milancovitch is the finger switching it. It isn’t a question of forced vs feedbacks. It is modest forced on hysteresis feedbacks.
Looking for the one cause will never work. They all contribute. Including air composition changes and relative depth over poles and equator, tide changes in ocean mixing and air tides (varies eith 1600 and 5000 year lags).
But what is of interest in the context of the pressure temperature thesis in the top post is the question of how closely that thesis accounts for the glacial temperature vs interglacial variation at the end points. Is enough mass of CO2 and water vapor removed to account for the equatorial temperature drop at the end stage glacial? Is enough put back in to keep the interglacial going after the Milancovitch properties move away from arctic polar melt? Like now, when we are metastsble on Milancovitch. (At present, we lack the TSI 65 N to exit from a glacial state, but are still interglacial, so if the arctic ever stays ftozen through summer, it’s over and we stay frozen, in theory anyway, then those feedbacks build up the ice and the switch goes THUNK to glacial) So is it just humid and CO2 rich air keeping the switch from flopping?
GC: The 2014 paper has T moon at 197.3K
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723 Equation 13
To gallopingcamel:
The 90 K atmospheric thermal effect on Earth is calculated as a difference between Earth’s present global mean temperature (287.4 K) and the average surface temperature (197.3) that the Earth would have in the complete absence of an atmosphere assuming surface optical and thermo-physical properties of the lunar regolith, i.e. 287.4 – 197.3 = 90.1 K.
For the proper method of calculating the average surface temperature of airless spherical bodies, see Volokin and ReLlez (2014):
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
as well as section Reference temperatures and reference pressure starting on p. 3 in the current paper (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf).
Note the discussion in Volokin and ReLlez (2014) about the effect of rotation speed on global temperature – spin rate has NO impact on a planet’s global AVERAGE temperature! This is also supported by the fact that bodies representing a wide range of spin rates (i.e. Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan and Triton) fall on a single curve as illustrated in Fig. 4 in the current paper…
Real-world data indicate that the widely held belief about spin-rate impact on global temperature is actually a myth!
The spin rate question needs more discussion here. I was privy to the offline discussions GC refers to but was heavily distracted with political campaigning at the time. Scott denning’s model which produced big changes in T with spin rate didn’t seem right to me and he never replied to a basic observation I made showing it was flawed.
I don’t recall seeing a description or output from Galloping Camel’s model. As I recall, he too was busy with other things for a longish period and this got lost in the flow. I hope he might have the time to give us an article on his spin rate model some time soon.
Ned’s argument that there’s no way all the planet’s average surface Temps would line up neatly on the fig4 curve at the head of the post if spin rate affected T appears persuasive, as does the conservation of energy argument:
“The Law of Energy Conservation dictates that a change in rotational speed may only affect the magnitude of the diurnal temperature amplitude at the surface but not the diurnal mean, i.e. rotation solely acts to redistribute the total available energy between daytime and nighttime hemispheres through the planet’s thermal inertia.”
The only counterargument to this I can think of is that a slowly rotating body will get hotter on the day side and that will make it emit more radiation back to space at a T^4 rate. But there again, the slower rotation will lead to greater heating and retention of energy at depth which might counteract that higher emission by keeping the surface warmer in the twilight zone?
Regarding the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions, it’s worth noting in relation to spin rate that piling ice up in the polar regions and reducing sea level by ~130m is going to make the Earth spin faster. According to GC’s model, that would make the Earth warmer, a negative feedback to whatever forcing produces glacial epochs.
I agree with tallbloke’s points above … We should always keep in mind that anytime there is a disagreement between a model (a theory) and actual observations, it is the theoretical model that needs to be questioned and reexamined, not the observations!
How do major changes in the Earth’s magnetic field fit in to the long term picture? Thinking of cloud variation.
dai
@dai davies:
We do not know the exact answer to this question yet. Earth’s magnetic field definitely has an impact on galactic cosmic rays (GCR) reaching the troposphere. Since in general this field is stronger in equatorial regions that at the poles, GCR tend to have a stronger impact on cloud cover at higher latitudes than in the tropics. BUT this is an ongoing research with no well-formulated concept available thus far…
BTW, studying the impact of solar activity and Earth’s magnetic field on the long-term cloud dynamics and planetary albedo is precisely where climate research Dollars ought to be spent, not on ‘greenhouse-gas’ monitoring and/or the development of climate models based on a wrong radiative paradigm!
The paper is very interesting, but the real problem is that we only have 3 bodies with any significant atmospheric pressure against which to test this theory.
It is unfortunate that the Moon, Mars and Triton are not that helpful.
Perhaps one should not overlook that there is a school of thought that at the time of the dinosaurs, when the planet was far warmer than today, some contend that the atmosphere pressure was significantly higher than today. If so, this begs the question, was atmospheric pressure responsible for the temperature?
There are biological reasons to do with blood flow, and also to enable flight of giant pterosaurs that supports a view that the atmosphere pressure was far more way back then.
See: Atmospheric Pressure at the Time of Dinosaurs at: http://levenspiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DinosaurW.pdf
Whilst the proposition is interesting and provides food for thought, I am not saying that I support the proposition since there are difficulties in explaining how the Earth lost part of its atmosphere, unless of course this was in some way coupled to the meteor impact that some claim killed off the dinosaurs and led to a mass extinction event.
It is interesting to read the comment on peer review and the problems getting the paper published (see pages 16 & 17). It is also interesting to note that the author draws an analogy with getting the ideal gas law accepted.
I wonder whether the difficulties encountered with publication of the paper is because the paper in someway undermines the CO2 AGW mantra, or whether it is an example of science advancing one death at a time.
I just throw it out there because I think that it is interesting.
Here is a supportive post of this paper by a practicing astro-physicist – Joseph Postma …
richard verney said: “The paper is very interesting, but the real problem is that we only have 3 bodies with any significant atmospheric pressure against which to test this theory. It is unfortunate that the Moon, Mars and Triton are not that helpful.”
Actually having Moon, Mars and Triton in our Solar System is a blessing, because these 3 bodies define the steepest and most non-linear portion of the curve in Fig. 4 in the paper (and in the top graph of this thread). A planet’s mean surface temperature is extremely sensitive to changes in pressure at low pressure levels, which is why the curve on Fig. 4 looks almost vertical between Moon and Mars… Without these three bodies present to constrain (define) the the P-T curve at pressures below 1 kPa, the derivation of our planetary-temperature model would not have been possible!
richard verney said: “I wonder whether the difficulties encountered with publication of the paper is because the paper in someway undermines the CO2 AGW mantra, or whether it is an example of science advancing one death at a time.”
The main reason for having such a difficult time publishing this paper over the past 4 years is, in my opinion, that our empirical results disprove the very foundation of the Greenhouse concept, i.e. the hypothesis that the thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is due to the observed down-welling LW radiation. Our findings indicate that this ‘greenhouse back radiation’, as some call it, is actually a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. This all implies that the atmospheric composition, and thus human carbon emissions, do not have any impact on climate. In other words, the Greenhouse climate theory is being falsified using vetted NASA observations!
Ned Nikolov with respect how does your theory reconcile these large climatic changes over short periods of time that reverse constantly. Look at data in above article.
How does it explain a period like the YD which is not unique ,there were many similar periods to the YD
HEART OF YOUR THEORY
Our analysis suggests that Ice-Age cycles have most likely been caused by periodic variations in total atmospheric mass and surface pressure.
I don’t see how this theory can explain the significant abrupt climatic changes of the last 2 million years.
Very interesting paper, results, and interpretation. I recall from modelling studies, which crudely accounted for solar and infrared radiation, convection, evapo-transpiration, and ground temperatures to determine the thermal effects of changing ground surface conditions (read trans-Alaska pipeline design) that the convective component was a dominant effect. Sounds familiar somehow. Now a question. Have you thought of an experiment, no matter how complicated, that could directly measure the effects that you are interpreting as the “cause of the greenhouse effect”?
The big task is identifying the actual mechanisms for accelerated removal of atmosphere from the top during Earth’s descent into an Ice Age and for a rapid replenishment of atmosphere (apparently through nitrogen production in the mantle) during deglaciation periods. We suspect that both removal and replenishment of atmosphere are driven by the magnetic and electric activity of the Sun, but how exactly is unknown at the moment.
NED YOU SAY
Now I have come up with low average value solar parameters which I feel will have an impact on the climate.
The values and they must be sustained.
solar flux 90 or lower
galactic cosmic ray counts in excess of 6500
ap index 5 or lower
solar irradiance off by .15% or more
solar wind 350 km/sec or less
IMF 4.2nt or lower
EUV light 100 units or less UV light reductions
In addition a weakening geo magnetic field compounds any given solar effects, which is happening..
I call it a very low solar, weak geo magnetic field /higher albedo/lower overall sea surface temperature triple play that will cause the climate to change due to thresholds being met due to this extreme low solar activity both in degree of magnitude and duration of time.
With this in mind do you think these low average solar values accomplish the removal of the atmosphere ? How ? Maybe it is a combination of my thinking and what you say ?
Thanks
NED YOU SAY IN THE ABOVE FOR CLARIFICATION THEN I GIVE MY SOLAR PARAMETERS.
То Salvatore Del Prete:
We are currently working on a paper to explain the global climatic variations over the past 2 M years. I would ask you to have some patience until our paper is published …
One important point to keep in mind in the meantime is that the observed abrupt and frequent changes in the Greenland ice-core (GISP2) record are mostly regional in nature and not global phenomena! If you examine the time series of Earth’s spherically averaged global temperature for the past 2 M years reconstructed by Snyder (2016) based on more than 20,000 temperature point reconstructions:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19798.html
you will notice that polar episodes such as YD do not even show up. When the global climate system is moving to a new state, you may encounter very erratic and unpredictable fluctuations of regional temperatures despite a much smoother response on the global scale …
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
does this support your theory?
From Salvatore Del Prete’s link (via Wuwt) five cardinal points that tell much (and which bear on the argument between ESmith and NedN)
“””What can we learn from all of this?
(1) The ice core isotope data were hugely significant because they showed that the Younger Dryas, as well as the other late Pleistocene warming and cooling events, could not possibly be caused by human emissions of CO2 because they occurred thousands of years before such emissions had any effect on atmospheric CO2.
(2) The magnitude and intensity of multiple climatic fluctuations has been up to 20 times larger than warming during the past century.
(3) Single events, i.e., volcanic activity or cosmic impacts, cannot have caused the abrupt Dansgaard/Oerscher warming and cooling events because of the multiplicity of warm/cold events over periods of thousands of years.
(4) The absence of a time lag between the N and S Hemisphere glacial fluctuations precludes an oceanic cause and is not consistent with the North Atlantic Deep Ocean Water hypothesis for the cause of the Younger Dryas.
(5) The abruptness of the climate changes and their multiplicity could not have been caused by slow, Croll-Milankovitch orbital forcing, which occurs over many tens of thousands of years. Since fluctuations to and from full glacial climates occurred over short periods of time, clearly a cause other than the Croll-Milankovitch theory is capable of causing the Ice Ages .”””
Two points. 1)Milankovitch forcing “have immeasurably small effects”–NN, and 2) at 23 deg obliquity there will be no increase at polar regions . Suggest looking afresh at Z-axis behaviour and give Dodwell -at least- the benefit of the doubt..
NED
We suspect that both removal and replenishment of atmosphere are driven by the magnetic and electric activity of the Sun, but how exactly is unknown at the moment.
How much solar variation would be needed to accomplish this? Could you give numbers as to how low you think the solar wind would be ,solar flux, solar irradiance, ap index ,would be and on how high galactic cosmic ray counts would be in order to remove and replenish the atmosphere?
[…] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/foundations-of-greenhouse-theory-challenged-by-new-analys… […]
Terry Miller says: “Now a question. Have you thought of an experiment, no matter how complicated, that could directly measure the effects that you are interpreting as the “cause of the greenhouse effect”?”
Terry, pressure-temperature curves have been measured countless times in different systems in a laboratory setting. They all have the shape shown and discussed in the paper. In other words, the direct effect of pressure on the internal temperature of a gas is well known in thermodynamics for small-scale systems. What’s new in our findings is that we have found a qualitatively similar (but qualitatively different) P-T relationship on a planetary scale! Our P-T curve (shown in Fig. 4) cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, simply because it requires a planetary-size system to observe (see discussion on pp. 11-12 in the paper). Furthermore, since this relationship is derived from empirical data using an objective technique (Dimensional Analysis), it does not need any additional experimental proof. Also, it cannot be dismissed based on ‘theoretical arguments’.
Salvatore Del Prete says: “How much solar variation would be needed to accomplish this? Could you give numbers as to how low you think the solar wind would be ,solar flux, solar irradiance, ap index ,would be and on how high galactic cosmic ray counts would be in order to remove and replenish the atmosphere?”
These are all good questions. Unfortunately, we do not have conclusive answers at the moment.
Keep in mind that the mainstream science is still at the rudimentary level of believing that CO2 has been driving ice ages, a concept proposed in the 1800s (thus, not much progress in 120 years!). The mainstream science also believes that Earth’s atmospheric pressure has been nearly constant for at least 65 million years!? This is why there has been no research in finding geochemical proxies of pressure. Atmospheric pressure has not been considered a potential driver of Earth’s climate by any mainstream research team to my knowledge … Our paper is the first study to bring the climatic role of pressure to the forefront in a quantitatively rigorous way. So, let’s take one step at a time: 1) Realize that changes in total pressure might have been a key driver of Earth’s climate in the past; 2) Fund research to identify pressure proxies in the geological record; 3) Verify our model projections explaining past climatic shifts through changes in total pressure; 4) Fund research to address your questions above … We are currently at step 0 (i.e. a step before 1) … 🙂
thanks Ned.
Salvatore, also has a theory that a very weak solar wind in the long run may allow the formation of a ring of cosmic dust (coming from, for example, the Moon) around the Earth.
During low solar activity, the summer can be very warm, however, the weak polar vortex can bring surprisingly cold air to the average latitudes.
“The extremely cold winter November-December 1812, in combination with the previous warm summer July-August 1812 had been devastating for the whole military operation on both French and Russian side, and were to have lasting effects on Europe’s political future.”
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201800-1899.htm#1800-1812; Napoleons new Europe and the French Enlightement
Ned and Tallbloke have added to my work load. Now I have to read (and hopefully understand) that Volokin & Rellez paper.
The wise course would be to remain silent until I have had time to review the papers carefully. However galloping camels are often impetuous.
I agree that 197.3 K is the correct average temperature for a body that has a rotation period of 709 hours and a surface consisting mostly of basalt regolith. In other words the Moon.
An airless Earth would rotate every 24 hours and the surface would consist of ice. While the rate of rotation has a minor effect on average temperature it cannot be zero as claimed by Ned:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/image-417-small.png?w=824&h=522
Note that the rate of rotation has virtually no effect on day time temperatures but night time temperatures rise significantly as the rate of rotation increases.
An icy surface cools much more slowly than a regolith surface, so an icy body will be warmer than one covered with regiolith.
The Finite Element Analysis I use is not an elegant approach. it is a brute force method that solves thousands of differential equations numerically. However the precision is impressive. The same FEA was used to improve the performance of magnets used in the Duke University High Intensity Gamma Source.
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
As I said earlier a bunch of us are close to agreement but we do not have “Consensus” yet. Nobody is defending 255 K or 154 K any more. We are all within the range 196 K to 234 K.
@Tallbloke:
“I don’t recall seeing a description or output from Galloping Camel’s model. As I recall, he too was busy with other things for a longish period and this got lost in the flow. I hope he might have the time to give us an article on his spin rate model some time soon.”
My part time job morphed into a near full time job thanks to Obama’s “War on Coal” but now the war is over I have decided to retire (for the third time). My company is being wound up and I will soon have plenty of time to spare. I will send you my spreadsheets off line. Remember that Ashwin Vasavada, Tim Channon and “br” all have models that agree with mine for the Moon “As Is”. It would be interesting to compare these models at different rotation rates.
As two of the models rely on variants of Berkeley SPICE changing the rotation period is a trivial matter. Changing the surface properties might be a little more challenging.
@Tallbloke:
“Regarding the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions, it’s worth noting in relation to spin rate that piling ice up in the polar regions and reducing sea level by ~130m is going to make the Earth spin faster. According to GC’s model, that would make the Earth warmer, a negative feedback to whatever forcing produces glacial epochs.”
The effect of sea level variation on Earth’s period is small so the temperature effect would be tiny. Earth rotates almost 30 times faster than the Moon but by my reckoning the temperature difference is only 13 K. I tried increasing the rotation rate by factors of 10 and then 100 only to find a diminishing effect.
@gallopingcamel:
Here is an exercise you can try … Extract the rates of rotation for the 6 bodies used in our analysis from NASA web pages. Then apply your model to calculate the ‘no-atmosphere’ temperature (Tna) for each body. Next, compute the ratios Ts/Tna (using Ts data from Table 2 in our paper). Finally, plot the Ts/Tna ratios against the total pressure (P) or against the ratio P/Pr (where Pr = 611.73 Pa). What do you get?
Regress ln(Ts/Tna) against ln(P/Pr) using Eq. 5 in the paper. Do antilogarithm of the resulting expression to get Ts/Tna as a function of P/Pr just as we did in our Eq. 10a. Report the results. Is your regression-curve fit as tight as the one shown in our Fig. 4? If not, why?
@Ned,
Given my respect for you and your ideas I will do my best to do what you ask.
TB here you go …
Hans Jelbring had this paper from 2003: H. Jelbring, “The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass,” Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 2 & 3, 2003. He was an original Slayer.
JP also explained it in several papers:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf (2011, pg 18)
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf (2011, pg 15)
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf (2012, pg 7)
If temperature is caused by pressure why is pressure/height curved and continuous and temperature /height straight and stops at the tropopause?
http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year%2013/Weather%20and%20climate/Structure/Atmospheric%20layers.htm
Having visited both of (your) N&Z papers and slept on this since, I understand why you are claiming the greenhouse theory dead – Earth is 90degK warmer, not 33degC warmer because of its atmosphere and atmospheric constituents. Therefore, conclusion, the current greenhouse theory is disproved.
On that last point: If the atmosphere was only nitrogen, all re-radiation outward would be from the surface. Add a radiative gas and the average altitude of re-radiation outward is above the surface. The result would be a difference in surface temperature between those two conditions.
Currently, that difference is generally considered to be 33degK (nitrogen / mixed gases).
Whereas your findings are 90degK (nothing / mixed gases).
Satellite measurements show Earth’s radiating temperature to be 255degK and you accept the surface temperature of 288degK. That 33degK (if it is 33degK) is lapse rate x altitude difference between radiating surfaces.
We now, apparently, have 3 data points for surface temperature: No atmosphere = 198degK; nitrogen atmosphere = 255degK; current atmosphere 288degK.
NN has stated that 255degK “is a non-physical quantity” but it appears that it is?
So, for this lay-person, who has an interest in climate science only for understanding sufficient to resist daft political policies that would adversely effect my children and grandchildren, what would 600ppm CO2 do to surface temperature?
McNeil says: “… what would 600ppm CO2 do to surface temperature?”
The short answer is “NOTHING”! The global surface temperature of a planet has zero sensitivity to changes in atmospheric composition (according to the results from our analysis) as long as these changes do not cause a significant shift in total atmospheric pressure.
In your reasoning above you had several inaccuracies. For example, satellites do not directly measure temperatures. Satellites only measure outgoing radiative fluxes in different wavelengths. Temperatures are always calculated from measured fluxes using some algorithms (formulas). So, the 255 K is a temperature calculated from the averaged global outgoing IR flux measured by satellites. The problem is that, for over 40 years, this calculation has employed a wrong mathematical formula for a sphere (which represents Earth as a flat disk). This is why the 255 K value is non-physical. So, the 33 K ‘greenhouse effect’ is a difference between a measured spherically averaged global surface temperature (~ 288 K) and a mathematically abstract (fictitious) ‘upper-air‘ temperature of 255 K. Do you think that such a difference has any physical meaning? … It’s like subtracting 3 apples from 5 oranges – what do you get? This is mathematically explained in our first paper:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723 .
gallopingcamel says: June 4, 2017 at 12:50 am
“An airless Earth would rotate every 24 hours and the surface would consist of ice.”
I don’t think that you could have any surface water on a completely airless world this close to the sun.
Even Mars with it’s very thin atmosphere appears to have lost it’s surface water.
NN, I did not say that satellites directly measured temperatures but I take your point that their measurements could have been misinterpreted for the reasons you state. Thank you for your clear statement that increasing CO2 concentration would have zero effect on surface temperature. Your paper, I understand, claims that 0ppm CO2 would similarly have zero effect.
Basically, we can safely conclude that the average altitude of outgoing radiation has no effect on the temperature of the surface?
McNeil says: “Basically, we can safely conclude that the average altitude of outgoing radiation has no effect on the temperature of the surface?”
That is correct! The so-called ‘effective emission altitude’ is a misguided concept driven by the confusion that the calculated 255 K is a physical temperature. The reality is that the outgoing IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere comes from different levels below (including the surface) in a continuum …
NED with the exception of the mass of the atmosphere changing possibly tied to solar activity which by the way could be correct we have many common thoughts when it comes to the climate.
I agree CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures and it is a result of the climate not the cause .
Any way here is my thoughts n what role solar itself may have and why/how it may have that role.
I think Milankovitch Cycles could have some sort of impact but I do believe quite strongly that land /ocean arrangements are a very important climatic factor .
I also have maintained the strength of the geo magnetic field as a climatic factor is not being appreciated . You seem to be with me on this topic.
The good news is that the so called modern warming period is now in the process of ending(now through coming years) as solar activity is becoming very weak and will become weaker as we move forward.
I expect global mean temperatures to be at or below 30 year average means within the next 12 months.
I think it is a very low solar/increase albedo /lower overall sea surface temperature play that will result in lower global temperatures as we move forward from here.
Low solar If solar irradiance deceases say by .15% that is a .2c reduction in global temperatures just do to that factor alone.
Increase albedo even a 1/2 of 1% increase will result in a significant global temperature drop. Albedo should increase in response to very low solar conditions which should result in an increase in major volcanic activity , increase in global cloud coverage and sea ice/snow coverage.
Increasing galactic cosmic rays being a main factor for major volcanic activity to increase and global cloud coverage to increase while less EUV light should result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation which would also result in more clouds and also greater snow coverage.
I think at the start of global cooling the atmospheric circulation becomes more meridional only later to transition to a more zonal circulation.
Overall lower sea surface temperatures this should happen as a result of weakening UV light which penetrates the ocean surface to significant depths which should impact the surface ocean temperatures.
My solar criteria which is now coming into play are
solar flux 90 or less
solar wind 350 km/sec or less
cosmic ray counts 6500 units or greater
euv light less then 100 units and uv light lessening just below visible light wavelengths
solar irradiance off by .15%
imf 4.2 nt or lower
ap index 5 or lower but isolated spikes which could contribute to an increaae in geological activity
All of this in combination with a weakening geo magnetic field which should compound given solar effects.
The test is on now that solar is finally reaching my cooling criteria and if global temperatures do not drop despite these low solar conditions I will be wrong, on the other hand if they do I think we will have to conclude that AGW theory is dead.
In the big picture Milankovitch cycles are favorable on balance and the land /ocean arrangements are very favorable for global cooling.
Precession /obliquity Precession very favorable while obliquity is lessening and becoming more favorable as compared to the Holocene Optimum period of time and this is why I think the global temperatures in general have been on a decline overall since the Holocene optimum however with fits and starts due to solar activity changes /volcanic activity and enso superimposed upon this general trend.
NOTE MY SOLAR PARAMETERS ARE JUST NOW STARTING TO BE MET , PRIOR TO THIS TIME 2010-2016 THE SOLAR PARAMETERS WERE WELL ABOVE THE VALUES I SAID WOULD BE NEEDED TO CAUSE A GLOBAL COOL DOWN, NOW
The Venusian atmosphere has proven this finding most clearly. Being it consists of over 96% C02 and its atmospheric mass is 4.8×10^20 kg which is around 93X that of ours one could replace C02 with let’s say nitrogen and you still have a servous temp hot enough to melt lead. Reason being it’s the atmospheric mass, its position to the sun and its albedo.
2nd Law states nothing in our universe can increase its own radiative thermal equilibrium using its own radiation. This law in my opinion is not only true in a closed system but also in a open system or dynamic equilibrium which does not allow any net change of energy.
If atmospheric pressure was greater during the Cretaceous would it have been enough to allow the Pterodactyls better lift? Some scientists can’t explain how they could fly at all in our present atmosphere.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3352699/Pterodactyls-were-too-heavy-to-fly-scientist-claims.html
It seems to me obvious that an experiment can be performed to prove once and for all if back radiation warming of a warmer body by a colder one is true. This seems to be a fundamental controversy that would demolish the greenhouse theory if it were shown back radiation was insignificant. Has such an experiment been done? Anyone out there please back up your opinion with experiment!
After Googling the problem I find Dr. Spencer has done a small experiment to prove back radiation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Back radiation is supposed to reduce the rate of cooling rather than warming directly.
My view is that backradiation is a product of kinetic energy held along the lapse rate slope and released by radiative materials such as ghgs and particulates having been placed there by conduction and convection and so has no significant thermal effect. It is a mere side effect of non radiative processes.
Correctly it is ‘back re-radiation’. It belongs in a group of re-radiations which include side, oblique, acute and up. Together they support atmospheric volume. The atmosphere is aglow in IR, particularly at the wavelengths of water vapour and CO2 to such an extent that an IR camera can’t function with any definition.
I had no idea this was and is such a controversial subject. Here is a long series of exchanges between Dr. Spencer and Pierre Latour, 24 pages of disagreement! It seemed like such a simple thing to prove one way or the other but now it seems hopelessly complex! And yet the entire greenhouse theory rests on it!
Click to access Back-radiation_Story_21Mar12.pdf
I find this to be a quite good summary of the history and confusion underlying GHE, and Fourier’s role (or lack thereof) in all of it – http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
A C Osborn, June 4, 2017 at 9:47 am:
“I don’t think that you could have any surface water on a completely airless world this close to the sun. Even Mars with it’s very thin atmosphere appears to have lost it’s surface water.”
It seems likely you are right. If the Earth’s nitrogen, oxygen and argon were stripped away (Gamma Ray Burster?) the water would be lost at a much increased rate. Would all surface water be gone in a million years or a billion years? Way above my pay grade!
However, even after removing all Earth’s surface water it will not be like the Moon. The lunar regolith was created during the “Heavy Bombardment” era.
Sidney Somes says: “If atmospheric pressure was greater during the Cretaceous would it have been enough to allow the Pterodactyls better lift?”
Great question! Indeed, I think the atmospheric pressure was much greater during the time of the dinosaurs. Paleotemperature reconstructions for the late Cretaceous (some 90-94 million years ago) indicate that global temperature was at that time 18-19 C higher than today. In order to have such a warmth, Earth’s atmospheric pressure must have been about 2.5 bar (or 2.45 atm) according to our Eq. 10b. For comparison, this is the pressure we now maintain in our automobile tires … This higher pressure implies about a 2.3-time higher air density, which would have greatly improved the lift of giant pterodactyls …
In addition to a better lift, however, ancient flying reptiles also likely enjoyed a much more oxygenated atmosphere. An interesting study from the late 1990s on the composition of air bubbles trapped in ancient amber revealed that, some 94 million years ago, the ambient concentration of oxygen was 33-34% compered to 21% today. This means that the partial pressure of oxygen in the air during the Cretaceous peak-warmth period was 82 – 85 kPa (assuming a total pressure of 2.5 bar), which is about 4 times higher than today’s 20.7 kPa! Since animal biological activity depends on the oxygen partial pressure rather than oxygen concentration, the Cretaceous atmosphere would have promoted an incredible muscle strength and vigor in all animal forms. The highly oxygenated atmosphere of the Mesozoic in general could also explain the large sizes reached by many dinosaurs … Hence, allowing for the possibility that atmospheric pressure has varied significantly through time opens a whole new understanding of Earth’s ancient ecosystem environment … 🙂
linneamogren, June 4, 2017 at 3:55 pm
“The Venusian atmosphere has proven this finding most clearly. Being it consists of over 96% C02 and its atmospheric mass is 4.8×10^20 kg which is around 93X that of ours one could replace C02 with let’s say nitrogen and you still have a servous temp hot enough to melt lead. Reason being it’s the atmospheric mass, its position to the sun and its albedo.”
Exactly right! Nitrogen and CO2 have nearly identical values of Cp and this led Carl Sagan in 1967/1968 to conclude it would not matter whether much whether CO2 or nitrogen turned out to be the dominant component of the Venusian atmosphere:
Even in the mid-thirties South Latitudes, where I live, a frost may linger all day under a blue sky. If there is no wind and shaded from direct sun, which burns off the rest quickly. Back radiation should deal with it if it existed. But it is an effect of what causes temperature and heat flow, NOT a cause.
In science we are told to first get our units right.
It is amazing who cannot. Also who think an IR photometer designed to read up to say twelve times its visual field diameter, can read to kilometers skywards. Great experimentalists such as Geiger and Woods, not to mention Maxwell (and Hartmann) have looked hard and not found this warmista wet dream. As the records of this blog and Hockeyschtick can attest, for instance.
Only continuous evil malfeasance from at least Santer onwards, have kept it seemingly viable. Now, we have hope at last…..
I would add that warmistas are not amenable to scientific proof. The current political shifts, and the weather, are our best hope. There is a lot of righteous anger out there among us non-snowflakes.
@Linneamogren: Thanks, and well-put. As Maxwell wrote in his “Theory of Heat”, the Ideal Gas Laws and the Poisson Relation make radiative effects irrelevant in the lower half of the atmosphere. Sensible and latent heat do the work with ease.
The question is what has to happen to the sun in order to cause the earth to gain or lose atmosphere?
I get higher atmospheric pressure will cause a temperature increase but how does it happen?
Brett says: ‘I would add that warmistas are not amenable to scientific proof.’
Such is life in a social media bubble.
Salvatore Del Prete says: June 4, 2017 at 11:21 pm
“I get higher atmospheric pressure will cause a temperature increase but how does it happen?”
Salvatore Del Prete says: June 4, 2017 at 11:19 pm
“The question is what has to happen to the sun in order to cause the earth to gain or lose atmosphere? And how this effects surface density alutitude.”
These questions piqued my interest in postulating a theory on how this could happen. I keep coming back to the fact of Earth’s Oceans as the key to the atmosphere we enjoy.
The Earth’s atmosphere/hydrosphere is the fume scrubber/air conditioner that creates the conditions of weather/climate observed within the Troposphere or the near surface region we occupy. This engine of atmosphere creation is powered by energies blasted our way from the surface of our nearby Nuclear furnace or star, the Sun.
The interface of wind and water under solar radiations is the key to this understanding. Water, the universal solvent, dissolves large amounts of gasses into it’s mass. Amounts that are held in solution are controlled by the temperature and pressure that the water is subjected to. As more pressure is applied greater amounts of gasses are pushed into solution. As the temperature is reduced the more gasses can be held dissolved into the solution. As pressure is reduced or temperature increased, the gasses held in solution are released back into the atmosphere.
Water is also a refrigerant that carries large amounts of energy as it changes phase. Evaporating and condensing as it carries solar radiation energy from the surface up into the atmosphere above. The surface pressure on the water is the “control knob” that determines it’s evaporation/condensing temperature and therefore the average temperature of this air-conditioner.
Radiation and the solar wind from our nearby star blasts our planet’s upper atmosphere, stripping away as much as 50,000 tons of it’s constituents a day depending on the radiation intensity and solar wind speed. These loses are made up by additions from the solar wind, volcanic out gassing and gas dissociation into hydrogen that is lost and the heavier oxygen and nitrogen that remain in the atmosphere.
This movement of gasses into and out of the atmosphere causes increase and decrease of the total atmospheric mass and therefor the surface pressure/density that contains the total thermal energy content that we measure as temperature.
A warming sun will warm the oceans that then out gas to increase the atmospheric mass that increases the surface density that increases the surface temperature. A cooling sun results in a cooling ocean that removes gasses from the atmosphere reducing the surface pressure/density and therefore the surface temperature average. Add to this a warming ocean expands and when cooling contracts, also changing the sea level.
As the solar heating is reduced atmosphere pressure is reduced by scrubbing of the gasses into solution causing evaporation increases from the cooling oceans and freezing out in the cooling atmosphere causing increased snow and rain falls.
When the solar furnace increases and begins heating the oceans this condition reverses…pg
@p.g.sharrow:
Results from our analysis strongly suggests that Earth’s average global temperature (GMAT) is not controlled by oceans/water vapor. Regional climates are definitely impacted by the availability of water (which only serves to redistribute the internal kinetic energy), but not the global climate measured in terms of surface temperature. This is discussed in section “Theoretical implications of the new interplanetary relationship” subsection “Effect of oceans and water vapor on global temperature” on p. 15 of the paper…
Furthermore, the required change in surface atmospheric pressure to produce an observed 6.3 K global warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (21,000 years ago) to the Holocene (the current interglacial period) is about 30.6 kPa. This means that, during the peak of the last ice age, the total pressure (and mass) of Earth’s atmosphere must have been ~ 31% lower than today! A change of such a magnitude cannot be accounted for by simply moving atmospheric gases in and out of the ocean solution. There had to be a major removal of atmosphere from the top during glaciation periods followed by a major influx of nitrogen (N) from Earth’s mantle during deglaciation episodes. This brings up an interesting question, which has not been addressed by science yet: “What’s the source of nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere provided that the amount of N cycling between the atmosphere and the crust is only about 1% of the total N amount found in the atmosphere?“… Several years ago, a Japanese physicist tried to address this question in a short paper by proposing a nuclear transmutation reaction taking place in the mantle that could produce large quantities of gaseous N from readily available carbonates in the presence of very high temperatures and a cosmic flux of neutrino as a catalyzer. That’s the only paper I have seen on this topic, though …
Thirdly, ice ages are not likely to have been caused by lower solar luminosity, because such a scenario produces a spatial patten of temperature change (in terms of equator-to-pole temperature gradient) that is opposite to the one observed in the geological record. Only a change in total atmospheric pressure produces the correct pattern and magnitude of observed equatorial and polar temperature shifts between glacial and interglacial conditions. These analyses will be presented in later paper of ours…
Looking at oceans as a source, CO2 is the most likely, or only, serious candidate. Usually, ocean outgassing is seen as a Henry’s law surface process, but there is an alternative.
Looking at current CO2 reservoirs for perspective:
Reservoir GtC
Ocean total 40,400
Deep ocean 37,000
Terrestrial total 2,500
Soils 2,000
Surface ocean total 1,600
Ocean floor sediments 1,800
Surface ocean inorganic 900
Atmosphere 800
Ocean dissolved organic 700
Land vegetation 600
Most CO2 has probably always been in deep ocean reservoirs and some of this in large pools of liquid CO2, or so I gather. Introduce some geothermal heating at the bottom of pools – pick your time scale – and atmospheric CO2 could rise an order of magnitude or more.
Signature would be a massive increase in vegetation producing O2 and then big critters which sounds familiar, but not likely the pressure increase needed here. Large terrestrial ammonia deposits might work for N2.
Best of luck with this one, Ned.
dai
@dai davies:
There is no evidence in the geological record that CO2 has ever been a dominant constituent of Earth’s atmosphere. It has always been a minor trace gas (much less in quantity than water vapor!). Therefore, large shifts in Earth’s atmospheric mass and pressure could not have come from variations in the amount of CO2 in the air. Nitrogen, on the other hand, forming the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere, is the most likely candidate for causing large pressure fluctuations. I tried finding data on N emissions from ocean-bottom vents and surface crust cavities, but it seems that no one has measured N fluxes from such potential sources… We know that nitrogen could not be coming in significant amounts from volcanoes, because over 98% of volcanic emissions consist of water vapor, CO2, and sulfur compounds…
I am not a geologist but know that most of the CO2 in the earths crust is locked up in limestone deposits which were the result of sediments and deposits of bacteria, animals and plants. Recent or young deposits are the chalk fields in UK, France, Belgium and western Germany. The Great barrier reef along the eastern coast of Queensland is another recent deposit. There are many limestone deposits from corals in Silurian and Devonian periods. At Wiki it states that in Silurian times the atmosphere had 4500ppm It is very likely that the level of CO2 was higher before the Silurian period. The animals and plants created O2 and deposited CO2 as CaCO3. There are also deposits of MgCO3 from Trilobites
For those of you, who’d like to compare the new picture of the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) emerging from our study to the current mainstream understanding of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’, I would recommend watching this short clip with Prof. Raymond Pierrehumbert from Oxford, who is one of the World’s leading climate scientist at the moment:
The Greenhouse Effect – Ray Pierrehumbert: How carbon dioxide warms the climate
Note how heavily the ‘greenhouse’ concept depends on the so-called ‘radiating temperature of a planet‘ (Te) also known as ‘effective radiating‘ or ‘emission‘ temperature. Current climate science assumes that this is an actual physical temperature occurring at certain height in the free atmosphere, but we (Volokin and ReLlez 2014) have conclusively shown that Te is a non-physical abstract mathematical temperature with no relationship to surface kinetic temperatures (see https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723).
Our findings automatically invalidates the follow-up hypothesis of the Greenhouse theory that an increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 would warm the surface by raising the altitude of Te. A spherical planet has neither an effective radiating temperature nor an effective emission altitude. Hence, the entire proposed mechanism of CO2 impact on climate rests on a mathematical confusion that has no physical reality to it!
Interplanetary dust particles hit the surfaces of airless bodies in the Solar System, generating charged1 and neutral2 gas clouds, as well as secondary ejecta dust particles3. Gravitationally bound ejecta clouds that form dust exospheres were recognized by in situ dust instruments around the icy moons of Jupiter4 and Saturn5, but have hitherto not been observed near bodies with refractory regolith surfaces. High-altitude Apollo 15 and 17 observations of a ‘horizon glow’ indicated a putative population of high-density small dust particles near the lunar terminators6, 7, although later orbital observations8, 9 yielded upper limits on the abundance of such particles that were a factor of about 104 lower than that necessary to produce the Apollo results. Here we report observations of a permanent, asymmetric dust cloud around the Moon, caused by impacts of high-speed cometary dust particles on eccentric orbits, as opposed to particles of asteroidal origin following near-circular paths striking the Moon at lower speeds. The density of the lunar ejecta cloud increases during the annual meteor showers, especially the Geminids, because the lunar surface is exposed to the same stream of interplanetary dust particles. We expect all airless planetary objects to be immersed in similar tenuous clouds of dust.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7556/full/nature14479.html
Solar wind pressure.
“The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”
McComas is principal investigator for the SWOOPS solar wind sensor onboard the Ulysses spacecraft, which measured the decrease. Ulysses, launched in 1990, circles the sun in a unique orbit that carries it over both the sun’s poles and equator, giving Ulysses a global view of solar wind activity:
Curiously, the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn’t decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind
Can the low-pressure solar wind allow the formation of a cosmic dust ring around the equator?
This can significantly reduce the access of solar energy to Earth.
From Ned
Only a change in total atmospheric pressure produces the correct pattern and magnitude of observed equatorial and polar temperature shifts between glacial and interglacial conditions. These analyses will be presented in later paper of ours
The million dollar question is how /why does this happen ?
Maybe the geo magnetic field somehow interacts with solar magnetic strength (which I think you hinted at) to cause this if threshold values are reached?
The geo magnetic field can change dramatically at times and maybe when combined with a extreme solar state this sets things in motion?
Just thinking.
Salvatore Del Prete
Increasing precipitation, especially snow, can significantly reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Let’s see Greenland, how the glacier is formed.
I agree that nitrogen is the best suspect if you are looking for a way to modulate Earth’s atmospheric mass by large amounts.
Given that we already know that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere can be modulated by living things I tried to make a case to explain N&Z’s idea of enhanced pressure during the PETM in terms of oxygen. My speculations attracted the attention of a pernicious troll (David Appell) but I had agree that oxygen alone could not explain an atmospheric pressure of 1.83 bars:
I find it credible that volcanic activity on a large enough scale could raise the atmospheric pressure to 1.83 bars. Then you have to explain what caused the atmospheric pressure to fall to the present 1.01 bars.
Ned said: I would recommend watching this short clip with Prof. Raymond Pierrehumbert from Oxford, who is one of the World’s leading climate scientist at the moment:
The Greenhouse Effect – Ray Pierrehumbert: How carbon dioxide warms the climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slPMD5i5Phg
Thanks for this clip Ned. One point of interest in it is that Pierrehumbert asserts that the atmosphere’s lapse rate is maintained by convection, something we’ve had long and contentious discussions about here at the talkshop over the years.
It all goes back to the scientific argument between Loschmidt who maintained that the lapse rate is a function of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere (sound familiar?), and Maxwell (and also Boltzmann), who believed the atmosphere would be isothermal under gravity (despite the pressure gradient).
We have a long and learned thread on the Loschmidt effect here, with a number of later threads linking back to it mentioned in the comments.
GC: What surface temperature does your model produce for earth if the albedo is set to the same as the Moon’s? I know you regard that as an ‘unphysical’ state for an airless Earth, due to “the heavy bombardment” (how much would the atmosphere/ocean have protected us from it?), but I’d just like to know a raw number for the difference in temperature between Moon and 29x faster spinning Earth according to your model if all else was equal.
Thanks.
The 33 K GE quoted in textbooks is in reality a mathematically wrong
==============
The 33 K can be derived without reference to GHG. Look at this graph below, notice the height at which air pressure is 1/2 surface pressure (5.5km). The wet air lapse rate is 6 C/km.
5.5 km x 6 C/km = 33 C
The 33C represents the conversion of PE into KE, below the 1/2 mass of the atmosphere.
The 33 K GE quoted in textbooks is in reality a mathematically wrong
==============
Another way to derive this is to use a wet air lapse rate is 6.6 C/km, and the center of mass of the convecting atmosphere of 5km. Then you get:
6.6 C/km x 5 km = 33 C
Again we have the 33C GHG effect without any need for GHG. The effect can be entirely accounted for by the conversion between PE and KE (9.8 C/km) during convection, moderated by the condensation of water.
Salvatore Del Prete says: “The million dollar question is how /why does this happen ?” (i.e. large periodic fluctuations in Earth’s atmospheric mass).
Yes, and unfortunately I cannot claim the million Dollar prize at the moment … 🙂
Our first step is to provide convincing (albeit indirect) evidence that such large swings in atmospheric pressure have likely been occurring routinely during the past 2 M years. As I mentioned earlier, pressure changes as drivers of Earth’s climate are not even in the realm of possibility for current climate science …
@ferdberple:
Keep in mind that the occurrence of the 33 K vertical temperature gradient between surface and a point at 5.5 km (where the 255 K absolute tropospheric temperature also happens to be) is a pure coincidence for the Earth’s atmosphere… Yes, I know that Te = 255 at 5.5 km altitude has been used as a ‘proof’ for the validity of the “effective radiation heigh” concept, BUT it’s wrong! Here is why – if the planetary Te were a physical temperature, it should have a physical meaning for any planetary body. However, for the Moon Te = 270 K, which is a much higher value than the Moon’s average surface temperature at any latitude. Thus, Moon’s warmest latitude, the lunar Equator, has an average annual surface temperature of 213 K (see Volokin & ReLlez 2014). So, for the Moon, the value of Te could be found in the regolith at 2-3 m below the surface. Does this mean that the Moon’s “effective radiating altitude” is 3 m underground? Of course, not! Such a conclusion would be silly… A similar situation is encountered on Mars, where the mean surface annual temperature is about 191 K, while Te = 211.9 K, which implies that the effective radiating height is below the surface!?
“Yes, I know that Te = 255 at 5.5 km altitude has been used as a ‘proof’ for the validity of the “effective radiation heigh” concept, BUT it’s wrong!”
As far as I know the concept of effective temperature comes from stellar astrophysics, although I might have some bias there. But it’s where the concept was introduced to me in undergrad.
See this is where the poor, substandard education of educated people comes in. In fact I find that laymen are much more amenable to rational thought once they’re provided the real definition of things, but these “educated” climate alarmists and the “educated” academics who support them (even in physics and astronomy departments) seem to have no concern for definitions, logic…or anything.
Excerpt from a paper of mine currently in review:
“The concept of effective temperature is discussed and defined by Gray [1] (pg. 2) is his discussion of stellar photospheres:
start quote”[A] physical variable strongly affecting the nature of the atmosphere is its characteristic temperature. Typically the temperature drops by somewhat more than a factor of 2 from the bottom to the top of the photosphere, and instead of choosing a temperature at some depth to characterise the temperature parameter, it is customary to use the effective temperature. The effective temperature is defined in terms of the total power per unit area radiated by the star,
∫Fv dv= σT_eff^4
where the total radiant power per unit area is given by the integral and [] σ = 5.67 x 10-8 W/m2 per K4. Here Fv is the flux leaving the stellar surface []. Equation [{1}] has the form of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, [] making Teff the temperature of a black body having the same power output per unit area as the star. But the distribution of power across the spectrum may differ dramatically from a blackbody at the same effective temperature.”end quote
Note that effective temperature is not a physical temperature which must necessarily be measured at any particular location, or altitude, in the atmosphere, nor is it a physical temperature which should necessarily be measured on a surface for an object with or without an atmosphere. In principle an atmosphere and/or surface could radiate so incongruently to a blackbody that its effective blackbody temperature would not physically correspond to any location in the atmosphere’s temperature distribution or object’s surface area at all. Thus, note the difference in meaning between the terms “effective temperature”, defined above, and “physical temperature”, as that which would actually be measured in-situ by local thermal equilibrium (via a thermometer for example). An “effective temperature” is in essence a fiction, and not an actual physical temperature.”
An effective temperature is totally fictional…it is a pretend temperature you can calculate if certain conditions are *assumed. Nonetheless, it IS useful for astrophysics, but it should always be kept in mind that it is strictly fictional. The radiant energy comes from the entire “optical depth” of the atmosphere and there is no such things as a physical effective radiating height just as there isn’t such a thing as an effective temperature. Somewhere in the depth of the atmosphere you might get the physical temperature being the same number as the effective temperature, but this is meaningless and coincidental only.
There is so much fabrication and basic pseudoscience going on with climate alarm science…to the point that people now need to write scientific papers explaining that the Earth is not flat!
I asked another astrophysicist in my department once: “Should I seek funding to study the greenhouse effect in stellar atmospheres given that the effective temperature we calculate for stars is not necessarily equal to the physical temperature of the star’s atmosphere at unit optical depth?”
Sadly, the fellow thought it was a good idea…missing the point entirely.
Ice extent in the north in May.
Expected ice extent in the north in June.
@Gallo
Thank you for the link! Carl Sagan was correct on the nitrogen C02 aspect but he was tragically wrong on his runaway greenhouse theory of Venus. He believed there had to be a high vapor count on Venus to create such intense temps to legitimize his runaway greenhouse theory. On this he was wrong because the vapor count on Venus was later proven to be only 0.002% of the Atmosphere of Venus.
Now that vapor account alone could very well be C02 freezing out in the highest levels of the atmosphere. Since parts of the atmosphere on Venus is colder than our own.
The surface temps on Venus has nothing to do with once ancient oceans ( which is complete conjecture ) because new findings show there may have been oceans of C02 rather than H20. The surface temps on Venus are a direct result of atmospheric mass, location to the sun and it’s albedo. The surface temps are no hotter than the laws of physics dictate. The high C02 counts on Venus is the result of high temps not the cause such as proven in ice core studies
@Tallbloke,
“GC: What surface temperature does your model produce for earth if the albedo is set to the same as the Moon’s?”
I sent that information to you as an email attachment on June 3. I just re-sent it so let me know if it does not make it through your spam filter.
I also copied it to Ned Nikolov and Scott Denning as they have looked at the effect of rotation rate on average temperature.
My public email is info(at)gallopingcamel.info
@linneamogren,
In his 1967 & 1968 publications Carl Sagan made impressive estimates of the Venusian surface temperature. He started with the known temperature of the cloud tops and then applied the adiabatic lapse rate to arrive at the surface temperature. He did not know the height of the cloud tops relative to the surface so he used 44 km and 65 km. We now know that 65 km is “in the ballpark” so the 721 K figure in the table below applies and that is close to modern estimates.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968ApJ…152.1119S
As you point out, Sagan went off the rails in later life. My guess is that he bought into Hansen’s “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” nonsense. There is plenty of “Groupthink” in academia as well as “Go Along to Get Along”!
@linneamogren says:
June 5, 2017 at 8:20 pm: I have found albedo to be hard to handle in the atmospheric gravito-thermal effect. Please expand on how it is included as part of the effect………..Thanks
GC: Email received, many thanks. I’ll make a post out of this tomorrow and get it up on the site.
noted while reading this thread today:
ren says (June 3, 2017 at 6:37 am) wrote:
“It can be said that the mass of CO2 is controlled by the range of vegetation of algae and plants.”
notion of pressure driving climate
pressure IS climate
“atmospheric pressure”
spatiotemporal atmospheric pressure field
annual average surface temperature
(perhaps hierachical) definition of climate
role of chemical composition (e.g. land/ice/water distribution) in climate spatiotemporal pattern (at some level in a conceptual hierarchy perhaps)
Ned Nikolov (June 4, 2017 at 8:47 am) wrote:
“The problem is that, for over 40 years, this calculation has employed a wrong mathematical formula for a sphere (which represents Earth as a flat disk).”
Earth’s surface temperatures based on hemispherical rather than the illegitimate spherical transformation of solar irradiance.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/earths-surface-temperatures-using-hemispherical-rather-ulric-lyons?
oldmanK suggested: “Suggest looking afresh at Z-axis”
yes but
each reference frame has a different z-axis — that’s what lost semi on wilson’s lunar puzzle thread
Another obstruction to sensible z-axis discussion is the (widespread) false implicit assumption of uniformity — the opposite of reality given pole-pole asymmetry. A signature of the major western fault is persuasion based on the false uniformity assumption.
For Ned – firstly congratulations on your excellent analysis and hypothesis.
And a question – in response to Sidney Somes’ earlier question you said –
“In general, variations in Earth’s climate are caused by changes in cloud cover and cloud albedo on time scale of decades to centuries, and by changes in total atmospheric mass and pressure on time scales of thousands to millions of years. The albedo-induced changes are rather small, while the pressure-caused changes can be quite large (up to 17-19 C in global temperature). The 1.2-1.4 C global warming observed since 1650 is likely caused by a Sun-induced decline in planetary albedo in the amount of 1.2% – 1.4% due to a reduction in cloud cover…”
Could you comment on the longer term temperature cycles such as the well documented 2500, 1500, 1000, year cycles – is it also your view that these too relate to Sun induced albedo/cloud cover events just as you suggest the post 1650 variance has been. If so what do you think is the basic driver/drivers for these cycles – is it natural Solar insolation/TOI variance (measured in recent years in the order of only +/- 1.5/2.0 w/m²), and/or Solar induced (via IR/UV/? Insolations or Magnetic) influences on Atmospheric Mass.
Do you think your Formula 10 is in play over the timespan of these cycles, or do you consider your work more relevant to much longer term cycles.
@Lawrence A P Wilson:
I think these longer cycles within the Holocene (1000 – 2500) are likely caused by Sun-induced changes in cloud albedo. However, in times of rapid and steep climatic change such as during deglaciation episodes, pressure can also change significantly over periods of 2,500-3,000 years causing a measurable change in global temperature.
I think the driver of cloud cover/albedo changes is not the TOA solar irradiance or spectral changes in sunlight, but electric currents flowing between Sun and Earth and also the shielding effect of Sun’s magnetic field on the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) reaching the troposphere (GCR are now known to affect the formation of cloud condensation nuclei). The Sun’s effect on atmospheric mass (through the removal rates of atmosphere) are also present, in my opinion, but they probably have measurable impact on temperature over time scales longer than 5,000 years.
In principle, Equation 10 applies to any time scale, where a significant change in atmospheric pressure (mass) has occurred. Typically this could be any period of time from several thousand years to millions of years. It can be stated with a high degree of certainty, however, that this Equation does not describe temperature changes occurring on time scales of decades to centuries…
Ned said:
“the average surface pressure does not depend on solar radiation! ”
But it does: The pressure is the weight of the atmosphere, expressed as the product of the mass and the acceleration of gravity. the mass is constant, but the gravity is not. As solar radiation causes the atmosphere to expand the same mass is lifted to a greater height where gravity is weaker, hence the weight and pressure will be less.
The troposphere is extremely sensitive to ENSO. This shows the temperature changes of the tropopause over the southern polar circle. This shows that the troposphere under the influence of changes ENSO expands and shrinks.
The long-term trend is zero.
Below you can see how the troposphere shrinks to the south during the winter.
The trend of the average temperature of tropopause is basically zero and corresponds exactly to the course of ENSO.
Thank you Ned – perhaps this is asking a bit much or I need to read the your Paper some more –
# the suddenness of deglaciation – do you think it is Solar or Solar System dynamics which motivates a change of atmospheric pressure/temperature, or even Cosmic dynamics from outside our solar system. The suddenness seems to imply unexpected/non-predicted/non-predictable – so more likely ? of extra SS origin
# I assume change of At/Press/Temp is much more likely the result of At/Mass change than it is of Gravity change or are both options equally open
L
Leif Svalgaard at 4.55am ought to quantify the effect of which he speaks. I think he’ll find it makes almost no difference. The radius of the Earth is thousands of kilometers, but the troposphere (where nearly all the atmospheric mass is) is only around 18km deep above the equator. So the dropoff in gravity to the high point in the solar expanded atmosphere is tiny. The difference in gravity due to solar variation changing the height of the atmosphere is even tinier.
[Moderation note] Ren’s off-topic question to Leif Svalgaard about the solar polar fields needs to be posted in the thread linked below , where we are having a current discussion with Leif Svalgaard about solar records:
Lawrence A P Wilson says: June 6, 2017 at 5:16 am asks a very informative question:
Quote: “# the suddenness of deglaciation – do you think it is Solar or Solar System dynamics which motivates a change of atmospheric pressure/temperature, or even Cosmic dynamics from outside our solar system. The suddenness seems to imply unexpected/non-predicted/non-predictable – so more likely ?”
Second question: Is the sudden onset of polar deglaciation accompanied by an equatorial icing onset?
Suddenly, for some reason, the earth atmospheric pressure increases by 30 % and thereby the
atmospheric water vapor partial pressure decreases (by 1/1.3)
amount of clouds decreases
cloud albedo decreases
sun power to the surface increases
slowly the ocean temperature increases
atmospheric water vapor partial pressure increases
water temperature will be 291.5 K to achieve the same atmospheric water vapor concentration (cloud amount and albedo) as before the sudden pressure increase.
The new equilibrium surface temperature found by equation 10, will be 292.1 K, but then there will be ~3.7 % higher atmospheric water vapor concentration and higher albedo!
The high pressure earth operating data to be inserted in table 2 and 4 as a “new” celestial body. All the modelling to be repeated until the new coefficients in equation 5 have reached convergence and models (1 to 12) to be reevaluated.
An atmospheric pressure decrease will not come suddenly but the principle above will be inverted.
Kind Regards
Anders
[…] oldmanK on Foundations of Greenhouse Theo… […]
Anders: Thank you, a very interesting comment. Ned is travelling to see family in Eastern Europe today, so it may be a while before he responds. I will alert him to your comment if it gets buried in the flow.
The temperature drop in the lower stratosphere tropics from the mid 90 shows the decrease in production of ozone due to the drop of UV.
ANDERS SAID
Suddenly, for some reason, the earth atmospheric pressure increases by 30 % and thereby the
Do you have any thoughts as to why?
How can there be any change in surface pressure from expanding the same amount of atmospheric mass upwards around a sphere?
There will still be the same amount of mass weighing down on each point at the surface however much one expands it.
Is the temperature changes over the equator?
Salvatore Del Prete & wildeco2014 :
I was spinning on and commented on the proposal by Ned Nikolov, June 5, 2017 at 9:46,about atmospheric mass changes, resulting in atmospheric pressure and temperature changes.
The gas source, type of gas and how it will be replenished and removed from the atmosphere is out of my knowing.
Kind Regards
Anders
I only concern myself with the shorter time periods which led to the current climate anxiety and so do not know about total atmospheric mass changes over the longer term.
As Ned says, those shorter term changes are due to solar induced albedo changes that I have addressed elsewhere by supplying a likely mechanism.
For the purpose of this thread I simply agree that mass and gravity working via conduction and convection cause the ‘greenhouse effect’ and not radiative material in the atmosphere
I have a description of the mechanical processes involved and will be able to submit it to Rog when I get back to the UK before the end of this week.
@Gallo
I agree when Sagan moved into the wild hypothesis of runaway greenhouse temps it hurt his reputation. Still it does not diminish his work on the Venusian surface temperature. He did overestimate the SW flux coming into the lower Venusian atmosphere by about a factor of 7. Irradiance is not a real energy flux because photons obviously are not molecules. Photons can’t increase the temperature of a thermodynamic equilibrium.
@Gallo
One interesting discovery NASA made was they determined that less irradiance often seems to increase temperatures and more seems to drop temperatures.
Linnea: “One interesting discovery NASA made was they determined that less irradiance often seems to increase temperatures and more seems to drop temperatures.”
Not sure of the context of that, but it is the case that solar minimum is usually closely followed by a large El Nino event. e.g. 1998 and 2010. There is often also a smaller El Nino just after solar levels begin to fall following solar max. This causes an apparent ant-correlation between solar activity and temperature which flattens the apparent effect of the solar cycle on surface temperature in time-averaged series.
“We ask the scientific community to keep an open mind and to view the results presented herein as a possible foundation of a new theoretical framework for future exploration of climates on Earth and other worlds.” — https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
@Bret
The albedo on Venus reflects 67% of incoming radiation in the upper atmosphere back into the universe because of its sulphuric acid cloud layer. There’s 100% cloud cover at all times. Venus has a lower TSI in its upper atmosphere than earths. A lower albedo would allow more radiation into the system, but overall albedo is just one part of the mechanics which determines the radiative thermal equilibrium on Venus. Overwhelmingly it’s the atmospheric mass since Venus is actually hotter than Mercury even being further from the sun.
@Roger
” that solar minimum is usually closely followed by a large El Nino event. e.g. 1998 and 2010. There is often also a smaller El Nino just after solar levels begin to fall following solar max. This causes an apparent ant-correlation between solar activity and temperature which flattens the apparent effect of the solar cycle on surface temperature in time-averaged series. ”
I’m brining this up in class tomorrow to my professor because he’s very open to solar influences.
I had a PhD student tell me today the reason Venus at the surface is so hot is due to energy being trapped. @@
One of the most interesting things that seems to surface regularly during these discussions on alternative theories is that albedo seems to “drop out” of the equations sometimes. This is counter intuitive.
I have been trying to work out why and have a suspicion it is due to the actual physical mechanism in gaseous atmospheres which “converts” incoming solar radiation to a relatively hot layer of gas near the surface. We have an input of e-m energy as a planck curve from 5778K source and this is (partially?) transformed to a vertically graded chunk of warm/hot gas with a nice linear lapse rate. I’m blaming the gravity monster and I think I have the gist of it statically (a la Loschmidt) but its the dynamic bit of the 11.57uHz oscillator input that’s baffling me. I think I need to get the electrical circuit analogy worked up for this. Has anyone got the C & R values worked out yet?
@linneamogren says:
June 6, 2017 at 11:17 pm: Thanks, Linnea. My own attempt to rationalise the apparent lack of albedo effect between Venus and Earth ATE/GTE for instance, was that there was enough optical depth above the cloud masses to get the full absorption anyway. Stephen Wilde demonstrates how the fact of little sunlight reaching Venus’ surface (same for gas giants, maybe the likes of Titan too) means nothing.
Clouds, whether steam or H2SO4, tend to involve endo- and exothermic reactions as they cycle their droplets. How those energetics fit in or not, remains for me to understand fully.
Robinson and Catlin 2014 (Robinson, T. D., and Catling, D. C., Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency, Nature Geoscience 7, 12-15.)
nailed down that a 0.1bar tropopause was the minimum needed for the ATE to hold sway. Thus Mars, mostly CO2, proves a point by not having an effective ATE let alone GE as pushed by the consensus.
Anyway, there stands about the limit of where I’ve gotten so far. But my saying that albedo must be a 2nd order effect in atmospheric energetics , has not taken me to why that might be so testably, and it worries me a little. As it should.
@Brett
I’ve also read sunlight reaching the surface of Venus has no net effect on the surface temp. Albedo is still one of the great challenges in determining surface temperatures. I’m still of the camp radiation reaching the surface will aid in determining the radiative thermal equilibrium of a planet. But it’s not carved in the cosmic stone.
The temp seems to be regulated due to the quantity of radiation released by our Sun into the Venusian atmosphere. Of course including its location to the Sun. But that’s far from settled science unless the AGW cadres need it so!
The surface density on Venus ( 65-67 Kg/M^3 ) of gases combined by its atmospheric mass is powerful enough for temperature of 737K I believe the Universal state equation of perfect gases PV=nRT can conclude this point by calculating.
:ren says:
June 2, 2017 at 5:49 am : Yep, using gravity, AU, gas constant (gas law), NASA Voyager etc data for proof.
@linneamogren says:
June 7, 2017 at 1:59 am: Yes, we saw this during the ground-breaking debate here about 5yrs ago. Keyword search above eg gravito-thermal; Loschmidt etc… Gas Laws and gravity rule, at any AU solar distance.
My problem, if it is one, was the lack of albedo influence on the result. I am missing something…….a mechanism for that. The optical depth in and maybe out as well, is what speaks to me so far.
Badger above sees a challenge too – “I have been trying to work out why and have a suspicion it is due to the actual physical mechanism in gaseous atmospheres which “converts” incoming solar radiation to a relatively hot layer of gas near the surface. We have an input of e-m energy as a planck curve from 5778K source and this is (partially?) transformed to a vertically graded chunk of warm/hot gas with a nice linear lapse rate. I’m blaming the gravity monster and I think I have the gist of it statically (a la Loschmidt)”
Take a solar radius of gas at 2K and just our lapse rate, and figure the Temp at the centre. And the implications. Much fun for Astronomy students
Ned Nikolov says: June 4, 2017 at 10:16 pm
Agree with the very high temperatures in that time. Do not agree with the reason you give 😉
I’ve identified deep ocean magmatic eruptions totalling far over 100 million km^3 leading to the peak warmth around 85 mya. Seems to me like a far more plausible explanation for the high temperatures. Deep ocean temperature reconstructions show also very high temperatures.
see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
The effect of erupting magma:
Magma erupting through the ocean floor will cool down, and solidify becoming basalt.
The amount of energy released can be estimated as follows.
Specific heat (J/kg/K): water 4200, magma 1000, basalt 1400.
Latent heat magma > basalt 400.000 J/kg
1kg magma cooling from 1300C > 1200C: 100.000J
Latent heat magma > basalt: 400.000J
Basalt cooling from 1200C > 0C: 1.680.000J
Total: 2.180.000J
This is enough energy to warm 519 kg water 1K.
Density of basalt is 3 times that of water, so 1 m3 magma cooling down from 1300C to 0C can warm 1557 m3 water 1K.
Total volume of the oceans ~ 1.400 million km3, so it takes roughly 1 million km3 magma to warm all ocean water 1K.
So the possibly 100 million km^3 Ontong Java event delivered enough energy to warm all ocean water over 100K.
@Brett & Badger
I was pondering today as to why albedo seems to drop out of the equation on some equilibrium temps at the surface. Badger mentioned an interesting concept.
What if we look at albedo on a more localized theory. 15,000 years ago when mammoths went extinct, it allowed forestation of northern latitudes which changed the local albedo due to forests being allowed to prosper. The vacillation in the albedo raised local temps enough to encourage humans to inhabit the land along with woodland creatures producing a hunting environment.
Now it was assumed deforestation would increase temps but if one looks back it’s the opposite. The change in albedo increased the local temp. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Confirms this. Open land cooled at night much faster than forested areas at night while the albedo was not functioning. Here we can see clear influences of albedo locally but as to why it’s drops out in some planetary examples is baffling.
@linneamogren
If you imagine a multi-dimensional function, i.e. a function of several independent variables, then it may become easier to understand that in some case the albedo is very important, and others, not. So, image that there is some equation (even if we don’t know it precisely) that governs the temperature on or near a surface of a planetary body. Planetary bodies have variable conditions, with some having extremely thick and massive atmospheres resting on top of a hard surface, some bodies with no atmosphere at all, etc. In the case of no atmosphere at all, then the most important terms in the equation are the ones dealing with the albedo of the surface. On the other hand if the body has a substantial atmosphere like Venus, then the albedo doesn’t factor in so much for the bottom-of-atmosphere temperature but the depth of the atmosphere does greatly. In between these extreme cases then you have a transition from one set of factors being most important (such as albedo), to another set (such as atmospheric depth). Obviously, on the moon or Mercury there is no atmosphere to need to take into account at all, whereas on Venus the mass of atmosphere is the dominant factor determining the bottom-of-atmosphere temperature. The albedo probably does factor in in some way for Venus, because for example if Venus absorbed 100% of solar radiation it probably would make some difference compared to it absorbing only 30%, but given the atmospheric mass the this is still the dominant factor.
Are you going to university for astronomy? That’s really great if so!
@Badger
” physical mechanism in gaseous atmospheres which “converts” incoming solar radiation to a relatively hot layer of gas near the surface. ”
We can eliminate GHG absorbed energy because it can’t thermalize in the gas phase at local thermodynamic equilibrium as it would violate Kirchoffs Law of Radiation. So it seems your theory is starting to clear a path as to what’s happening to radiation coming into the system and dropping out of the equilibrium equation.
Also, you might like to give that PhD student the paper from N & Z here. Just give them a copy. And your proff’s too.
If they need a simplified approach, referencing the type of material you should be learning now if you’re an undergrad in astronomy, then include this new paper I’ll publish soon too:
Click to access there-is-no-radiative-greenhouse-effect.pdf
Ben Wouters: Interesting comment, if a little OT. Wiki: This “Onotong Java event”, first proposed in 1991, represents the largest volcanic event of the past 200 million years, with a magma emplacement rate estimated at up to 22 km3 (5.3 cu mi)/year over three million years, several times larger than the Deccan Traps.
So 22km^3/yr might warm the global ocean at a rate of 0.000022 centigrade per year for 3 million years or 1C in 45,540 years. Plenty of time for equilibrium to be re-established in the meantime I expect.
linnea,
One can change the surface temperature either by a change in the power of the external forcing agent (the sun) or by a change in albedo since a change in albedo mimics a change in the power of the external forcing agent.
In general an albedo change arises from internal system changes and is a negative system response that stabilises the temperature in the face of an internal forcing agent BUT if the albedo change is itself created by some change in the characteristics of the external forcing agent then you can have a temperature change for the system as a whole.
So, to answer your query more succinctly, albedo changes can either be a negative response to an internal system change OR either a positive or negative system response to a change in the characteristics of the external forcing agent.
The reason that an albedo change MUST be negative when an internal system change occurs is that an albedo change from an internal forcing agent is related one way or another to convective overturning and the air circulation at large and it is the air circulation at large that changes to neutralise the effect of solely internal forcing elements. A good example is Mars where radiative imbalances increase the temperature which is then periodically checked and restored to equilibrium by planet wide dust storms which increase albedo for a cooling effect.
linneamogren, June 6, 2017 at 7:46 pm
“Irradiance is not a real energy flux because photons obviously are not molecules. Photons can’t increase the temperature of a thermodynamic equilibrium.”
The Venusian surface temperature can be explained by applying the adiabatic lapse rate from the TOA to the surface. In order to achieve an equilibrium you need a mechanism to transfer energy and in the text books you will read about “small packets” of air rising or falling…..in other words convection.
However there are other ways to move energy around in a body of gas. For example we can usually ignore conduction but not always. In the stratosphere the dominant process is radiation while in the troposphere convection and latent heat dominate. The tropopause is the transition region. Brett Keane has already mentioned a paper that analyzes this process using “First Principles”:
Click to access Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
The above letter includes details of their convective-radiative model. In addition to the 35 page explanation of their model they also published computer code that I tested:
You will see that pressure is a key variable in the R&C model just as it is in the N&Z model. I have been trying to improve the R&C model using FEAs to introduce cloud layers without much success so far.
N and Z find that planetary surface temperature is caused by atmosphere pressure and planet gravity.
Pressure is caused by the mass of the atmosphere and gravity is caused by the mass of the planet.
That is planetary surface temperature is caused by the mass of planet and mass of atmosphere. Attractively simple.
What about insolation and albedo?
Insolation does not affect the mass of the planet or atmosphere. There must be enough energy entering and leaving the system to keep the atmos as a gas. Insolation is necessary but only a limiting factor.
Albedo is the insolation reflected and not entering the system. Albedo reduces insolation but insolation is only a limiting factor. So as long as the insolation remains sufficient albedo is also not controlling factor.
That’s called an acknowledgement. It doesn’t mean we wouldn’t know the papers can not reach today’s standard, right?
I’m quite impressed on your style but not totally convinced on who’s wrong and who’s right. As a physics minor with a history of checking student’s exam papers, I’m very knowledgeable on the fact how certain one can be with an elegant theory, and yet it can be totally wrong.
But maybe doctors don’t make mistakes? 🙂 We have a consensus, right?
wildeco2014 says:
June 6, 2017 at 2:15 pm
There will still be the same amount of mass weighing down on each point at the surface however much one expands it.
The N and Z paper does not mention weight. Gas causes pressure by change of momentum (mv) of impacting molecules on the surface (kinetic theory of gas) and not by weight (mg)
Roger Clague.
Weight describes the extent to which gas molecules within a gravity field are forced closer together by the molecules above them and so that concept is implicit in the N & Z paper.
The closer they are forced together the greater will be the gas pressure on the surface at any given level of kinetic excitation.
Roger Clague,
“What about insolation and albedo?”
The two main variables for N&Z and R&C (Robinson & Catling) are TSI and pressure. That does not mean that albedo has no effect.
Let’s take a look at Venus using NASA data here:
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
The albedo is ~0.77 which means that only 23% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed. The temperature of the top of the atmosphere is ~227 K. If the white clouds on Venus magically became jet black the TOA temperature would rise to ~327 K according to Stephan-Boltzman.
A temperature increase of 100 K sounds large yet it is much smaller than the pressure effect due to 65 km of atmosphere that exists below the TOA. Multiply 65 by a lapse rate of 8 K/km and you get 520 K.
These rough calculations help one get a feel for the relative importance of variables. However a detailed mathematical model will do a better job. Take a look at the R&C model here:
Click to access Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
When I think of albedo I am reminded that we are dealing with gas laws etc for atmospheres. The fascination of physics lies in how different phases and states of matter behave. Laws for one may not be laws for all. Clouds are not gases, but particles of liquid and/or particulate solid matter. That is why Fourier, in his misused assessment of transmission etc., spoke of a thought experiment where gas was transparent but solid, an impossibility as he knew. Tyndall, Maxwell, even Arrhenius, they figured out back radiation had no effect in the end. Radiation being an effect of moving molecules etc. in magnetic fields, rather than any primal cause. Unlike kinetic energy/sensible heat. So much built on a few musings mischaracterised by warmists desperate to make their case. Roll on the red vs blue team games. Much depends on them.
Anyway, if albedo works with frequencies and types of matter not involved in atmospheres, that would explain a lot. Which is as far as I have got, not very far yet.
tallbloke says: June 7, 2017 at 4:29 pm
Imo the comment is very much on topic. The proposed ATE claims NO effect from the temperature of the oceans on GMAT. The DEEP oceans in that period were some 18K warmer than today.
So I wonder why this has no influence on the surface temperatures and an increase in atmospheric mass has to be invoked to explain the reconstructed surface temperatureswhich were also some 18K warmer than today.
Not sure which equilibrium you refer to, but for the water heated by the eruptions to reach the surface it has to be transported to high latitudes first. The thermohaline circulation takes many, many hundreds of years to complete one cycle, so this may very well be the reason that the deep oceans didn’t warm much more, but just ~18K.
Albedo – Percentage of reflected sun light in relation to the various surface conditions of the earth.
[Dry sand can rate higher than ice – according to this Wikipedia graphic]
Re: ‘I don’t think that you could have any surface water on a completely airless world this close to the sun’
Spacecraft spots possible signs of frozen water on the Moon
Evidence could uncover how oceans formed on Earth
1 Jun 2017
NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has captured evidence that shows that parts of the Moon may be coated in thin bits of frost, and it could help scientists unlock the mystery of how water ended up on Earth.
. . .
Frozen ice deposits in cold traps also exist on Mercury. But despite Mercury’s closer proximity to the Sun, it has up to 400 times more ice than the Moon.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/01/spacecraft_spots_signs_of_frozen_water_on_moon/
As per an earlier article of mine a higher atmospheric mass would put greater pressure on the ocean surfaces such as to alter the energy value of the latent heat of evaporation for surface water.
The oceans would therefore hold more solar energy for longer and global temperatures would be higher.
At the present surface pressure of 1 bar the latent heat of evaporation is a ratio of about 5 units of energy available to be taken up for each extra unit of energy required to induce additional evaporation.at that pressure.
With higher atmospheric mass and pressure the energy needed for the phase change would rise higher. One would need maybe a ratio of 6 to 1.
In contrast, if one were to remove the atmosphere then no additional energy would be needed to provoke evaporation since the energy in the water itself would allow instantaneous evaporation with nothing needing to be added. That would be a ratio of 0 to 1.
The more massive the atmosphere, the more heat is needed to supply the energy needed for the phase change and the warmer the oceans must become in order to keep the water cycle at the same level.
By way of illustration, boiling point is 100C only at 1 bar surface pressure. At height the boiling point is less trhan 100C. At more than 1 bar pressure it would be more than 100C and trhe same principle applies for evaporation.
gallopingcamel says: June 7, 2017 at 5:54 pm
What is the relevance of applying the adiabatic lapse rate from TOA to the surface?
The two adiabatic lapse rates are only valid for the temperature CHANGE of air that is moving vertically within an atmosphere that is in hydrostatic equlibrium against gravity.
wildeco2014 says: June 8, 2017 at 11:33 am
A typical temperature profile for the oceans surface layer looks like this:
Being very generous, solar influence does not reach below ~500m.
I’m talking deep ocean temperatures. Average ocean depth is around 3700m.
So I fail to see how some change in the rate of evaporation could increase the temperature at eg 3700m ~18K.
Ben,
There is not necessarily any change in the rate of evaporation. The change is in the energy requirement of that evaporation.
The way solar energy is distributed around the ocean basins and in the vertical temperature profile of the oceans is a separate matter.
The fact is that the pressure of the atmosphere on the ocean surface determines how much solar energy can be retained by the oceans.
No atmosphere=no oceans.
More atmosphere and the temperature needing to be reached before evaporation can occur increases. When the atmosphere carried more mass the boiling point of water would have been higher than 100C and the evaporation point would also have been commensurately higher.
Clouds for instance reflect a lot of light. But there is also a roiling WV/condensate factory working below, inside, and far above them in sunlight. Climatology has trouble characterising clouds. It knows little about the similar vast morning and evening WV latent heat rolling around the globe. Just ignorance?
Even in the oceans heat rises. 4 degrees C is the point of maximum density of water molecules.
In most volumes of water the individual molecules are of different energy levels, the warm ones rise and the cold ones sink. Molecules with less then 4C energy levels rise just as those warmer do. The deep oceans are geothermally heated from below and can not be a sink for surface heated water. The laws of physics of water can not be changed at the pleasure of climate scientists, it is what it is…pg
Addiing to pg above; and from this link; http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/the-cosmic-origins-of-uranium.aspx
“—— In terms of total heat loss from the Earth at present, plate activity constitutes about 74%, hot spots account for approximately 9% and radiogenic heat lost directly from the continental crust is some 17%. The Earth is well insulated thermally and the heat loss from the surface now can reflect heat generation a considerable time in the past.
Measurements of heat have led to estimates that the Earth is generating between 30 and 44 terawatts of heat, much of it from radioactive decay.—–“
p.g.sharrow says: June 9, 2017 at 5:08 am
Yes, and this rising water even expands a little, cooling according the adiabatic lapse rate for the oceans (~0,4K/km)
If only these basic truths were widely understood, we wouldn’t have all these discussions about the atmosphere somehow warming the surface and even the deep oceans.
The atmosphere is mostly warmed by the surface and also by solar radiation.
A basic understanding of the hydrostatic equlibrium against gravity the atmosphere is in would help enormously.
Joseph E Postma says: June 7, 2017 at 4:28 pm
Had a look at your new paper. From the conclusions:
Do you have a link/ quote for the measurements of the adiabatic lapse rates. I’ve seen a documentary in which a person with a thermometer descended under a parachute through a small cumulus and the air below it, showing the wet and dry adiabatic lapse rates.
A more “scientific” approach would be nice.
Incorrect. ELR’s > 9,8K/km are well known, and create an absolute instability for that part of the atmosphere. These ELR’s are called “super adiabatic lapse rates.
(ELR = Environmental Lapse Rate)
see eg. http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/31/
wildeco2014 says:
June 7, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Weight describes the extent to which gas molecules within a gravity field are forced closer together by the molecules above them and so that concept is implicit in the N & Z paper.
What happens to gas molecules in the Earth’s gravity field?
Molecules are accelerated by gravity (g is in m/s^2)
At 20km Earth’s gravity field is 0.03m/s^2 less than at the surface
So a molecule falling from 20km to surface are on average accelerated at 0.03m/s for 20km.
V = velocity of a molecule, s = distance V^2 = 2gs (Newton’s Law of Motion)
V^2 = 2 x 3/100 x 20 000 = 1200
Change of V = 35 m/s
Air molecules at 20km are slower and cooler. Air molecules at surface are faster and hotter
.
Gravity changing the velocity of molecules is the cause of atmosphere temperature enhancement.
Ben Wouters says:
June 9, 2017 at 11:12 am
Do you have a link/ quote for the measurements of the adiabatic lapse rates
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226188892_Tropospheric_lapse_rate_and_its_relation_to_surface_temperature_from_reanalysis_data
5.5 to 6.5 K/km
I have added two earth surface atmospheric pressure ( 70 & 200 kPa) operating data and inserted them in the tables 2 & 4 and figure 4 in Nikolov and Zeller, Environ Pollut Climate Change 2017, 1:2.
The low pressure (70 kPa) corresponding surface temperature, Ts=282.2 K, is 0.6 K higher than the one calculated from equation 10. The earth surface albedo can in this case increase due to an increased amount of ice (compared to the nowadays amount), the temperature will decrease and the difference to equation 10 will be reduced.
The high pressure (200 kPa) corresponding surface temperature, Ts=298.8 K, is 1.7 K lower than the one calculated from equation 10. The earth surface albedo can in this case decrease due to an decreased amount of ice (compared to the nowadays amount), the temperature will increase and the difference to equation 10 will be reduced.
The atmospheric pressure and the sun rules the surface temperature on earth together with water (liquid, vapor and ice) causing a vapor pressure and thereby a cloud (ice) albedo making the temperature very stable in either direction.
The same principle is working on either celestial body having a liquid able to evaporate to the atmosphere. This is due to the fact that the temperature for any liquid have a logaritmic dependence to the vapor pressure – as is the same rule Nikolov and Zeller based there report onto.
I was not able to put the figure 4 here but will put it in a mail to tallbloke.
wildeco2014:
Heat of water evaporation is 2.5 MJ/kg at 273 K and 2.4 MJ/kg at 313 K.
Kind Regards
Anders
Ben Wouters,
The relevance of adiabatic lapse rate is that the predicted “Dry Adiabat” equal to -g/Cp appears in most tropospheres. The exceptions in our solar system are Earth and Titan which have large oceans. For those two bodies a (lower) moist adiabat applies. Robinson & Catling call the ratio between the dry and moist temperature gradients “alpha” in their model rather than try to develop a formula from first principles.
Just to rub it in……..that ocean temperature plot you linked showed a typical adiabatic temperature gradient from a depth of ~100 meters to the depth where a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius is found. The extent of the adiabatic region increases as the sea surface temperature rises. Note that the temperature gradient in the adiabatic region in water is positive reflecting the fact that water is much less compressible than air.
Getting back to Venus, the Magellan microwave measurements measured the temperature profile and found a classic adiabatic gradient in the troposphere. See various papers by Jenkins et al.
Does anyone know what the temperature of Mars would be, if one were to assess this using the same approach as in the radiative model bearing in mind that Mars has some 953,200 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere, and the atmosphere of Mars is about 1/204th the mass of that of Earth?
Roger.
Gravity sorts the molecules around a sphere into a density gradient such that the weight of the molecules higher up presses the molecules lower down into a smaller volume. The greater the density the more vibratory activity will be squeezed into a given area and the temperature will rise. The Gas Laws depend on that.
The concept of weight is therefore a given.
gallopingcamel says: June 9, 2017 at 8:28 pm
The numbers may be roughly the same but I don’t see how the adiabatic lapse rates can EXPLAIN the observed temperature profile, unless you claim that the entire atmosphere is continuously moving up and/or down.
That the numbers are close is no surprise, since one of the requirements for the adiabatic lapse rates to be valid is that the surrounding atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium against gravity.
The lapse rate at the depth you mention is around -10K/km ( as seen from the bottom up)
The adiabatic lapse rate for water is ~0,1 to 0,2 K/km, meaning that rising (and expanding) water COOLS about 0,5K when rising from the bottom to the surface.
So I fail to see your point.
Roger Clague says: June 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Thanks for the link, but the article is about the ELR (Environmental Lapse Rate), the temperature profile of the atmosphere, as measured with balloons, airliners etc.etc.
I’m interested to see an actual measurement of the temperature change in rising (or sinking) air, with and without condensation going on.
Ben Wouters says:
“unless you claim that the entire atmosphere is continuously moving up and/or down.”
Actually, it is.
The entire atmosphere is split into High pressure cells containing generally descending air and Low pressure cells containing generally ascending air.
The air in High pressure cells spirals around the centre across the isobars in a downward direction and the air in Low pressure cells spirals around the centre across the isobars in an upward direction.
There’s also tropospheric height variation:
‘Tropopause height at the Poles varies between 7 km in winter and 10 km in summer, at the Equator the range is 17 to 18 km.’
Ben Wouters, June 10, 2017 at 4:07 pm:
My point is that the atmospheric adiabatic lapse rate that Dr. Pallister (my physics teacher) revealed to me in 1954 explains observations better than anything that “Climate Scientists” like James Hansen and his motley crew have conjured up. It even works under water!
gallopingcamel says: June 11, 2017 at 2:24 am
Seems your’e referring to the Thermocline temperature profile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline
Even if the rate was equal to the dry adiabatic number, you still have a slight problem:
the sign is opposite! In the oceans the temperature INCREASES with decreasing pressure.
In the atmosphere the temperature DECREASES with decreasing pressure.
Rising water in the oceans cools ~0,1 -0,2 K/km. (very low compressability of water)
Rising air in the atmosphere cools ~9,8K/km until condensation starts (cloud forming)
from then on the rising air cools according the wet adiabatic lapse rate, which is rather variable.
To understand atmospheric temperature profiles requires an understanding of the hydrostatic equilibrium(HE) against gravity atmospheres are in. (Even a star is in HE against its own gravity.)
see eg http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
@Ben Wouters
Thanks for the review points above. Yes that sentence is too general…it was meant only for dry air but it can just be removed and the paragraph flows on well without it. Thank you.
I suppose I could find some reference for the lapse rate measurements. At this point I take it as common knowledge for people who are looking into these things.
I wonder though…the real point I’m trying to make in the paper is that climate alarm is quite literally based on flat Earth physics…it’s flat Earth pseudoscience, literally. So, I wonder though, given how much damage climate alarm has done to real science…should I provide a reference that the Earth isn’t flat, when I state that the Earth isn’t flat? lol
richard verney says:
June 10, 2017 at 12:32 am
Re temperature of Mars:
‘The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth’s mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi; 1.013 bar).’ – Wikipedia
Solar irradiance (W/m²) = 586.2 [from NASA fact sheet]
– – –
That’s all the data needed, just add theory (above) and stir 😉
Joseph E Postma says: June 12, 2017 at 4:31 pm
No need to look for references about the measurement of atmospheric temperature profiles. I’m pretty familiar with those.
You write about empirical measurements of the dry adiabatic lapse rate. This would involve having a temperature sensor staying within a rising thermal or something like that. I’m very interested in serious literature about that.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 5, 2017 at 2:32 pm
From Ned
Only a change in total atmospheric pressure produces the correct pattern and magnitude of observed equatorial and polar temperature shifts between glacial and interglacial conditions. These analyses will be presented in later paper of ours
The million dollar question is how /why does this happen ?
Have you considered that the thinner the atmosphere, the faster the convection currents will move heat energy? Venus has proper Hadley Cells due to density while Earth really doesn’t. The instability is from a lack of density…
Really good post guys and if I could pass my regards to N&Z, Paul Vaughan and J. Postma, the latter who set me off along this ‘rocky (planet) road’ of discovery. Thank you JP for joining some dots!
After reading one of JP’s papers I sat down with a pen and in moments had the dry lapse from principles I already knew to be true. A ‘lightbulb’ moment.
There seems to be a very sensible measure of scientific initiative being exhibited here that is rare without distractions from ‘defenders of the faith’.
I can only assume that TB is sensibly vetting comments detrimental to this interesting dialogue!!
Roger Clague
“Gravity changing the velocity of molecules is the cause of atmosphere temperature enhancement.”
Exactly!!!
If we forget the ‘assumptions’ of Maxwell momentarily and allow molecules to ‘feel’ gravity at the resolution of the universe then the evolution of the lapse rate is automatic; even diffusion then carries gravity information at that base level. There is no ‘isothermal column’ in a gravity field.
In the maths of the Boltzmann distribution I believe ‘gravity is neglected as it is second order in the time derivative’…….. mistake!
Pressure has been spoken of regularly, but it is worth perhaps pointing out that pressure in a gravity field ‘IS’ -(gravitational potential energy) per unit volume, by its units.
This can be extended to the core of even a ‘rocky planet’ to derive the core temperature.
Also the wording ‘adiabatic’, in particular ‘reversible adiabatic’ is a maximum entropy profile. All other profiles are lower entropy and so will always evolve by spontaneous process to this profile.
As illustrated by data.
Best regards.
nuworld: I can only assume that TB is sensibly vetting comments detrimental to this interesting dialogue!!
Actually no. The pro-AGW mob steer clear of the talkshop, because they get a good drubbing from the smart people who comment here.
Sorry about that implication TB, just so used to arguing with ‘misdirects’ about basics. Not used to them not being around I suppose! My bad.
dscott says: June 13, 2017 at 4:46 pm
The reason the Hadley circulation on Earth doesn’t go all the way from equator to the poles is the rotation of earth and the resulting Coriolis effect that makes the pole ward moving air turn east.
nuwurld says: June 13, 2017 at 8:14 pm
Could you point out / link to what made you think that the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) has anything to say about the temperature profile of the entire troposphere/atmosphere?
Since you consider the DALR as a maximum entropy profile, what are the “super adiabatic profiles” in your opinion? (lapse rates (far) above 10K/km)
see eg http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/31/
Hi Ben.
Firstly the dry adiabatic applies largely from the surface to the lower condensation point and from above the cloud deck through the free convective zone to any further saturation levels.
The DALR is a starting point for ‘viewing’ an atmosphere but does not describe the full tropospheric column due to the presence of a condensing gas in significant quantity. As I am sure you are aware.
The rules though are exactly the same where adjacent, thermally coupled surfaces come to equilibrium such that the total energy remains accountable. This is very similar to the adiabatic assumption that no energy is gained or lost or the sum of diabatic processes is zero.
To answer your second point a maximum entropy profile in this case is a profile in equilibrium in a gravity field. A super-adiabatic profile is unstable and will therefore evolve to a less steep profile over time.
Global means on Earth and Magellan Venus data show no sign of any tropospheric divergence by any process (including the global sum of inversions and super adiabatic layers) from taking and testing the assumption that the change in gravitational potential energy is found within the total energy states compatible with thermal states. This includes latent heat, of course, retrievable through specific humidity changes.
The surface energy has embedded in its thermal pool the same energy as the upper troposphere and its temperature is the result of its thermal response (isobaric specific heat capacity) to the difference in gravitational potential energy per unit mass, relative to the full column. There is no sign of additional energy as opacity increases in the lower layers.
I might not have directly answered your questions so please ask further if you feel that is so.
nuwurld says:
June 13, 2017 at 8:14 pm
I sat down with a pen and in moments had the dry lapse from principles I already knew to be true.
Please give details
RogerC “Gravity changing the velocity of molecules is the cause of atmosphere temperature enhancement.”
Exactly!!!
Thanks for the support. Seems basic physics to me.
We know gas T is caused by velocity of molecules and gravity changes velocity
G -=m/s^2 = m/s/s =v/s
Gravity 3/1000 greater at surface than at 20km
Change in v = sq rt 2gs ( Newton’s Laws of Motion) = approx. 40m/s
even diffusion then carries gravity information at that base level
Climate science ignores diffusion as well as gravity
Pressure has been spoken of regularly, but it is worth perhaps pointing out that pressure in a gravity field ‘IS’ -(gravitational potential energy) per unit volume, by its units.
A good point. Air pressure has been given the wrong units of force /area e.g. lb/sq foot
pv =kT gas law
p = kT/v that is temperature/VOLUME or v^2/VOLUME
gas pressure acts in all directions over a volume
[Moderation note] Preferentially downwards in a gravitational field
solids act downwards as weight onto a surface area.
Roger C,
“I sat down with a pen and in moments had the dry lapse from principles I already knew to be true.
Please give details”
There are limited ways that a body of gas can store energy.
The sum of independent thermal energy states is its heat capacity. A body of gas also has gravitational potential energy relative to a reference point in a gravity field. So neglecting chemical potentials we could write,
Total energy Q
Q= m . C . ΔT + m . g . Δh
For adiabatic dQ=>0
0= m . C . dT + m . g . dh
Rearranging
dT/dh= -g/C
For adiabatic, changes in vertical displacement in a gravity field are accompanied by a change in temperature reflected through the thermal response to energy changes expressed through specific heat capacity.
It did take some time to rationalise why it was Cp specifically and I did spend some time calculating heat capacities of diatomic gases from principles with knowledge that one of the independent energy states that constitute heat capacity is the vertical translational degree of freedom. Equipartition normalises changes in the z-component between all compatible independent energy storage states and the isobaric specific heat capacity gives the thermal response of the body of gas to changes in geopotential.
Roger C,
“Thanks for the support. Seems basic physics to me.
We know gas T is caused by velocity of molecules and gravity changes velocity
G -=m/s^2 = m/s/s =v/s
Gravity 3/1000 greater at surface than at 20km
Change in v = sq rt 2gs ( Newton’s Laws of Motion) = approx. 40m/s”
Roger, molecules have mass and therefore feel gravity. At Earth’s and even at Venus’ surface densities molecules still spend most of their time in between collisions under the influence of gravity. Every mean free path is modified as a trajectory in a gravity field at the quantum resolution of the universe. There are no identified cases of matter or energy defying gravity.
For simplification we can consider the z-component alone as being the only modified vector. Changes in z-component potential energy are reflected as changes in temperature by conservation principles, through the isobaric specific heat capacity.
Two equations, which are identical are the isentropic flow equation and the adiabatic lapse rate. One has pressure but no gravity, the other gravity but no pressure term. But pressure in a gravity field is -gravitational potential energy density.
The 380K isentrope we find at the tropospheric cold point is predicted as a surface temperature without a condensing gas by the isentropic glow equation or by dumping the gravitational potential energy into a diatomic gases thermal states.
Glad to see so many of you ‘getting it’ at last.
The equations proposed can be more simply expressed by the concept of kinetic energy converting to potential energy in rising air and the opposite in falling air.
In other words,what I described as the adiabatic energy loop several years ago.
Hi Stephen. Thank you for all the work you have put into this topic sir.
However a ‘bone of contention’ still exists as to whether you believe ‘molecules feel gravity’.
I feel that you still believe that advection is required, as in bulk motion, to operate the gravity induced thermal gradient.
Do you believe sir that this is a requirement?
nuwurld says: June 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Imo the starting point for viewing an atmosphere should be the hydrostatic equlibrium against gravity (HE) it is in, including the related pressure gradient force. The energy flow from surface through this atmosphere to space decides how much the atmosphere expands and what the temperature profile is (plus other factors obviously).
The DALR is ONLY valid for the temperature change of rising (or sinking) volumes of air within that atmosphere.
Every derivation I’m aware of has at least these two conditions:
– the process is adiabatic
– the surrounding air is in HE
The SALR is just the DALR reduced by the release of latent heat of condensation.
see eg http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_instability
comes this quote:
“Adiabatic cooling and heating are phenomena of rising or descending air. Rising air expands and cools due to the decrease in air pressure as altitude increases. The opposite is true of descending air; as atmospheric pressure increases, the temperature of descending air increases as it is compressed. Adiabatic heating and adiabatic cooling are terms used to describe this temperature change.”
nuworld: However a ‘bone of contention’ still exists as to whether you believe ‘molecules feel gravity’.
Molecules are matter (and they don’t have feelings). Matter has mass. Gravity acts on all mass. Without exception. Always.
Here endeth the lesson
TB so we agree that at the molecular level, the atmosphere feels gravity.
Therefore we do not require advective flow.
Describing the operation of an atmosphere in its simplest terms is then the effects of molecules in a gravity field. Not how molecules work and manifest collectively to maximise (entropy) do something they were doing already:-)
All else builds from that irrefutable statement that you just made.
Sorry Ben. I thought we were talking specifically about lapse rates, as in thermal conditions.
I agree that the hydrostatic condition is foremost as density always prevails in a gravity field.
You have said,
“The DALR is ONLY valid for the temperature change of rising (or sinking) volumes of air within that atmosphere.
Every derivation I’m aware of has at least these two conditions:
– the process is adiabatic
– the surrounding air is in HE”
Ben the process is adiabatic because the sum of diabatic processes is near zero compared with total energy. And except for within a tornado the air is always in near perfect hydrostatic equilibrium. Micro pressure changes cause advection.
You believe that molecular diffusion constantly pulls a volume of air isothermal by mixing temperature. This would exist in all the still air on the planet and within any body of moving air as a parcel.
This would be evident in global means as a weighted pull of a mechanism towards the isothermal column.
The global means ( is real world observations) indicate that on a molecular level gravity is felt and that the macroscopic measurable products are the result of development of microscopic events. See Benard cells. Maximising entropy.
Fact: the air is made of molecules that have mass and spend most of their time in free fall in a gravity field. The macroscopic domain IS the sum of microscopic events. The sum of all available mechanisms obey gravity. As shown by the data.
And this is why I have no friends 😦
“And this is why I have no friends 😦”
You may have an ally. 🙂
As you say (anthropomorphisms aside), the gravitational lapse rate exists regardless of rising or lowering air parcels. See my derivation at brindabella.id.au/climarc in the Lapse_Rates.pdf article. Do we have the same result?
Mine gives: Γg = 2mg/(fm + fc)k
I go on to show that this is theoretically equivalent to Γth = g/cp as derived by the air parcels approach, but you don’t need moving air parcels to get it. I think the conventional (convectional) approach is opaque and confusing.
Recently I’ve started to think that it is actually incorrect when you look at a dynamic situation. I’ve been trying to quantify the effect of what I call skew flow on the lapse rate. I don’t know if this has a name, or even if it has been considered before.
The distribution of mean free paths of infrared emissions from some point in the atmosphere is skewed in the vertical direction because the air above the point is thinner than that below it – upward mfp is longer, tending to infinite at TOA. This means that there is a net upward transport of heat which lowers the lapse rate. There is a tug-of-war between this process and the gravitational distribution, so you have to look at relaxation rates for the two processes.
I’ve made an estimate for the radiative side in my RadiativeDelay170519.pdf article. I think the gravitational relaxation will be related to the speed of sound in air, but I haven’t thought that through yet. It’s certainly not related to the rate of moving air parcels. This process doesn’t create convection, just expansion and a lifting of the tropopause.
An interesting consequence is that skew can reduce the lapse rate to zero, which could account for the zero lapse region above the tropopause. Then UV absorption increases temps giving a positive lapse rate.
nuwurld says: June 15, 2017 at 12:21 am
I’m. Whether thermal conditions develop is dependent on the temperature profile of the ‘static’ atmosphere. Atmospheric buoyancy (convection) can only continue as long as the rising air is less dense than the surrounding air. If you’re familiar with atmospheric stability and /or CAPE, this should be no news to you.
Yes, but the adiabatic assumption is only valid for short time periods. eg for descending air in a high pressure area the adiabatic assumption is no longer valid.
When a ‘disturbance’ in the HE exists, the atmosphere corrects this by moving the volume that is at an incorrect level to the appropriate level and restore HE.
No disagreement here. Switch of gravity, and the atmosphere explodes away from the surface into space immediately.
Again:
No disagreement here. Switch off gravity, and the atmosphere explodes away from the surface into space immediately.
Some semantic quibbles have arisen in some of the recent comments.
The lapse rate slope simply represents the decline in density of the atmosphere with height. Around a sphere the decline in density is exponential and that produces a linear such decline which is effectively the lapse rate slope.
Another way to look at it is that the lapse rate slope follows the change in the rate at which conduction takes over from radiation as an energy transfer mechanism. Conduction becomes more important as density increases.
You can’t have a lapse rate slope without a density gradient and you can’t have a density gradient without gravity to arrange it.
Originally, the material that makes up the atmosphere was on the surface. To get the atmosphere in the first place one needs to raise those materials off the surface in gaseous form. That requires movement.
Convection is movement up or down. Advection is lateral movement.
Upward convection converts surface heat to potential energy which is not heat. Downward convection returns that ‘lost’ heat back to the surface as heat again.
What goes up must also come down in a hydrostatically supported atmosphere and if the atmosphere is to be retained the two movements must net out to zero over the long term.
Advection at the top and bottom simply closes the adiabatic loop so that the energy contained in the process of convective overturning is effectively removed from the Earth’s heat budget whilst it remains in potential form.
Nonetheless it heats the surface above the S-B prediction and I have now submitted my more detailed description of the process to Roger. Hopefully he will publish it shortly.
[reply] DOne. Published here:
Thanks for flying with the talkshop.
A slight clarification.
I should have said that a linear decline in density with height results from an exponential decline in pressure with height. That is because the available volume expands exponentially as one moves away from a sphere and so the decline in pressure is also exponential. The consequence is a linear decline in density and the lapse rate slope represents that linear decline.
Stephen Wilde says: June 15, 2017 at 9:44 am
Like this?
Ben,
More details here especially Fig 3.3
Click to access ch3_2000.pdf
The curved slope in the atmosphere as contrasted with the ocean is because density is not constant.
The result, when one combines the density variation with the exponential drop in pressure is a linear lapse rate slope because of the proportionality between density and pressure dictated by the Gas Law.
There is a caveat in relation to the lapse rates in different layers of the atmosphere.
The ‘ideal’ linear decline in temperature with height as determined by mass and gravity is distorted in different layers depending on the composition of the gases in those layers.
However, averaging all layers from surface to the boundary with space always produces the ‘ideal’ linear lapse rate otherwise the atmosphere would be lost by virtue of the destruction of hydrostatic equilibrium.
Any deviation from the ‘ideal’ is dealt with via convective adjustments showing up as variations in the global air circulation pattern.
Convection neutralises radiative imbalances so as to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium and in doing so also maintains the ideal lapse rate slope and thesurface temperature determined by mass and gravity at any given level of external irradiation.
Stephen Wilde says, June 15, 2017 at 9:34 am:
No. This is wrong in so many ways. Where to start?
(1) “Heat” [Q] is conflated with “internal energy” [U], which includes the KE of the air molecules.
(2) Convection does not convert the molecular KE of the rising air into PE; and Q is certainly not converted into PE!
(3) No heat [Q] transferred from the surface to the atmosphere ever returns to the surface. The air originally carrying it returns, but not the excess energy itself. This is safely radiated to space as OLR through the ToA. A positive Q from cool atm to warm sfc would directly violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
@nuwurld
That’s a good comment you’ve been making about “forces acting at the resolution of the universe”, and then, that gas in an atmosphere spends most of its time in free-fall at scales much, much larger than the Planck length, and, molecules oscillating in a lattice also moving at scales much much larger than the Planck length, etc. So yes, gravity is having an effect at the molecular scale, at least. But even when the gas particles are interacting, it is not as if gravity stops having an effect during that moment. The mean free path concept helps you think about gravity “having time to act”, but it is of course still acting during the moment of interaction too.
You might be interested in what is discussed in the 2nd half of this post:
“In mechanical vertical equilibrium, meaning that there is no bulk movement of the atmosphere either up or down, then for any given horizontal infinitesimal slice of atmosphere there must be conservation of mass for any gas passing through that slice. Why would any gas move through that slice? Simply because of thermal movement on the molecular scale. Some molecules will move up through the slice, and an equal number will move down through the slice when there is mechanical equilibrium. The conservation of mass equation is:
ρ↑V↑ = ρ↓V↓
where ρ is the density of the gas and V is its average velocity. The upward and downward arrows indicate upward movement and downward movement through the infinitesimal horizontal slice.
But in an infinitesimal time period ‘dt’, and if the average velocities are initially identical at ‘V0‘, how does the velocity change for the upward and downward moving molecules given that gravity is acting upon them? If the local gravitational field strength is ‘g’ (positive value), then the upward moving particles will have their velocity reduced by g*dt, and the downward moving particles increased by g*dt. And so:
ρ↑(V0 – g*dt) = ρ↓(V0 + g*dt)
and as a ratio:
ρ↑/ρ↓ = (V0 + g*dt)/(V0 – g*dt)
The right-hand-side is always larger than one, which then for the left-hand-side means that the density of the gas below the slice must be higher than the density above. And so density must decrease with altitude. At the same time, the particles crossing to below the slice will have a higher average velocity as compared to the ones crossing to above the slice, and so therefore temperature must decrease with altitude since this velocity corresponds to a component of the thermal molecular speed of the gas. An equal number of particles pass either up or down, but the particles moving above are slowed, whereas the particles moving below are hastened. Thus, lower density and lower temperature as altitude increases.”
Stephen Wilde says, June 15, 2017 at 9:44 am:
There is no LINEAR decline in density with altitude in the atmosphere. The decline in density is specifically proportional to the decline in pressure with altitude, that is, they both decline exponentially. This naturally leads to a linear decline in TEMPERATURE with altitude INSIDE a parcel of air rising up ALONG the pressure and density gradients. That is, it leads to a linear DRY ADIABATIC LAPSE RATE.
Kristian said: “(3) […] A positive Q from cool atm to warm sfc would directly violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”
Very nice.
Joseph E Postma says: June 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Did you locate the empirical measurements of the dry adiabatic lapse rate yet?
I really would like to see them.
I think it can be found in radiosonde data. Carl Brehmer, one of the Slayer researchers, was using it for some work he was doing, showing that when water vapour is present “the strongest greenhouse gas” that surface temperatures decreased, not increased, etc.
So yes, it can be found from radiosonde data in dry locations like some desert.
I think it’s just one of those things that’s so well known that there are no real “official” references for it, whatever “official” would mean. I can’t think of where to officially reference the gravitational constant, but we know it has actually been measured somewhere.
I’ll see if Carl is still responding to emails on this issue, and ask if he still has the plots he created from the radiosonde data showing the difference between dry and moist air temperature vs. altitude plots.
Joseph E Postma says: June 15, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Deserts arre usually under a high pressure area, with slowly descending air and the accomplishing inversion. Not a good place to measure the temperature within rising thermals.
Dry convection mostly, if any.
Radiosondes are released at specified times, and it would be pure chance when they hit a thermal and stayed in it all the way to cloudtop.
Kristian,
Ah, yes. I think you are right on that point.
Both density and pressure decline exponentially and the consequence is a linear decline in temperature because of the Gas Laws.
Expressing the maths in conceptual, verbal terms is tricky and I got it a bit mixed up.
Nonetheless the basic scenario described in my subsequent post as published by Roger is correct.
Kristian,
I think you are wrong on the KE to PE and PE to KE issue. Surface heat does most certainly disappear into potential energy in ascent and return in descent.
wildeco2014 says: June 15, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Aircraft have engines, birds flap their wings. What is the driving mechanism that overcomes gravity for the rising parcel, and how does thermal energy fuel that mechanism?
Ben
The downward force of gravity is offset by the upward pressure gradient force and at hydrostatic equilibrium both forces balance on average at every point along the lapse rate slope.
The upward pressure gradient force is fuelled by both pressure and kinetic energy at the surface such that the more externally sourced radiation that reaches the surface the higher will be the top of the atmosphere.
If surface temperature goes higher than that determined by mass and gravity at any particular level of insolation (such as via additional heating from ghgs) then the top slice will be lost to space.
Losing the top slice will reduce atmospheric mass so that hydrostatic equilibrium is destroyed and the remaining mass will expand to fill the original volume so that the top slice is lost again and so on until the whole atmosphere is lost.
Thus any ‘extra’ surface warming from ghgs would ultimately cause the atmosphere to be lost to space.
wildeco2014 says, June 15, 2017 at 8:49 pm:
I am not wrong. This is a discussion we’ve had countless times, on this and other blogs. You never seem to learn. Rising parcels of air do not cool by simply being lifted. It’s not the lifting itself that cools them. Even as it IS the lifting itself that increases the gravitational PE of the rising parcel. Those (the cooling and the increase in PE) are two distinct (unrelated) processes.
No, the rising parcels of air cool because they expand against the surrounding air pressure (progressively diminishing with altitude), thus performing positive WORK on it. This is completely uncontroversial and one of the most basic processes described in thermodynamics, in fact, it’s the very process through which Clausius originally derived the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: ΔU = Q – W, where ΔU is the change in the “internal energy” of the air volume from t_0 to t_1, Q is the energy transferred into (or out of) the volume from (to) its surroundings through the process of “heating”, and W is the energy transferred out of (or into) the volume to (from) its surroundings through the process of “working” (work performed by the volume of air on its surroundings, or the other way around), where the amount of ‘work’ is generally considered simply as force times distance (Nm or J). In an adiabatic process, “heat” [Q] is zero, so the 1st Law is reduced to ΔU = -W, which means that the change in the “internal energy” of the air volume (and thus in its temperature T) is directly equivalent to the amount of “work” that the air has performed on its surroundings, or to the amount of “work” performed on the air by its surroundings, from t_0 to t_1. A rising air parcel in the atmosphere expands against the surrounding air pressure, which becomes lower the higher you get, thus performing positive work [W] on it (force times distance). This directly reduces the internal energy [U] of the rising air parcel (as per the 1st Law for an adiabatic process (Q=0), above), which naturally leads to a drop in its internal temperature.
And no, Stephen, no heat [Q] is ever brought BACK to the surface once it’s taken up and away from it, as this would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (I am now of course talking about the average situation. On average (globally, annually), the surface is always warmer than the atmosphere above.
You seem to conflate “heat” [Q] with “internal energy” [U]. Heat is not something that is ever contained WITHIN a thermodynamic system. It is ALWAYS energy thermally transferred BETWEEN systems (or between regions (at different temperatures) inside systems, like the troposphere). It is always energy in transit, in motion, aflow of energy driven temperature gradients.
The molecular (microscopic) KE of a volume of air (associated with its temperature) is part of the “internal energy” [U] of that volume. It is not “heat” [Q]. Heat is something else entirely. Heat is energy in a process (a thermal one). Just like work is (a mechanical one). Internal energy, however, is energy in a state.
wildeco2014 says: June 16, 2017 at 8:30 am
Stephen, please don’t try to teach me basic meteorology. I’m well aware of that.
What you (and many others with you) probably fail to see is the difference between a decreasing density vs altitude for the static atmosphere and the decreasing density DUE TO EXPANSION of a rising volume of air. The first case is NOT expansion.
Imo this is where all the nonsense about the DALR and SALR comes from……..
Ben, not meaning to try to teach you the basics, just make it clear for less knowledgeable readers.
I don’t think that I anywhere suggest that the reducing density gradient with height created by gravity represents expansion.
Expansion leading to the adiabatic conversion of KE to PE is exclusively the product of physically moving a more dense parcel of gas up along that density gradient.
The energy for that movement is provided by density differentials in the horizontal plane caused by uneven surface heating.Warmer parcels always rise up above cooler parcels due to their lower mass density (lower weight per unit of volume) increasing their upward pressure gradient force in relation to the downward force of gravity at any given surface temperature.
As for the distinction between the dry adiabatic lapse rate and the saturated adiabatic lapse rate, that is a consequence of the energy involved in the phase changes of water between vapour liquid and solid.
Where water vapour is present as a gas it distorts the ‘ideal’ lapse rate slope set by mass and gravity which forces a convective adjustment elsewhere in order to retain overall hydrostatic equilibrium.
Water vapour being lighter than air it has a greater upward pressure gradient force than air acting upon it and so will rise further than air against the downward force of gravity.
That means water vapour will be warmer than it ‘should’ be for its position along the lapse rate slope which distorts the lapse rate slope where water vapour is present.
Non condensing GHGs such as CO2 are also dealt with by convective adjustments if they distort the ideal lapse rate slope set by mass and gravity.
I set out the various situations here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/neutralising-radiative-imbalances-within-convecting-atmospheres/
[…] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/foundations-of-greenhouse-theory-challenged-by-new-analys… […]
Stephen,
while it is correct to dismiss the idea of a radiative GHE, the problem is you are still trying to model an atmospheric GHE where no such thing exists.
The foundation claim of the climastrologists : “That the sun alone could only heat the surface materials of this planet to an average of -18C (255K) in the absence of radiative gases”, is wrong.
That 255K figure is simply a result of inputting 240 w/m2 into the S-B equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. However 71% of our planet’s surface is ocean, and empirical experiment shows that the S-B equation cannot be used for intermittent solar illumination of water. The only way to solve for solar heating of our planet’s surface is empirical experiment or CFD (computational fluid dynamics).
If your modelling has surface without atmosphere running cooler than its current 288K average, then you must be doing something wrong. Because almost all solar energy received by earth is via surface absorption, surface properties must be included in modelling. If, unlike the climastrologists, you start with surface properties, you will find that the question to be asked is not “How is the atmosphere raising surface temperatures by 33K?” but rather “How is the atmosphere reducing surface temperatures by 24K?”.
” back radiation’ is actually a product of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. ”
Could someone please explain this to me?
I was sorry to see the discussion about the N&Z paper kind of fall off. But FYI in case anyone is still interested, a debate is going strong at PSI (see esp. Ed Bo and Ned Nikolov) —
http://principia-scientific.org/bombshell-science-study-validates-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Watch this space. Ned and I have a new series of posts planned to cover the various criticisms and misconceptions of their theory.
Excellent! I will be watching.
Tallbloke: While you are planning those future posts, I will add that another way to think about this problem would be in terms of thermal mass (something Ed Bo at PSI alludes to but may find in the end does not work in his favor) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass
Ned still hasn’t answered the point Ed Bo makes about diurnal swings affecting average temperature to my satisfaction, but assuming an emissivity of 1 accentuates the effect, so real world difference will be less. Ned has looked into heat retention by regolith very carefully.
@The Moose says:
June 24, 2017 at 4:40 am: Gas physics is not the same as that of solids. Squeeze it and the molecules go closer together (or vice-versa). Their vibrations due to kinetic energy will increase thanks to shorter travel. That results in higher frequency radiative spectral peaks ie temperature, as
we measure it. Because electromagnetic radiation is the result of matter, atoms and molecules, moving through field currents.
What they call ‘back radiation’ is merely the above results of gravity acting on gas around a planet, with a certain energy input from its sun . Being a vector force, and a weakish one, its net flux is down the energy gradient to space. Cause and effect, horse before cart, kinetic energy vibrations cause radiation ie electromagnetic flux. To claim otherwise means claiming infinite self-heating or some other version of fairyland. We would not be here. It is however the way we cool to match input over the long term.
Tallbloke: It seems to me (a lowly engineer) that the answer can be found by asking, in the eq. Q = Cth * deltaT is Q constant or not regardless of rotation. I’m thinking it is but could be wrong.
I’m going to duck out of expressing an opinion on this for now and try to get Ned to address it explicitly.
Tallbloke: Understand. I’m merely suggesting another (possibly simpler) way to consider it. I look forward to whatever responses you guys come up with.
The danger lies in averaging the temperature without due consideration of the T^4 relationship between temperature and energy. Diurnal swings in temperature (and thus radiance) at all points on a rotating body illuminated from one side have to be properly integrated.
“The danger lies in averaging the temperature”
I’m not sure if people haven’t heard of or have forgotten Dr. Christopher Essex’ contribution to this fiasco with his book “State of Fear”. He was actually my thermodynamics/Fourier Theory/Partial Differential Equations professor in my undergrad. Other people have I think made his same point.
And that point is that there is no such objective, physical, real or reality-based thing as an average temperature. To measure temperature we usually wait for local thermodynamic equilibrium to be established between the thermometer and the material being measures, but of course, the Earth is never in thermodynamic equilibrium anywhere because basically anywhere on the Earth is changing in temperature at any given time. Temperature is a local state of matter and at best you can have a temperature field, but an “average temperature” cannot actually be defined out of thermodynamic theory itself. At best we have a mathematically abstract concept of an average temperature by simply putting in a bunch of numbers and diving them out in some fashion…but that is all that it is, and it is not a physical thing corresponding to anything *physically* meaningful. I know it seems like it should have physical meaning…but it doesn’t. It has no physical meaning, because it can’t be derived from physical theory, from actual thermodynamics. Thermodynamics can define a local temperature and what it is and what it means about the material being measured in-situ, but there is nothing further and particularly not a spatial or temporal average – such averages simply do not come from thermodynamics itself, but only from abstract mathematics.
You see, these goblin freaks like Ed Bo just LOVE these physically meaningless concepts because it gets people debating about what seems like should be a real thing (average temperature), but which actually have no meaning. Since they have no true meaning then you can never arrive at a conclusion about them because they don’t exist. You can only conclude things about that which exists because if it exists then it has a reason for being one way and not another, but if you’re pursuing something that doesn’t exist then then you can never conclude what it should be because it has no foundation for why it should be one way and not another.
As the great philosopher Hegel said: “That which is real is rational, that which is rational is real.”
The corollary is: That which is not real is irrational, that which is irrational is not real.
So, if you’re arguing about or pursuing something that is not real, i.e. average temperature, then you can only ever find yourself discussion irrational things about it and you will never encounter the real by it. That’s exactly where the goblins want you.
And all of this applies to the radiative greenhouse effect as well, and climate alarm itself of course too. Look at how many damned man-hours has been spent online debating this thing, and there is no resolution. People just hate each other more and more. It’s because people are arguing about something that doesn’t exist: global warming caused by a radiative greenhouse effect. Since it is not real because the radiative greenhouse effect is not real and doesn’t exist even though it can well-be imagined, the entire pursuit can never arrive at a solution since the irrational has no solution. This is why they want you to keep believing in the RGHE at all costs. Because as long as you believe in that, you will never encounter reality. This is why people who criticize the RGHE and debunk it are the most vilified, and why SHILLS protect it. We know who the shills are now. Even if climate alarmism is lost, the goal is actually to have you believe in un-real things, such as the RGHE. Just look at all the confusion and the different definitions and concepts of a “greenhouse effect”. People say that “there must be a greenhouse effect” even though they have no idea whatsoever as to how it is actually defined.
The solution is of course to go to reality, and to find what is rational and real. Well, what is irrational and thus not real is a flat Earth, and physics created out of a flat Earth. The RGHE is not real. Average temperature is not real. Climate alarm is thus not real as it is based on the unreal. It’s all not real on the simplest of logical terms and on the simplest acknowledgement of the reality of a spherical Earth. The simple logic should be enough…it really should. But since people seem to need more, then empirically the RGHE is debunked because it claims responsibility for the lapse rate, whereas the lapse rate has a cause totally independent of any radiative properties of the atmospheric gas at all. That simple empirical fact alone totally 100% refutes the RGHE, and thus refutes climate alarmism.
Sorry, not the book “State of Fear” (that was Michael Crichton), but the book “Taken by Storm”, by Dr. Christopher Essex.
The only physically meaningful average that would exist for the entire planet in its relation to the outside is conservation of energy. This does not translate to a meaningful average temperature though. It only means that, probably, or close to it given the scale of the systems involved, the amount of energy coming to the planet from the Sun is about equal to the energy leaving the planet. Just conservation of energy. That’s it.
The further steps of climate science/alarmism of averaging this energy over the surface, translating that to an effective temperature, believing that this is an average physical temperature which should have been measured at the ground surface, etc. – that’s all physically meaningless. These are all physically invalid concepts, that actually contain paradoxes in creating them. You would expect the irrational to contain paradoxes. Being physically invalid concepts they thus have no solution since being physically invalid and non-existent they must thus be irrational, and the irrational has no solution.
N & Z use physically meaningful concepts in physics. From the OP:
“Using dimensional analysis (a classical technique for inferring physically meaningful relationships from measured data), they show that the long-term global equilibrium surface temperature of bodies in the solar system as diverse as Venus, the Moon, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton can accurately be described using only two predictors: the mean distance from the Sun and the total atmospheric surface pressure.”
“Pressure is in turn a product of the gas mass contained in a column of air above a unit surface area, and the planet’s gravitational effect on that mass.”
Aside from a caveat on the concept of average temperature, those are all physically valid concepts from physics and thermodynamics. They come from the fundamentals and are truly fundamental physical concepts, effects, etc., defined in thermodynamics and physics. The distance of the Sun factor – that’s getting you the total energy and hence has to do with conservation of energy. That’s a true physical thing. Atmospheric mass – that’s a true physical thing too. From these physical things that have definitions in thermodynamics, they explain the solar system. Consistency makes sense. You start with physically real things, you can then explain their effects. Dimensional analysis of real physical things gets you there, if you do it right.
The caveat is that, strictly, average temperature is not a physically valid concept. It only would be physically valid in the situation where the entire temperature field is uniform, in which case taking the average is not meaningful. (Funny how that logic interchanges! Not funny, but rational and logical.) It (average temperature) diverges from validity the further the temperature field is away from uniformity. So with small variations in the temperature field the concept of average temperature is “not too far off” from the state where if the temperature field had time and opportunity to flatten itself out. So within that “not too far off”, you find N & Z successfully explaining reality based on real physically-valid and meaningful inputs and parameters.
The route that climate science/alarmism takes is a complete divergence from reality, with its RGHE, etc.
Thanks Joe. I think there is a value in applying maths and averaging, but it has to be done carefully, correctly, and not have overblown claims made about it. The limitations of models which posit ‘ideal’ conditions, materials, surfaces etc and then average the conditions varying across them should be clearly stated.
With regard to the specific criticisms Ed Bo made of N&Z’s work, the one that interests me most is the change of rotation rate affecting diurnal swings and thus temperatures. We’ve done a few different models of the Moon here at the Talkshop and some aren’t affected by changes in rotation rate, while others are.
The fallacy of the RGHE is dealt with well by N&Z’s paper in my opinion, and you are on the same wavelength on many of the issues.
I’m glad to see the conversation picking up again. The N&Z papers are indeed telling, which is why I think it important that Ed Bo’s criticisms be addressed fully and rebutted.
Well, who is Ed Bo? Got any links to anything he’s had published?
I have no idea who or what he is. (He implies that he teaches at university somewhere… but who knows?) I seldom focus on credentials anyway. I’m more interested in what is being stated and whether or not it has any validity.
@tallbloke
I don’t know that there is a way to calculate an average temperature from a first-principles, theory approach. First of all because there is no concept of average temperature defined in thermodynamics. Second, because to do it practically by averaging the temperature field and its temporal variations requires calculating what the field and its variations actually are, and that requires computation in a numerical approach, saving all of that information and averaging it. So, to calculate such a mathematical quantity can’t be done from first principle, but requires numerical modelling. To do that you need to also compute the transfer below the surface, and also horizontally between surface elements.
So, using an airless body like the moon is a first step to make things easy, and making it be smooth and uniform also makes things easier etc. It doesn’t have to be the moon, the goal you are seeking is to know how rotation rate affects the numerical temperature average.
Note the change of phraseology there: from “average temperature”, to “numerical temperature average”. That’s an important distinction and it means something if people have followed the above few comments. Maybe we can from here on out try to get people to use it? “Numerical temperature average” instead of “average temperature”.
Anyway, to model a whole spherical rotating surface at a fine enough resolution is computationally not possible. However, what it really easy is to model a single column of material 1m^2 in area and assume either that horizontal flow of heat out of the column is negligible enough to be ignored, or, to make some approximation as to how much heat flows out horizontally from each element in the regolith in depth. Probably the first assumption is safe enough given that 1m^2 of surface is quite tiny compared to the entire surface area and so that adjacent columns are nearly in thermal equilibrium with the column being modeled. So then, all we need to do is to model the input of energy and heat to the surface element of the column, since this is the only place the sunshine falls, and then have a numerical computation of the diffusion equation sharing heat energy to the elements beneath the surface. Something like this:
The “pulsing” element is where solar energy is periodically falling at the surface element with a sinusoidal input for day and no input at night. The “string” to the right of the input element would be removed since there is no material above the surface for an airless body, but the elements to the left of the surface element are sub-surface ‘regolith’ and would be kept. The boundary condition at the bottom of the sub-surface is simply set equal to zero since at some point below the surface the temperature remains constant, while the boundary condition at the surface element is computed with time given that this is where the input and output are changing.
The time-constant here which affects how quickly things change is dependent upon the thermal capacity of the surface/subsurface material. Right away, you can imagine that a small heat capacity will lead to larger swings in temperature, and vice-versa. It is not clear how this would average out – the large swing in temperature model with small heat capacity probably would not average out to the average state of the high heat capacity model.
But in any case, for a fixed set of conditions one could then see what effect the rotation rate (i.e. the period of the sinusoidal input) has on the numerical temperature average for the surface element of the model.
“The boundary condition at the bottom of the sub-surface is simply set equal to zero”
That is, set equal to slope = zero for the temperature gradient for that boundary condition.
Sorry, I should do more review before posting.
“But in any case, for a fixed set of conditions one could then see what effect the rotation rate (i.e. the period of the sinusoidal input) has on the numerical temperature average for the surface element of the model.” Very good, Joe. Thank you. And since rotation I think we can assume would not change (significantly) heat capacity (thermal mass), the question comes down to: does rotation affect the amount of thermal energy being added to the system?
“the question comes down to: does rotation affect the amount of thermal energy being added to the system?”
Yes, good point/question. Given the discussion above and how thermal capacity affects things, I think we can answer that given how we know these thermal PDE’s behave.
The period of rotation will certainly affect have short-term effects. That is, if the period is long then the surface element has more time to come to full temperature and equilibrium with the slowly-changing input. For a shorter period input the surface element has less time to come up in temperature. The surface element also has either more time or less time to cool when there is no input.
But you are right to point out here that what doesn’t change is the average input. It just either takes longer or shorter to establish the average input. The period of the input of course doesn’t affect the physical properties of the material; it also doesn’t change the long-term average of the input. You would expect a larger swing in temperature with a longer period, and smaller swing in temperature with shorter period.
The purely mathematical average of the surface temperature and hence its radiant output then simply has to equal the input. We’re back at square one?
What we’re looking for is the numerical physical temperature average of the surface element. We think it could be different than the purely mathematical average temperature given the average energy input and conversion via the S-B Law…
Well think about that guys. If those numbers were different – the numerical physical temperature average vs. the effective temperature via S-B Law and average input – then what would that mean? What would it even mean? How would you interpret that? The later conserves average energy input but doesn’t actually result in the numerical physical temperature average, while the former is the numerical physical average temperature but doesn’t conserve average energy?
See? This goes back to discussing things that have no true physical meaning (temperature averages and effective temperatures), and finding that there is no solution and no final interpretation to arrive at because we’re not discussing things that have real meaning. You can only find yourself in a quagmire (an irrational one) with endless attempts at a solution, but the solution doesn’t exist because of the fact that you’re not discussing something which is physically meaningful and physically exists. It’s a trap!!! A trap. The only solution is not to play (War Games reference), to back out entirely and to dispense with what seem like really nice intuitive concepts, but which have no true meaning.
Do you get what’s happening? That’s what happening. This is worse than debating angels on the head of a pin…angels might actually exist and in any case something dimensionless which occupies no space can fit an infinity within a zero – that actually has an answer in logic. This average temperature stuff has no solution because we know that the concept definitely does not exist.
“The period of the input of course doesn’t affect the physical properties of the material; it also doesn’t change the long-term average of the input. You would expect a larger swing in temperature with a longer period, and smaller swing in temperature with shorter period.” Exactly. And even though I understand and appreciate how talking about “mean global surface temperatures” and the like can lead one into a quagmire (very true!), I think the above does merit mentioning in this context.
I think we’ve arrived at a form of a proof there that the concept of average temperature is not meaningful. Indeed, we know already that this concept doesn’t arise from thermodynamic theory itself, and we know that learned people such as Dr. Essex have been lecturing and explaining that the concept is not physically real or meaningful…hence, why we don’t find any solutions in thermodynamics for the concept in the first place.
But our proof is in this:
“What we’re looking for is the numerical physical temperature average of the surface element. We think it could be different than the purely mathematical average temperature given the average energy input and conversion via the S-B Law.
“If those numbers were different – the numerical physical temperature average vs. the effective temperature via S-B Law and average input – then what would that mean? What would it even mean? How would you interpret that?
The later conserves average energy input but doesn’t result in the numerical physical temperature average, while the former is the numerical physical temperature average it but doesn’t conserve average energy.”
This is paradox. And a paradox indicates what? It indicates that you need to check your premises, because at least one of them is wrong. So either the two temperatures have to be equal, or what is actually true: is that the concept of average temperature has no meaning. That’s the faulty premise. The premise of discussing average temperature is faulty because the concept doesn’t exist physically, but only exists abstractly.
This goblin group Ed Bo is part of is simply exploiting our general lack of *true* intuitive ability with thermodynamics.
“And even though I understand and appreciate how talking about “mean global surface temperatures” and the like can lead one into a quagmire (very true!), I think the above does merit mentioning in this context.”
Sure, the temperature swings can be mentioned since these are referring to what actually physically occurred at some specific location.
But I think that we should now not not ever forget the proof which we have arrived at, and its implications about the futility and *uselessness* of discussing that concept.
Shouldn’t be two “not”‘s in my above comment…nope, didn’t review before posting…again.!
[…] follows is collated from a discussion I had over at Tallbloke’s on the new Nikolov & Zeller paper which debunks the radiative greenhouse effect. The […]
Joe: The link above doesn’t appear to work. By the way, thanks for bringing “Taken by Storm” to my attention. I plan on reading it soon.
Yes I accidentally hit “publish” when I just meant to save a draft. I hit “unpublish” right away but I guess it posts notifications instantaneously.
Yes it’s a good book.
Yes I accidentally hit “publish” when I just meant to save a draft. I guess it sends out notifications instantaneously.