WCC4 Rome: Interview with Nikolov and Zeller

Posted: October 23, 2017 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, climate, radiative theory, research, Temperature, Thermodynamics
Tags: , , ,

I got back from Rome last night following the highly successful World Climate Conference. Quite a number of CO2 sceptics gave presentations, which were politely received and discussed by all present. We even made a few converts. Here’s a short interview I made with Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller where they give their impressions and some insight into their paradigm shifting discovery of the temperature-pressure relationship which holds good across the entire solar system.

Ned and Karl’s two papers are here:

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse
Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect

They show that the uplift in temperature on Earth’s surface due to the presence of the atmosphere is not 33K as the current greenhouse theory states but 90K, and is due to atmospheric pressure at the surface, not the back radiation from ‘greenhouse gases’.

We’ve been following Ned and Karl’s work since 2010 here at the Talkshop. They are finally getting heard in a wider forum.

Comments
  1. Pablo says:

    The Impact of an Atmosphere
    By Alan Siddons
    If scientists of the past had known that the temperature of every planet with an atmosphere rises in direct proportion to atmospheric pressure, do you suppose they would have come up with a theory that attributed heating to the presence of certain trace gases that occupy less than 1 percent of our atmosphere? No, of course they wouldn’t have. Yet trace-gas heating theory has taken root so firmly by now that fresh perspectives have gone utterly ignored.
    Here’s the temperature profile for Jupiter.
    http://astronomy-guide.blogspot.com/2010/01/jupiters-layers-of-gas.html

    Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?
    Here is another view of Jupiter’s temperature profile.
    Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?
    http://www.solarviews.com/cap/craft/013sei.htm
    Here is Saturn’s temperature profile.
    Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?
    http://physics.uoregon.edu/~ jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap1 2/FG12_04.jpg

    Here are the temperature profiles of the four outer planets.
    Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?
    http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/JupiterIntroduction.asp

    Here’s the temperature profile for Venus. Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html

    Here’s the temperature profile for Earth. Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?

    To review:
    As these graphs indicate, between 0.1 and 1 bar of pressure, the atmospheric temperature of every planet rises above a predicted blackbody limit. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?

    All planets with a substantial atmosphere show the same behavior, even Saturn’s moon Titan. The atmosphere of Mars is just too vacuous to do the same.
    Once again, look at Jupiter’s atmosphere, composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, which are not so-called “greenhouse gases.”
    Notice where the heating begins, like clockwork.
    http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_15.html
    Is this profile due to “downwelling flux” from “back radiating” gases or simply due to the HEAT generated by mounting pressure?
    The theory of the greenhouse effect was concocted for the purpose of explaining why the earth is warmer than predicted. Yet every planet is warmer than predicted!
    Might something also be wrong with the prediction method, then?

  2. tallbloke says:

    Pablo, yes, Siddons gets it. Nikolov and Zeller have quantified it.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Pablo – re: Once again, look at Jupiter’s atmosphere, composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, which are not so-called “greenhouse gases.”

    Juno probe finds this…

    The particles in Jupiter’s atmosphere are just as diverse and banded as the planet’s famously stripey exterior. Particularly interesting to Juno’s team is a massive equatorial band of ammonia that extends hundreds of kilometers down toward the planet’s core—as far as Juno’s instruments can see.

    Jupiter’s Super-Weird Atmosphere Is Astonishing Scientists
    http://www.wired.com/2017/05/jupiters-super-weird-atmosphere-astonishing-scientists/

  4. A C Osborn says:

    Why is Mars so different?

  5. oldbrew says:

    ‘Why is Mars so different?’

    Very little atmosphere at all, for its size.

  6. p.g.sharrow says:

    Why is Mars so different? Why indeed?
    One should ask ,Why is Venus, Earth/Luna, Mars and the Asteroid belts not what one might expect from the Standard Theory of solar system formation?…pg

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB’s link splashes deserved buckets of cold water:

    =
    • […] isn’t uniform […] more geographically variable than scientists expected.

    • “So they assumed that […] That turns out not to be the case […]

    • “We may be learning something fundamental about atmospheres. Maybe our assumptions about Earth are wrong.”

    • All of these discoveries are challenging conventional space wisdom […]

    • “Up until last week, our models of Jupiter’s auroras had the electrons going in the wrong direction.”

    • “Maybe we need to stop sticking in a probe and thinking we’re going to accurately sample a whole planet.”
    =
    __

    The uniformity assumption gets foolishly applied in myriad contexts.

    Somehow this unreliable assumption took firm root in our culture, misleading us repeatedly even though the list of examples where it failed us never ends.

  8. oldbrew says:

    This Wikipedia page is out of date for Jupiter’s atmosphere at least.

    The four outer planets of the Solar System are gas giants. They share some atmospheric commonalities. All have atmospheres that are mostly hydrogen and helium and that blend into the liquid interior at pressures greater than the critical pressure, so that there is no clear boundary between atmosphere and body.
    . . .
    Jupiter’s upper atmosphere is composed of about 75% hydrogen and 24% helium by mass, with the remaining 1% consisting of other elements. The interior contains denser materials such that the distribution is roughly 71% hydrogen, 24% helium and 5% other elements by mass. The atmosphere contains trace amounts of methane, water vapor, ammonia, and silicon-based compounds. There are also traces of carbon, ethane, hydrogen sulfide, neon, oxygen, phosphine, and sulfur. The outermost layer of the atmosphere contains crystals of frozen ammonia, possibly underlaid by a thin layer of water.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_atmosphere#Gas_giants

    Juno found there’s a ‘massive equatorial band of ammonia that extends hundreds of kilometers down toward the planet’s core—as far as Juno’s instruments can see’.
    – – –
    The same web page has some interesting info on Mars:

    The average surface pressure on Mars is 0.6-0.9 kPa, compared to about 101 kPa for Earth. This results in a much lower atmospheric thermal inertia, and as a consequence Mars is subject to strong thermal tides that can change total atmospheric pressure by up to 10%. The thin atmosphere also increases the variability of the planet’s temperature. Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of approximately −140 °C (−220 °F) during the polar winters to highs of up to 20 °C (70 °F) in summers. [bold added]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_atmosphere#Mars

    Atmospheric pressure changes leading to temperature changes?

    Tallbloke writes: [N & Z] show that the uplift in temperature on Earth’s surface due to the presence of the atmosphere is not 33K as the current greenhouse theory states but 90K, and is due to atmospheric pressure at the surface, not the back radiation from ‘greenhouse gases’.

  9. gallopingcamel says:

    @Pablo,
    I liked your comment at the head of this thread. The information presented agrees well with N&K’s calculations of surface temperatures and even better with R&C’s (Robinson and Catling) calculations of temperature at arbitrary altitudes:
    http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

    The R&C radiative-convective model works well for all seven bodies in our solar system with significant atmospheres. The model does not work for Mars as pointed out by p.g. sharrow.

    Things to like about the R&C model:
    1. It is simple. It has one incoming radiative channel (solar radiation) and two outgoing IR channels.
    2. It works from the bottom of the troposphere to the top of the stratosphere.
    3. It is replicable. The details of the model are available to the public.
    4. It has only one fiddle factor.

    Using the information in the link above I was able to replicate R&C’s model for Titan:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

  10. […] found temperatures closer to –203° — with no obvious explanation.’ Perhaps there is a place where enlightenment could be found, if they cared to […]

  11. […] Bild från Tallbloke’s som visar en sammanfattning av NASA-informationen. Här kan man se att skillnaderna i temperatur […]

  12. At http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics , it’s clear , particularly in the Q&A , that at the time I gave my talk at Heartland ICCC9 2014 , I couldn’t explain why the surface of Venus was 25 times the energy density supplied by the Sun to its orbit , just that it was quantitatively absurd to claim it was some sort of spectral filtering phenomenon .

    It was only later in comments on WUWT , particularly links to the work by HockeySchtick , whoever he is , that the obvious and ubiquitous trade off of negative gravitational and positive kinetic and radiant energy got thru to me .

    It still hasn’t gotten thru to most , eg : Anthony Watts himself , that “the other macroscopic force” can’t be left out of the energy balance equations . I think that “closed box” of thought accepted and defended by Both sides in a debate is what defines a Kuhnian paradigm .

    ( For all you RoWers , the USA pork industry had long running ad campaign “the other white meat” . )