Resolving misconceptions about the Nikolov and Zeller universal theory of climate

Posted: April 16, 2018 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, radiative theory, solar system dynamics, Temperature, Thermodynamics

We’ve been having a good knockabout on twitter with Patrick Moore concerning Ned and Karl’s Pressure-Insolation theory; their discovery that a simple formula using surface pressure and solar distance will accurately give you the surface temperature on vastly different planets and moons throughout the solar system.

Figure 4: The relative atmospheric thermal enhancement, observed surface T/No -atmosphere T (Ts/Tna ratio) as a function of the average surface air pressure according to Eq. (10a) derived from data representing a broad range of planetary environments in the solar system.

Patrick is a great guy, and a good sport, and has been mostly putting up with Ned’s jibes and arguing his corner. I thought it might help others to understand Ned and Karl’s ideas if we look at a few of the objections Patrick raises and our answers to them.

Insult cheerfully censored. Steady Neddy! 🙂

What I mean by ‘heavyweights’ is that Insolation (solar radiation) is the primary driver of Earth’s climate. Without it, Earth would be a cold dead particle in the universe. Oxygen, Nitrogen and other trace gases would be frozen liquid on its surface. The Sun’s energy pouring down vapourises those elements into gases and inflates the atmosphere.

They would then float off into space if it weren’t for the Earth’s gravity.  Atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere. The force of gravity squishes the atmosphere against the barrier of Earth’s surface. The air at the bottom next to the surface gets squished the most, as it has all of the mass of the rest of the atmosphere pushing down on it from above. Halfway up the atmosphere, there’s only half of the atmosphere pressing on it from above. This arrangement means that the atmospheric pressure has a gradient from low pressure at the top, to high pressure at the bottom. That’s why climbers near the top of mount Everest need oxygen bottles; the air is too thin to get enough into their lungs fast enough for exertion. Pressure affects the density of the air. Lower pressure – less molecules per litre.

All the other atmospheric phenomena climate scientists are interested in are operating within this pressure-insolation envelope. For example the amount of cloud reflecting sunlight back to space before it can warm the surface is affected by pressure.. Clouds form when the air carrying water vapour has risen, expanded in the lower  pressure environment at higher altitude, and cooled due to that expansion. The cooling makes the water vapour condense and form the clouds.

Climatologists and atmospheric physicists are going to need to escape from the morass of detail of what goes on in the atmosphere and lift their eyes to the heavens for inspiration. Venus and Mars are telling us something important. The cloud albedo is the third most important climate variable after solar radiation and gravity induced atmospheric pressure. And cloud albedo amount depends almost entirely on those two primary variables.

Ned and Karl are having trouble getting a fair hearing for their theory because the radiative greenhouse concepts are so firmly embedded in the education and research effort of warmist and sceptic climate scientists alike. We need to help cut through the confusion and help them get influential people like Patrick to understand their ideas properly.

1. Ned Nikolov says:

Roger, thank you so much for posting this blog to clarify our discussion with Patrick Moore regarding the atmospheric “Greenhouse effect” (GE) and climate change. I think we are now at a critical juncture in climate science, where for the first time in the 190-yr long history of the Greenhouse (GH) hypothesis, strong evidence has emerged that this concept is physically fundamentally flawed.

Someone asked me on Twitter today: “How did you & Patrick get into this pissing contest?“. I replied that it’s not a “pissing contest”, but a public debate to establish the scientific truths about climate and climate change.

The issue is that, until recently, the “skeptics” camp was exclusively represented by researchers, who only questioned the magnitude of expected warming from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and other greenhouse gases, but fully agreed with the principles of the GH hypothesis. There have been several studies published over the past 4 years (including ours), which have presented evidence suggesting that the very core of the the radiative climate theory, the so-called Natural Greenhouse Effect, has been misunderstood as a physical phenomenon. Our analysis of NASA planetary data revealed that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE), a new term we proposed for GE, is not caused by trapping of radiant heat (or slowing-down of Earth’s radiative cooling to Space) as assumed for over 100 years, but results from adiabatic (pressure-induced) heating of the surface. In other words, ATE is a non-radiative thermodynamic phenomenon that gives rise to the infrared radiative transfer in the atmosphere rather than being caused by it. The so-called “back infrared radiation” is not a driver of the global surface temperature, but a result of it. These findings present a new paradigm, which implies that atmospheric composition has no effect on global planetary temperatures, thus on Earth’s climate as well. Consequently, efforts to curb carbon emissions in order to “save” Earth’s climate from overheating at the expense of economic development are misguided and represent an unjustified huge waste of money, since all climate variations are 100% natural driven by forces far beyond human control.

In view of this new evidence, the old position of climate skeptics arguing about the size of the CO2-caused climate change while accepting the central premise of the Greenhouse hypothesis becomes untenable. Surprisingly, many prominent skeptics such as Dr. Patrick Moore and Prof. William Happer refused to look at (let alone accept) the new evidence pointing towards a a different physical nature of ATE. Not only that, but some skeptics joined the disinformation campaign of the so-called “warmists” (i.e. proponents of human-made climate change) on social media and elsewhere to discredit our research findings by using distorted & factually incorrect statements about the content of our papers, although the latter are freely available on the Web for everyone to access.

I personally find the hostile reception of our findings by certain skeptics quite surprising, because by revealing the unphysical nature of the atmospheric Greenhouse concept, our results offer a whole new and much more powerful argument (“weapon”) against the anthropogenic climate-change claim. Regardless of what the reason is for this irrational position by some skeptics, it is neither warranted nor useful anymore, as such a position hinders the advancement of science and our understanding of the climate system. Thus, there is a need for a new generation of brave & smart climate skeptics, who can dispassionately look at the evidence and acknowledge past theoretical mistakes and misconceptions no matter how long-standing or how fiercely protected by the Establishment they might be. We need a new Renaissance in science to lift our theoretical understanding of climate drivers at various time scales from the level of the 19th Century to that the 21st Century. Let’s work together towards this goal !

[Moderation note] This response from Ned has been moved to the top of the comments. For replies to it, scroll down to comments after April 17 4am

2. ilma630 says:

Thanks Rog. I hope this is useful as it would be great to have Ned and Patrick sitting on the same side of the table. I think the issue centre’s on the 2 different sets of processes at pay, 1. T caused by solar incidence and pressure, and 2. heat transport through the atmosphere by water vapour by advection/convection (also the sub topic of radiative vs. molecular collision based heat transfer I’ve seen mentioned). It strikes me that these are being confused and N & P are talking cross purposes, but they aren’t mutually exclusive.

3. tallbloke says:

4. A C Osborn says:

Come on guys there is no way they will accept this new theory for one simple reason.
There is no Money and no CONTROL over the population, which is what the Climate scam is all about.
The UN even admits it, just quote Ms Figueres.
From Agenda 21 through to Agenda 30.

5. tallbloke says:

6. tallbloke says:

ACO, true, but if we can at least get the sceptical climate scientists to understand Ned and Karl’s discovery, it’s a start.

7. tallbloke says:

N.B. Eli meant “constant pressure” in his tweet, not “constant temperature”.

8. tallbloke says:

9. tallbloke says:

10. tallbloke says:

11. tallbloke says:

Sunlight hitting the top of the atmosphere on the dayside: 1360W/m^2
Mass of atmosphere under gravitational force creating pressure gradient supporting lapse rate: 5.1480×10^18 kg

CO2: 0.04% of atmosphere
H2O: ~1% of atmosphere

The climate homeopathists need to get a grip.

12. E.M.Smith says:

Test the hypothesis here on earth. Plot sea level vs mountain top pressures & temps. and sun.

Clearly there’s some wiggle room with seasonal and latitude changes, but does solar variation account for most of that? Is the 30,000 foot flight level nearly the same T around the global equator?

We have a natural lab here, use it.

13. tallbloke says:

14. tallbloke says:

Hi EM. Sound advice. Empirical data is the best.

Temperature at Everest summit 29,028ft

Air pressure at Everest summit 33.7Kpa

T(na) Earth = 197.35 K
P(r) = 0.61173Kpa

Next I will try to run the numbers through the formula, unless anyone else gets there first.

15. oldbrew says:

Here, 1.176 is the 4th root of the Venus:Earth solar irradiance ratio (~1.911:1) as per the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

From the first line of the data there’s a match at 1 bar (= Earth surface pressure). The other data supports that.
No room for radiative gas theory.

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

Another way of looking at it (288K = 15 Celsius) …

16. tallbloke says:

17. tallbloke says:

Thanks OB: From that, we might expect the temperature at 30,000 feet to be around 233K or -40C in open atmosphere. A bit higher on Everest summit due to terrain heat absorption. Ned’s formula is for surface temperature so I’m not sure how it’ll pan out for 30000 feet up in the air.

18. oldbrew says:

EM Smith asks: ‘Is the 30,000 foot flight level nearly the same T around the global equator?’

See ‘Standard Atmosphere’.
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

Returns 228.7K for 30,000 ft (273.1 – 228.7 = 44.4)
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/index.htm

19. James Siverly says:

Is the Nikolov and Zeller plot a curve fit? If so, and Earth was left out of the fit, would the difference between actual and predicted Earth temperature(s) be explained by the consequence of clouds, albedo, and IR-absorbing gases?

20. tallbloke says:

Hi James, and thanks for the smart question. If you take a look at the paper, you’ll find the regression done without Titan and also done without Earth and Titan. The difference is small.

The hypothesis is that the overall effects of albedo/radiation/biota/everything-else are constrained to balance out by insolation and pressure. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be getting that close a fit for all those celestial bodies falling nicely along a line that looks a lot like the poisson curve. 🙂

21. Hifast says:

Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

22. James Siverly says:

Tallbloke,

To follow up, the curve is weighted heavily by the Venus data point. If the regression was done without Venus, Earth would certainly be above the line. Could that difference be explained totally, or at least in part, by those effects on Earth due to the presence of IR-absorbing gasses?

If so, it would do a lot to explain conflicting views on the subject, if not alleviate them.

23. tallbloke says:

James: What about the difference on Venus due to the presence of 95% CO2 in the atmosphere?

24. sailboarder says:

Thermodynamics says Entropy is always trying to maximize. CO2 helps distribute heat, such as to the poles to cool the earth. Without CO2, more violent winds, hurricanes, etc., are needed to distribute the heat to the cold poles. In the end, the earth will radiate out the same heat as comes in, but the distribution of heat(thus temperature), will be different, ie, north/south, east/west, and vertically. The average temperature, if there is such a thing, will be slightly lower.

Why we demonize CO2 at this time is beyond me. It is beneficial all around.

25. tallbloke says:

E.M. Wrong lab, sorry. This from Ned:

At 33.7 kPa (33,700 Pa), the formula produces 271.1 K (-2.1 C) for the average global temperature of Earth … Please, beware that this value is not to be compared to the temperaure of a high mountain peak like Everest located at a specific latitude on a planet that has an average surface elevation of ~230 m. We have a special section in the paper (pp. 11-12) warning that our P-T equation does NOT predict temperatures along the vertical atmospheric profile. Applying our equation to in the vertical will likely not produce correct results as it’s specifically derived for global planetary [surface] temperatures.

26. I found your discussion regarding the relationship between cloudiness and pressure enlightening, and it helped me understand how albedo can be viewed by N&Z as an emergent phenomena. I’d like to hear more about that.

27. oldbrew says:

@ sailboarder – re ‘CO2 helps distribute heat’

Most of the sun’s radiation that hits the Earth is absorbed by the ocean (98% of it, to be exact)

28. tallbloke says:

Welcome minarchist. Ned is dropping by presently.

29. James Siverly says:

Tallbloke,

Moon, Mars, and Triton have relatively thin atmospheres and could be considered essentially inert, which is the case for Titan. Could there be a theoretical curve for inert atmospheres which Nikolov and Zeller’s curve closely approximates? Maybe Venus’ difference from the theoretical curve for inert atmospheres could be explained by its CO2 atmosphere in the same way as Earth.

I’m just throwing this out there to see if it’s worthwhile doing some calculations.

30. tallbloke says:

31. sailboarder says:

oldbrew.. the LWR from that warmed ocean, plus its heat contained in its water vapor, gets imparted onto CO2, and since CO2 radiates in all directions, then there is an enhanced ability for that heat to move to the cold poles. Without CO2, greater atmospheric turbulence is required to maximize Entropy.

32. tallbloke says:

33. oldbrew says:

sailboarder – at only 0.04% CO2 content in the air, it seems more likely that convection (wind) and ocean currents do most of the heat transfer work?

34. sailboarder says:

Oldbrew.. yes, of course, but CO2 is very efficient at moving heat horizontally above the troposphere. All I am saying is that CO2 does move heat around, and without it, other mechanisms take over, but Entropy will get maximized somehow, ie, more storms.

35. tallbloke says:

James at 5:57, I think you need to spend some time reading the paper. Nikolov and Zeller derive a method for calculating the temperature of a planet with no atmosphere, and another for calculating the actual surface temperature using the T(na) value. The composition makes no difference to the outcome. If you think you could add something for ‘inert atmospheres’ which would improve accuracy, then by all means have a try and let us know.

36. E.M.Smith says:

The troposphere convects. Radiative heat flow there is just not relevant, or there would not be a convective layer.

CO2 radiates in the stratosphere. There it acts as a cooling gas.

AT the tropopause, there’s a roughly hurricane category 2 wind headed off to the cold poles to radiate away heat. That convection stops does not mean air FLOW stops, it just heads sideways.

See graph:

from paper in discussion here:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

And my page describing it all:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/

IMHO, it is clear from the graph that CO2 is just not relevant to surface temperatures (as convection is what is moving heat not radiation) and acts as cooling radiator in the stratosphere. That, alone, moots the whole CO2 AGW mythology.

37. James Siverly says:

tb: “Nikolov and Zeller derive a method for calculating the temperature of a planet with no atmosphere, and another for calculating the actual surface temperature using the T(na) value.”

I don’t see the difference. Yes, I’ll have to read the paper again.

38. Brett Keane says:

Patrick, if you need ‘heavyweights, please study Maxwell’s ‘Theory of Heat’. As teased out on ‘Hockeysctick’ blog, the Poisson Relationship ie integration of the Gas Laws, with convective transfer. Dominated 4 to 1 by water’s latent heat uplift even into the stratosphere. Maxwell, the real heavyweight of physics, was in no doubt that what we here have been discussing with scientists including Ned for some years, is how it works.
The solar system empirical data leaves no room for doubt. Mixed gases, unconfined, act as one. As gaseous alloys if you like. The gas laws rule, and enough energy is absorbed to do the work observed, before such secondaries as albedo occur.
Another heavyweight, Einstein, held that Empirics rule, too. For me, it was a damascene or ‘scales falling from eyes’ experience, those years ago…..Best wishes Patrick, and thank you for all your good work. Brett Keane

39. angech says:

Planet surface temperature is dependent on pressure and solar distance.
The third component * is the actual physical makeup of the planet and its atmosphere in in question.
This seems to be partly ignored by N and Z which PM is quite right to question.
Both views are mostly right and actually support each other.
E.M.Smith rightly asks about using the earth as a laboratory. “We have a natural lab here, use it.”

We are stuck with a 14 billion year old universe in which a 4.2 billion year old solar system has recently evolved.
It is highly likely that solar system accretions throughout our known galaxies are of varying ages from just forming to perhaps 8 billion years old ending when the sun blows up.
Accretions have inbuilt heat without suns, they are not cold dead lumps of rock. Jupiter for instance would still have a reasonable temperature at the surface without the sun, as would the earth at depth.
As EM Smith implied we do have a laboratory. It is a gigantic centrifuge whose spun components have temperatures depending not only on solar, pressure and internal heating [*composition] but also on the other component of physical makeup, what materials are in the planet and it’s atmosphere*. This is determined by the age and origins of the solar system accretions.

So we have the old earth, pre stromatolites with? a CO2/N atmosphere changing to an O2/N atmosphere for instance. Did the old earth have the same temperatures as the new earth?
We have the molten earth cooling down theory. Was the earth surface 4.2 Billion years ago the same as it is now? This is the nub of the question for Tallbloke et al. Do they believe in one temp for one planet same gravity, same insolation for ever or do they agree that the evolution/age/composition of the planet can affect these figures?

Once, if we admit that composition plays a part we could go on to the admittedly small but relevant role of GHG, both water and CO2 and elsewhere others .Which exist in wildly varying amounts on different planets. I am quite happy with the concept of gravity, mass, friction and normally more temperature at depth. We have the confounding effects of Oceans being colder at depths, not hotter due to the difficult nature of defining a surface. Very easy for gas/solids only. This makes temperature determination on the earth even more difficult.
Due to the variability in the main GHG, water vapour and its role in albedo control* [a third component not considered there is room for temperature variation due to GHG including and amplified by CO2 which could theoretically move the expected temperature a few degrees away from N and Z reasonable average estimate.

The two theories complement each other. If you take the Solar, add in the Gravity and then look at the actual physical composition of the accretion [if it has a surface in the first place -definition please]. It’s own internal temperature [and how it gets out to the surface], the makeup of the planet surface [All white chalk for instance compared to black or red ferrous compounds], and the albedo and GHG effects of the gases in or not in the atmosphere [and no oceans of whatever substance please] will all modify the expected result.
PM right.
N and Z right.
In parts.

The problem I have with the N&Z hypothesis is twofold.

First, the planetary surface temperatures they are attempting to explain are not well known. We have good averages for Earth, and only since DIVINER good averages for the Moon. For all the other worlds they are trying to fit with their equation, the data is very uncertain.

Secondly we know from the engineering of spacecraft thermal control, surface properties are critical in determining solar thermal gain. In Earth orbit, a spacecraft coated in white titanium oxide would have an average temperature below 0 C. But coat that same spacecraft in black nickel and temperatures would rise above 100 C. This is because of the differing solar absorptivity and LWIR emissivity of these two very different materials. On this basis, an equation that seeks to estimate surface temperature of a solar illuminated world via distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure alone defies logic. If it won’t work for a spacecraft, it won’t work for a planet.

Consider two different planets, Earth and Venus. On Earth, the atmosphere cools the surface, on Venus the atmosphere heats the surface. On Earth the sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere and radiative gases cool the atmosphere. On Venus the sun heats the mid atmosphere, radiative gases cool the upper atmosphere, and the convective circulation driven by this entrains solar heated gas down to the surface where it is compressed to 90 bar and adiabatically heated heated to over 460 C.

Now imagine we change Venus. We increase its rotation rate to match Earth, reduce its albedo to 0.3 like Earth, make its atmosphere solar transparent like Earth, but keep the 90 bar surface pressure and the ability to radiate LWIR. Now the sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere and radiative gases cool the atmosphere. Surface temperatures on Venus would then drop below 100 C.

41. angech says:

“our results offer a whole new and much more powerful weapon against the anthropogenic climate-change claim.”
At the same time as completely denying the effects of radiative heat transfer which does, despite the ATE, also exist.
Roy Spencer.
Refusing to look at this fact, which sits side by side with your theory is sadly not a surprise.
Incorporate both.

42. richard verney says:

I often comment on Venus and Mars. Mars is of more interest.

If there is a GHE on Venus, then it does not operate in the same manner as that claimed for planet Earth.

Here on planet Earth, in simple form, the radiative GHE is said to be based upon Earth’s atmosphere being largely transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance, that incoming insolation is then absorbed by the surface, warms the surface, and then emitted/radiated, from the surface, at a different longer wavelength to which the atmosphere is far less transparent such that the atmosphere absorbs considerable amounts of outgoing LWIR, and then re-radiates this in all directions some of which is downwards directed at the surface.

On planet Earth, at noon in the equatorial desert, Earth receives about 1150 w.m2 of incoming solar irradiance to be absorbed by the surface, whereas on Venus, the Russian lander missions measured incoming solar at the surface to be just 4 W/m2.

One can readily see that the Venusian atmosphere is not largely transparent to incoming solar irradiance. Far from it, it is almost totally opaque to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance. Thus one does not see incoming solar irradiance to which the atmosphere is largely transparent being absorbed by the surface, warming the surface, and then emitted/radiated, from the surface, at a different wavelength to which the atmosphere is significantly opaque. That is not the process ongoing on Venus.

Mars has an atmosphere very similar to Earth. The difference between the two is that on Earth, our atmosphere has a lot of non GHGs, ie, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. What is interesting is that if one were to remove all the non GHGs from Earth’s atmosphere one would have an atmosphere very similar to that of Mars!

With the removal of all non GHGs from Earth’s atmosphere, one would be left with an atmosphere of about the same mass, pressure and density of that of the Martian atmosphere.

If one counts the number of molecules of GHGs in the Martian atmosphere, there are more molecules of GHGs in the Martian atmosphere than there is in Earth’s atmosphere. Mars has more than an order of magnitude greater number of CO2 molecules than does planet Earth. If I recall correctly it has, on a physical numerical basis, about 15 times as many molecules of CO2 as that contained in Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, Earth has a lot more water vapour, but even when the molecules of water vapour are added, Mars still possesses more molecules of GHGs.

What is also of interest is that the molecules of GHGs are more densely packed on Mars because it is a considerably smaller sphere such that its atmosphere takes up less volume. This means per cubic metre of atmosphere, there are far many more molecules of GHGs in the Martian atmosphere when compared to planet Earth. It follows from this that a photon emitted from the surface of Mars will interact far more often with a molecule of GHGs as it makes its way to TOA Thence to be radiated to space). It also means that a photon absorbed by a molecule of GHG and being reradiated from that molecule is far more likely to be absorbed by another molecule of GHG etc. The interaction of photons and GHGs is far more likely on Mars since there are more GHGs per cubic metre.

Furthermore, the temperature at which radiation takes place is more within the absorption window of CO2.

Yet despite all of this Mars has no or all but no measurable Green House Effect. The papers putting the GHE on Mars at between 1 to 2K, which is very different to the claimed 33K for planet Earth. Obviously one would not expect to see a 33K effect on Mars since Mars is further from the sun, but 1 to 2K is very low if the presence of molecules of GHGs in an atmosphere leads to warming. Within measurement errors, it may be the case that there is no GHE on Mars.

From the European Space Agency:

As a complete contrast to Venus, there is Mars. The Red Planet displays hardly any greenhouse effect. Mars does have some atmospheric carbon dioxide, but almost no atmosphere! The existing atmosphere is so thin that it cannot retain energy from the Sun.

The statement that the atmosphere is so thin that it cannot retain energy implies that it is the mass/density and consequent latent heat capacity and thermal lag of the atmosphere that results in temperature.

“These findings present a new paradigm, which implies that atmospheric composition has no effect on global planetary temperature”
Ned, while I can agree there is no net radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect for CO2 to add to, I cannot agree with the quote above.

Atmospheric composition clearly does have an effect on surface temperatures. On Earth radiative gases provide our atmosphere’s only effective cooling mechanism. Without this mechanism, our atmosphere couldn’t provide conductive and evaporative cooling for the oceans, as it would have no way to cool itself in turn. Empirical experiment shows that without atmospheric cooling, the sun would drive average ocean temperatures above 335K.

On Mars we believe there has been a reduction in surface temperatures as atmospheric dust has reduced since early exploration began.

On Venus the sun heats the atmosphere, not the surface. Surface temperatures would be far lower if the reverse was true.

On Pluto data from the New Horizons mission has indicated the atmosphere is cooling the surface

If your equation worked, spacecraft engineers could ignore materials properties and just calculate spacecraft thermal control by just the cycle of solar illumination and distance from the sun. This clearly isn’t the case. Planets are just giant spacecraft. In determining surface temperatures of planets, just as in spacecraft, surface properties are critical.

44. Ned Nikolov says:

@angech:

Our results do not “deny” IR radiative transfer. They simply put it in a different broader context/perspective. Think about it… If IR radiative transfer were indeed controlling global planetary surface temperatures, there would be no such tight relationship with pressure, and the curve fit shown in Fig 4 of our 2017 paper would have been impossible.

The fact that pressure and solar irradiance virtually completely explain the variation of average planetary temperatures across this broad range of radiative & atmospheric environments in the Solar System (i.e. from Venus to Triton) shows that the IR radiative transfer within planetary atmosphere is a RESULT of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. I think this is pretty sound conclusion based on the available data.

Furthermore, if IR optical depth of planetary atmosphere were responsible (along with solar radiation) for the observed planetary temperatures as claimed by the GH theory, there should have been a continuum of optical depths across the Solar System explaining the “greenhouse effect” on all these planets & moons. However, no study to my knowledge has demonstrated the existence of such a continuum! In fact, our Dimensional Analysis using partial pressures & partial densities of greenhouse gases in various atmospheres suggested that the explicit consideration of such gases produces NO physical relationship with global temperature across the wide range of planetary bodies considered.

Finally, if you look carefully at the history of the Greenhouse hypothesis starring with work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius in the 19th Century, you will realize that the fundamental premise of this hypothesis namely that an atmosphere works as a “blanket” trapping heat (or slowing-down the rate of cooling) was based on nothing more than a pure conjecture. There is no experimental evidence that a free convective (unbounded) atmosphere (or gas mixture) can trap heat! Structural engineers know from experience that radiant heat trapping can only be achieved by material of VERY LOW infrared absorptivity and respectively high IR reflectivity like polished aluminum. Materials and substances of high IR absorptivity like wood, soil, water vapor, and CO2 CANNOT trap heat as they only facilitate cooling. I hope you’ll agree with this fact.

45. Ned Nikolov says:

Your assertion that “Atmospheric composition clearly does have an effect on surface temperatures” is simply not supported by the available planetary data from across the Solar System. See my reply to angech above for more details …

I can see how it intuitively “feels” like that atmospheric composition must have an effect on global temperature. This notion is born from our daily experience on Earth, most of which has regional small-scale and short-term in nature. However, by looking at Earth alone, one CANNOT decipher (grasp) the cosmic continuum that our planet is a part of, simply because Earth is a single point of this continuum. One needs more points (planets) representing different conditions in order to “see” the continuum. This is what our research has done …

Ned, I don’t support the conjecture of a radiative greenhouse effect on Earth. I am one of those saying on the basis of empirical experiment that our atmosphere is cooling the solar heated surface of our ocean planet. The only way the atmosphere can do that is if it has a way to cool itself. The mechanism for this is radiative gases.

You say to look out into the solar system, but that is just what I did. I gave you examples of atmospheric properties outside of pressure effecting surface temperatures on Venus, Earth, Mars and Pluto.

I can give you another clear example for Earth: Volcanic eruptions. After major volcanic eruptions, particularly near the equator, the properties of the upper atmosphere change due to large amounts of sulphur dioxide. The atmospheric properties changed and this resulted in 15 months of lower surface temperatures –
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510
This clearly would not be the case if atmospheric pressure and distance from the sun were the only determinant of surface temperature.

Ned, I believe you have been tricked by limited data from Venus indicating near Earth surface temperatures at 1 bar pressure in Venus’ atmosphere. But the reality is we don’t have sufficient surface temperature data for any of the worlds you have picked, save Earth and the Moon, to say they even lay along your equations curve.

The truth is we do have good data for literally thousands of worlds. These are the artificial satellites and spacecraft we have created. For each of these artificial worlds, surface properties and solar insolation are the critical determinants of solar thermal gain. Why should this apply to artificial worlds and not natural ones? The same physics must apply to each.

47. Ned Nikolov says:

We’ve never argued that solar irradiance & atmospheric pressure solely determine the global temperature at all time scales. Absolutely not! These drivers only set up the bulk of the global average temperature, i.e. the main “energy envelope” so to speak, around which small fluctuation (in the order of ±1.0 C) are possible and do occur. These fluctuations are driven by changes in cloud cover/albedo and short-lived aerosol emissions from volcanic eruptions. Cloud cover changes impact global temperature on time scales from years to centuries, while effects of volcanic eruptions typically last 2-3 years (not even a climatological time period)… For example, the thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is about 90 K, while global temperature variations over the past 2,000 years do not exceed ±1.1 K around a long term mean of 286.6 K (see plots on this tweet: https://twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/985930511741665280 )

In science, you use the best available data at any moment to draw conclusions. If these data produce a tight relationship like the one in our Fig 4, it is NOT prudent to question the relationship based on some wild speculations that the data *might* be wrong. You need solid evidence that the data are indeed incorrect before discarding the relationship. Otherwise, you’d be violating the Scientific Method… So, I don’t think we have been “tricked” by limited data.

48. tallbloke says:

Konrad, I think both you and Ned are right. How can that be? I’ll try to explain.

Your empirical experiments found that although water has a ‘measured’ emissivity of 0.937, it has an ‘effective’ emissivity of around 0.67. Although we don’t yet know how our measurement of emissivity fails so badly (something to do with water’s mobility and ability to move heat downwards against buoyancy perhaps?), I think your empirical experiments are pretty irrefutable.

However, Ned’s Fig 4 at the top of the post shows that all climate processes below TOA sum out to result in a surface temperature which fits along the Poisson-like curve generated by his pressure-insolation relationship. This shows that whatever the effects of radiation, surface properties, albedo, emissivity, convection, latent heat etc are, they are inter-operating with feedbacks in such a way as to fit to the overall energy-envelope created by TOA insolation and atmospheric pressure.

Like your ‘Effective emissivity’, Ned’s P-T relationship may not yet be fully understood, but they are both derived from empirical observation.

Ned, if changes in atmospheric properties from volcanoes can effect surface temperatures, this is clear indication that atmospheric properties outside pressure effect surface temperatures. Note that the temperature reduction from sulphur dioxide only dissipates when the sulphuric acid particles produced are removed from the atmosphere. If they stayed there, surface temperatures would stay lower.

In your paper you state: ” The fact that Eq. (10b) accurately describes planetary GMATs without explicitly accounting for the observed broad range of albedos, i.e. from 0.136 to 0.9 (Table 2), indicates that the shortwave reflectivity of planetary atmospheres is mostly an intrinsic property (a byproduct) of the climate system itself rather than an independent driver of climate as currently believed. In other words, it is the internal energy of the atmosphere maintained by solar irradiance and air pressure that controls the bulk of the albedo.”

This truly beggars belief. This is effectively claiming that distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure is what determines the chemical composition of a planet’s surface and atmosphere!

Ned, can you please give a clear answer to the following question: We know that surface properties and solar insolation are the critical factors in determining solar thermal gain for spacecraft. Why does this not hold true for planets?

50. tallbloke says:

Ned said that “The issue is that, until recently, the “skeptics” camp was exclusively represented by researchers, who only questioned the magnitude of expected warming from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and other greenhouse gases, but fully agreed with the principles of the GH hypothesis.”

This is true, if we take note of the word “represented”. While there have been quite a number of well researched and mathematically rigorous papers published seriously challenging the radiative greenhouse effect, they have always been marginalised not only by the mainstream, but by the ‘sceptical leaders’ too.

The reason for that is the sceptics have wanted to present a ‘respectable’ and united front to mainstream climate authority in order to appear credible. This is why they concentrate on arguing for a small magnitude of extra CO2 warming rather than countenance theories which reject it altogether.

The problem impeding scientific progress on understanding climate now is that some of these ‘sceptical leaders’ have become the very people they claim to despise. They have assumed the mantle of being ‘authorities’ themselves. They misrepresent, censor, ban, ridicule and otherwise impede honest researchers like Ned and Karl, who have something important to tell the world about how physical interactions between solar radiation, gravity and matter work at the solar system level to govern planetary atmospheres.

51. tallbloke says:

Konrad: “can you please give a clear answer to the following question: We know that surface properties and solar insolation are the critical factors in determining solar thermal gain for spacecraft. Why does this not hold true for planets?”

Ned’s resting so I’ll have a go at this one. It pretty much is true for planets and moons without atmospheres, like the spacecraft have no atmospheres. Don’t forget Ned’s T(na) value used in finding T(s) includes surface albedo and emissivity. The reason it doesn’t hold true for planets with atmospheres, is that as well as surface properties, there is also atmospheric pressure (and the consequent cloud albedo) to consider.

Also remember, Ned’s formula only deals with surface temperature, not the “solar thermal gain” of the entire mass of the planet. Spacecraft are very very small compared to planets and large moons.

52. tallbloke says:

Konrad: “Ned, if changes in atmospheric properties from volcanoes can effect surface temperatures, this is clear indication that atmospheric properties outside pressure effect surface temperatures. Note that the temperature reduction from sulphur dioxide only dissipates when the sulphuric acid particles produced are removed from the atmosphere. If they stayed there, surface temperatures would stay lower.”

I’m with you on this one. Ned’s theory runs into trouble with big long term surface T changes, because there’s no available paleo-pressure proxy to confirm his conjecture that big swings in pressure account for ice ages etc.

Mind you, no-one else has a cut and dried theory of ice ages either, so he’s not alone in his problems.

53. Ned Nikolov says:

To your comment “We know that surface properties and solar insolation are the critical factors in determining solar thermal gain for spacecraft. Why does this not hold true for planets?

This is an excellent question that is actually answered in our 2017 paper (https://tinyurl.com/ydxlfwn7). See the discussion about albedo effects starting at the bottom of p. 7 and continuing through p. 9. Also, see the section discussing the application of our model to predict global temperatures of Mercury, Europa and Callisto starting on p.15.

The short answer is that the specific optical and thermo-physical properties of the surface become important determinant of surface temperature only for airless bodies, but get masked by atmospheric properties and clouds on bodies with tangible atmospheres. Your spacecraft is not a planet and has no atmosphere surrounding it… This is a new insight stemming from our numerical results.

54. tallbloke says:

Lolz

55. Blob says:

Reading the responses to this over the years is so painful. The same old “I want to talk about radiative this or thermal that” while completely missing the point. Either:

1) You claim this curve is a coincidence
2) You need to come up with mechanisms to explain it

Regarding # 1:
Ok. I guess there is nothing more to say other than what you think needs to be added to convince you otherwise (one more planet?). For some it may be impossible to accept anything but the “coincidence” explanation since they harbor some other strongly held (yet if the curve is “real”, apparently incorrect) belief.

I see a lot of these people who are only producing noise. Just state what would be required to convince you it is not coincidence.

Regarding #2:
Obviously, looking at the effect of any one atmospheric process in isolation (eg albedo) is not going to work. The only way such a curve could represent something real across such diverse situations is if there is a system of feedbacks maintaining the temperature in a small range around an equilibrium point. Thus

albedo ↔ pressure ↔temperature ↔ composition

etc.

Pretty much the only independent factors could possibly be solar activity/insolation (although I would assume the planets have *some* effect on solar activity, it could be negligible).

The simple single-factor thought experiment “disproofs” we never hear the end of are simply not helpful. It is just more noise. You need a model with the feedbacks, and it is going to need to be quantitative. Actually, I think another aspect that needs to be explored is that this conceptualization of the atmosphere as “layers” everyone uses may be too simple to be useful.

56. oldbrew says:

TB – no-one else has a cut and dried theory of ice ages either

But they always come to an end.

57. oldbrew says:

Note the ongoing struggle to determine ‘climate sensitivity’ 😐

tallbloke says: April 17, 2018 at 8:09 am

There are numerous problems with Ned’s hypothesis, however pressure as one important factor in near surface temperatures cannot be dismissed.

You may remember my initial empirical experiments into the N&Z hypothesis:

After further experiments into the inability of surface incident LWIR to raise the temperature of water free to evaporatively cool and solar thermal gain in water, I have determined that the surface of this planet not being a near blackbody is the primary reason surface temperatures do not match those of a near blackbody our distance from the sun.

However that initial experiment that N&Z hypothesis provoked can explain the “Faint Sun Paradox”. When the Sun was weaker, there were times of higher temperatures. But these were also times of higher surface pressures.

Atmospheric pressure and solar insolation alone cannot explain surface temperatures. But to every cloud a silver lining.

Blob says –
1) You claim this curve is a coincidence
2) You need to come up with mechanisms to explain it

1) As Ned has now admitted, the equation doesn’t work for worlds without an atmosphere. (His explanation of why it doesn’t work for spacecraft). So that eliminates the Moon from his list of worlds on “the curve”. Now without the Moon, that curve now has only one valid data point: the Earth. There is insufficient and/or highly debated data for surface temperature on Venus, Mars, Titan and Triton. Through just one valid data point I can fit a line of any vector, or better still the curve formed by snake dancing Calypso.

2) Ned in his paper has effectively claiming that distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure is what determines the chemical composition of a planet’s surface and atmosphere, and thereby its albedo. Asking for mechanisms to explain this is like asking for a biological explanation of the metabolic rate of fairies at the bottom of the garden, and how it regulates their wing beats. Good luck with that!

tallbloke says: April 17, 2018 at 7:51 am
”The reason for that is the sceptics have wanted to present a ‘respectable’ and united front to mainstream climate authority in order to appear credible. This is why they concentrate on arguing for a small magnitude of extra CO2 warming rather than countenance theories which reject it altogether.

The problem impeding scientific progress on understanding climate now is that some of these ‘sceptical leaders’ have become the very people they claim to despise.”

This is indeed the problem at WUWT (AKA “lukewarmer central”).

I recently responded to a linked climate comment using a DISQUS sign in, not checking that it linked back to WUWT, where I have been banned for using empirical evidence to shoot down Willis et al. The comment was published and got considerable support.

I don’t agree with sock puppeting as a rule, but decided to test the waters at WUWT using that sign in. Yes, I was quickly recognised and blocked, as expected. After all, my screen name matched my gravatar and I am the only one that uses that gravatar in climate debate and I never changed any of the vocabulary I previously used.

But the results of this short experiment were very instructive:
1) Many commenters at WUWT are still amenable to evidence that our atmosphere cools the surface of our planet not warms it, and they want debate. Repressed commenters had a lot of support for an empiricist’s comments.
2) No one at WUWT is better at thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and radiative physics than I am. (Given Structures, Materials, FAE and Aero are meant to be my areas, that’s not a good look).
3) Many at WUWT don’t trust Dr. S and they know he attempted to stamp the solar spectral variance record flat. He is not trusted by many.
4) A great many WUWT readers are very tired of Willis’s boring “I can’t find solar influence down the back of the sofa, therefore it doesn’t exist” game.
5) Surprise! Viscount Moncokton believes 255 K for “surface without radiative atmosphere” is too low! But only by 17 kelvin. But it’s a start. When he gets closer to 55 kelvin, there may be some hope.

61. tallbloke says:

Konrad: As Ned has now admitted, the equation doesn’t work for worlds without an atmosphere.

No he hasn’t and yes it does. Since the pressure terms are redundant on an airless body, you simply get T(s)=T(na) i.e. Surface temp = surface temp no-atmosphere.

Ned in his paper has effectively claiming that distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure is what determines the chemical composition of a planet’s surface and atmosphere, and thereby its albedo

Not the chemical composition, but the feedbacks between convection, cloud condensation at altitude, radiation in and out etc. Works for planets with condensing gases in their atmospheres, i.e. all the rocky planets with atmospheres in the solar system for which there’s available data.

This is indeed the problem at WUWT

Not just WUWT. Roy Spencer has been banning gravito-thermal commentary too. Lindzen won’t entertain it, and Happer… is just Happer.

62. oldbrew says:

‘Not just WUWT. Roy Spencer has been banning gravito-thermal commentary too. Lindzen won’t entertain it, and Happer… is just Happer.’

Do they think the observations (data) are wrong?

63. tallbloke says:

Mostly they just haven’t read the papers and think Ned is claiming things he isn’t. Though in the case of WUWT it appears they just don’t have the capacity to understand basic thermodynamics. Or do maths.

64. oldbrew says:

Sounds a bit like the argument from personal incredulity.

I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.

65. Well, I’ve been pushing and explaining the atmospheric mass based ATE (or whatever) for over ten years now including several articles on this site so it isn’t a ‘new’ discovery.

What it comes down to is that greater atmospheric density allows more effective conduction so that as one descends through the mass of an atmosphere conduction steadily increases in importance relative to radiation.

One can regard the lapse rate slope as recording that gradual change with depth.

I explained the thermodynamics in some detail here:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/

and raised the adiabatic issue a long time ago here:

66. tallbloke says:

Stephen Wilde: so it isn’t a ‘new’ discovery.

For sure. Indeed the original post on Ned and Karl’s theory predates the earlier of your two linked articles by nearly a year.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-and-zeller/

Not forgetting Harry Dale Huffman’s 2010 Venus – no greenhouse post
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

Or indeed Hans Jelbring’s 2003 E&E paper
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/hans-jelbring-the-greenhouse-effect-as-a-function-of-atmospheric-mass/

And of course Fourier’s comments predate everyone’s by nearly 200 years. 🙂

Fourier said in 1824: “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.”… ” 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.”

And then there’s Loschmidt in the later C19th:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/

I note Stephen quoting Joules Verne’s eloquent explanation of why the Loschmidt thermal gradient isn’t a violation of the 2nd law here:

So if the CO2 aficionados think they have a long lineage from Fourier, we can point to an equally long lineage propounding the pressure-temperature effect.

67. Hadn’t seen that version but, anyway, what I meant was that I had understood it to be the case since my schooldays when the high surface temperature of Venus was always put down to atmospheric mass and pressure.

Besides I had already referred to atmospheric density as being the key here:

“The warming effect is a single persistent phenomenon linked to the density of the atmosphere and not the composition. ”

in 2008

Regardless, the description as to how it works in practice does appear to be unique to me )

68. Roger Clague says:

Nickolov says

According to Eq. (10b), the heating mechanism of planetary atmospheres is analogous to a gravity-controlled adiabatic compression acting upon the entire surface.

I welcome a theory that recognizes the importance of gravity (g)and air pressure (p)in warming the Earth’s surface T(s) and the surface of other planets and moons.
However I think the mechanism he uses is wrong.
It is not g causes p causes T
It is g causes T causes p.

Reference temperature

Nicholov (2017) takes the reference temperature, T(r), as the surface temperature of the body without an atmosphere. This is the method used by the radiative GHG theory. A better T(r) is the temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere before its warming effect starts at top of the tropopause T(t). T(t) is very stable up to longitude 40. that is most of the Earth. T(s) = T(t) + lapse rate x height of tropopause.

Definition and dimensions of air pressure

Nickolov says
Pressure as a force per unit area
[pressure] directly impacts the internal kinetic energy and temperature of a system in accordance with thermodynamic principles inferred from the Gas Law;

Force/area N/m^2 is air pressure at a surface. Air pressure is J/m^3 and causes a force at a surface ( or another molecule).
Air pressure is K.E. density
2d force of weight (mg) cannot cause 3d pressure J/m^3

Use of gas laws

Nickolov says
The average near-surface atmospheric densities (p, kg m-3) of planetary bodies were calculated from reported means of total atmospheric pressure (P), molar mass (M, kg moL-1) and temperature (Ts) using the Ideal Gas Law, i.e.,density (d) = pM/RT where R=8.31446 J moL-1 K-1 is the universal gas constant
The gas law is used to calculate d from p and t and M. Why cannot the gas law be used to calculate T T=pM/d? As I did here
with the Idea and data from here
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhJrAij2V3KReKcPhjElcpKWRjI
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf
or p = dTR/M

An alternative mechanism

g causes T by gravito-thermal effect
T causes p by gas law

How does g directly cause change of T?
g is acceleration and T is a velocity
We can use Newtons equation of motion
change of v= sqrt 2 x change of g x s
change of v = sqrt 2 x 0.006 x 10m/s^2 x 20 000m
= 50m/s^2
v at 290K =500m/s^2
v at 220 K = 500m/s^2 x sqrt 220/290
= 450m/s^2
g changes v by 50m/s^2 which causes a change of T from 220K and 290K
p = TdR/M by gas law

69. Ned Nikolov says:

Stephen:

Pressure depends on atmospheric mass, surface area and gravity. As such, it’s independent of temperature & climate. Also, pressure as a FORCE directly relates to the atmosphere’s internal kinetic energy defined by the product PV = Joules.

This means that pressure (not density!) is a driver of global temperature (along with solar radiation, of course). Air density is simply a function (result) of pressure and temperature. The proof for this is that atmospheric density is lower at the Equator compared to the Poles while surface air pressure is nearly the same. The strength of solar heating determines the atmospheric volume and air density. That’s why the tropo-pause is located at about 15-17 km altitude in the tropics and only at about 7-8 km at the Poles…

Hans Jelbring (2003) was also confused on this topic by asserting “… the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density“: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830503765184655

As demonstrated by our analysis of NASA planetary data, this is simply INCORRECT!

70. Ned,

Pressure determines density.

For a given surface area pressure results from gravity and atmospheric mass alone

The example of equator versus pole is merely a consequence of flows within the atmosphere balancing higher density than justified by pressure alone in one location (the poles) with lower density than justified by pressure alone in another location (the equator). Those counterbalancing discrepancies in density from that predicted by pressure alone are caused by the Earth’s rotation under a point source of light.

Pressure at any given height represents the declining density gradient along the lapse rate slope which in turn determines the efficiency of conduction relative to radiation all along that gradient.

The ATE at the surface comprises the energy required for ongoing two way conduction aided by adiabatic convection between surface and atmosphere. The more conduction there is the higher the ATE all else being equal.

The ATE exists as a feature throughout the depth of an atmosphere but declines with height along the density gradient which is marked out in thermal terms by the lapse rate slope.

You describe the basics of what is so but I provide the why and how.

71. Roger says:

“It is not g causes p causes T
It is g causes T causes p.”

Actually, it is radiation from outside plus conduction within that causes T at any given level of g and p is a result of g plus atmospheric mass (m) for any given surface area.

72. gallopingcamel says:

@James Siverly,
Thanks for waking me up for this excellent discussion. I have not been paying attention lately but this kind of debate, free of “ad hominem” is a credit to everyone participating.

Maybe we will hear from Scott Denning who is one of those rare scientists who is not afraid to engage with the general public.

73. James Siverly says:

You are welcome Peter Morcombe (gallopingcamel). I was hoping you will bring in the Robinson and Catling contributions.

Tallbloke should get an award for modelling, not only civility here, but encouraging all points of view.

74. dai davies says:

There’s a lot of confusion around this issue, and I don’t have a clear picture myself, but I think I can provide some clarification.

If we put aside the data validity question of N&Z2 (this paper) then we have a relationship between Pp (planetary surface pressure) and Tp the surface temps. The problem is whether there is a causal link, and if so what is it?

Starting with the initial short term cause, the sun heats the Earth’s surface, which heats the atmosphere, mainly the lower few hundred metres by conduction, and if GHGs are present, also via radiative transfer (dominant for Earth and Venus). This sets the temp of the lower atmospheres as roughly equal to the surface over the daily cycle, which brings in N&Z1, the atmospheric diurnal smoothing effect (ADSE, say) discussed in the N&Z/V&R paper linked to by Ned above.

The results of various evaluations of ADSE by N&Z, myself, ATTP, and others agree that this alone is capable of producing the current surface temperature of the Earth. There is no need to introduce the GHE (or more correctly, the Radiative Delay Effect or RDE). Significantly for this discussion, the ADSE is pressure dependent. As with the moon (the ADSE laboratory) surface heat absorption plays a role.

The atmosphere is far from adiabatic – energy is being transferred by radiation. Adiabatic gas laws would follow the gravitational lapse rate (Loschmidt and my LapseRate article). The surface sets the lower atmosphere temp and the lapse rate sets the height of the tropopause – gravity sets temperature sets pressure. Falling and rising air takes on the pressure and temperature appropriate for the altitude.

My evaluation of the RDE (~0.14C, in RadiativeDelayInContext.pdf) has been public now for about eight months, downloaded well over a thousand times from as many as sixty seven different countries, without any attempt at rebuttal – not something I’d expect the alarmists to be coy about if they could refute it.

As far as I’m concerned the matter is settled for Earth, and I’ve moved back to my primary interest which is describing a physically plausible approach for humans to explore and settle the galaxy.

Part of my interest there is the role of phi formation of solar systems, which is a topic that is possibly at the root of the interesting observation of N&Z2. I suspect that the answer to this relationship lies in the relative distribution of planetary mass (to set gravity) and the mass of planetary atmospheres.

Mass is determined by orbital resonances that formed within the original collapsing cloud that formed our system. So the question there is not just ‘Why phi?’ but ‘How phi’ – matter settling out in phi ratios with relative masses determined by orbital radius and the amount of mass originally surrounding that radius.

Atmospheric mass depends on planetary mass to hold it. Beyond that, there seems to have been a form of fractionation with CO2 around Venus’s orbit, with N2, O2, some CO2 settling in our region, with CH4 around the gas giants, and H2 out around Pluto. The odd one out is H2O. I gather there are theories about that concerning comets.

Plenty of fun to be had.

dai

75. Roger Clague says:

Nickolov says

Pressure depends on atmospheric mass, surface area and gravity. As such, it’s independent of temperature & climate.

From gas law p = TdR/M
p not independent of T, p is caused by T

nickolov says
pressure as a FORCE directly relates to the atmosphere’s internal kinetic energy defined by the product PV = Joules.

p = J/v energy density
Air pressure is a only a force at a surface or other molecule

Nickolov says
Hans Jelbring (2003) was also confused on this topic by asserting “… the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density“: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830503765184655

Nickolov does not use T/h = g/c and Jebring does not use p = TdR/M
Neither explain how g causes change of T, the gravito-thermal effect

g is acceleration and T is a velocity so we can use Newtons equation of motion

change of v= sqrt (2 x change of g x s)
change of g from surface to 20 000m is 0.006 x 10m^2
change of v = sqrt (2 x 0.006 x 10m/s^2 x 20 000m)
= 50m/s^2
v at 290K =500m/s^2
v at 220 K = 500m/s^2 x sqrt 220/290
= 450m/s^2
change in v from surface to tropopause at 20 000m is 50m^2
g changes v by 50m/s^2 which causes a change of T from 220K and 290K

76. tallbloke says:

Stephen Wilde says: Pressure determines density.

As Ned said, Pressure and temperature determine density. If your conjecture that greater density raises energy conduction rates and that increases temperature were to be correct, then there would be a negative feedback, because an increase in T at a given P will REDUCE density.

Roger Clague says: Nickolov says “Pressure depends on atmospheric mass, surface area and gravity. As such, it’s independent of temperature & climate.”

From gas law p = TdR/M
p not independent of T, p is caused by T

First of all Roger C, the name is Nikolov, not Nickolov. Please make the effort. Secondly, you say that pressure P is caused by Temperature T. It is true that raising the temperature of a gas in a closed container will raise its pressure. However, the Earth’s atmosphere is not in a closed container, it is free to expand against gravity.

77. tallbloke says:

Dai Davies says: the sun heats the Earth’s surface, which heats the atmosphere, mainly the lower few hundred metres by conduction, and if GHGs are present, also via radiative transfer (dominant for Earth and Venus). This sets the temp of the lower atmospheres as roughly equal to the surface

According to the well known NASA energy budget diagram, net longwave radiation represents a surface cooling of around 80W/m^2. Convection and evaporation represent a surface cooling of over 100W/m^2. Radiative transfer is not the dominant process by which the Earth’s surface cools to atmosphere.

78. tallbloke says:

GC: Maybe we will hear from Scott Denning who is one of those rare scientists who is not afraid to engage with the general public.

Having seen Scott’s criticisms of the N&Z paper in a magazine, I doubt he could add any enlightenment to this discussion. We might use his criticisms as the basis for a separate ‘misconceptions’ post though. It’s going to need one all of its own. 🙂

79. Rog,

“As Ned said, Pressure and temperature determine density. If your conjecture that greater density raises energy conduction rates and that increases temperature were to be correct, then there would be a negative feedback, because an increase in T at a given P will REDUCE density.”

Any increase in T above that which can be provided via the energy derived from conduction so as to reduce density set by mass and gravity is only a local phenomenon caused by rotation of the planet under a point source of light and is cancelled by an equal and opposite temperature variation elsewhere so in reality there can be no negative feedback.

If the planet were uniformly lit from all sides and not rotating then the atmospheric density and temperature would be perfectly even all around and both would be dependent on the amount of conduction going on with the amount of such conduction determined by density with density determined solely by mass and gravity at any given level of insolation and surface area.

It isn’t temperature per se that helps to determine density because temperature is derived from incoming radiation PLUS the kinetic energy required to hold the mass of an atmosphere off the ground in hydrostatic equilibrium.

That additional kinetic energy is derived from conduction and conduction is more effective at greater densities.

It is a bit of a semantic issue and somewhat subtle but any analysis has to acknowledge that conduction proportionate to density is the initial source of the energy that is then used to raise surface temperature.

Gravity then sorts the additional energy into a temperature gradient by arranging that such energy is primarily kinetic energy (heat) at the base and primarily potential energy (not heat) at the top with the lapse rate slope then following the density (and pressure) gradient from top to bottom.

So, it is not pressure that sets the surface temperature above S-B though pressure is a sound proxy for the underlying cause which is conduction because pressure sets density which then leads to a proportionate amount of conduction.

You can use pressure for the calculation as to what the surface temperature will be but only because it accurately reflects the efficiency of conduction at the density related to that pressure.

Neither pressure nor gravity can be a source of heat in themselves. To develop heat at any given levels of pressure and gtravity you must first have conduction and conduction is intimately tied to density.

80. dai davies says:

tallbloke says: … Radiative transfer is not the dominant process by which the Earth’s surface cools to atmosphere.

Clarifying, I’m talking about surface transfers involved in ADSE linking surface and lower 100m or so of atmosphere. From Wild etal (close to hand) surface to air is 398 W/m2 and back is 342 W/m2.

For the diurnal smoothing effect it is the strength of the coupling that matters – more cooling of surface during the day and more re-heating at night. Long term means hide the cycle, so it’s ignored. This really is the dominant surface warming effect through the T^4 dependence of radiation. And as I say, it’s pressure dependent.

dai

81. dai davies says:

Reduced cooling at night rather than re-heating, to be more precise.

dai

82. tallbloke says:

Stephen, It’s not easy to follow your descriptive conjecture but we might be able to put some scientific rigor into the idea that air density with a given throughput of solar energy relates to temperature (and pressure) by considering a few kinetic theory of gases fundamentals.

1) The average kinetic energy of a molecule in an ideal gas is directly proportional to its absolute temperature in Kelvin.
Ke ∝ T(K)

2) Kinetic energy is half the product of momentum and velocity.
Ke = mv^2/2

Kinetic energy is usually measured in units of Joules (J); one Joule is equal to 1 kg m^2 / s^2.

3) The gas constant is also known as the molar, universal, or ideal gas constant, denoted by the symbol R and is equivalent to the Boltzmann constant, but expressed in units of energy per temperature increment per mole, i.e. the pressure-volume product, rather than energy per temperature increment per particle.
R=8.314J K mol

4)The ideal gas law
PV =nRT
Where:
p is the pressure
V is the volume
n is the number of moles
R is the ideal gas constant.
T is the temperature in K

Note that density isn’t included in any of the foregoing. That’s because as Ned pointed out, density is a derivative quantity, a function of temperature and pressure. I do understand you’re using the concept of density in trying to get to a “pool ball physics” mechanistic explanation though, and that’s no bad thing.

I think we’ll find that higher temperature due to “higher Ke per unit volume due to higher pressure” amounts to pretty much the same thing as your “better conduction due to higher density”, so keep developing your ideas, I’m sure we’ll meet up further along the chain of causality.

83. tallbloke says:

Dai Davies: The results of various evaluations of ADSE by N&Z, myself, ATTP, and others agree that this alone is capable of producing the current surface temperature of the Earth.

Do they? Have you quantified them?

84. Trick says:

All of the above discussed before on this blog, nothing new this time, the wary remain unpersuaded that there is any advance discovered beyond basic 1960s radiative-convective atm. science. TB is overly optimistic that misconceptions can be resolved.

1) N&Z discuss the basic radiative-convective 1LOT balance (eqn. 3); they then assume a Tna (eqn. 4c) based on all airless planetary bodies will have moon regolith properties even if they are icy:
“To calculate the Tna temperatures for planetary bodies with tangible atmospheres, we assumed that the airless equivalents of such objects would be covered with a regolith of similar optical and thermo-physical properties as the Moon surface” thus Tna (eqn. 4c) is simply an assumption.

N&Z use data acquired from other sources so there is no “new insight” in the data other than a unique to N&Z regolith assumption eqn. 4c.

N&Z then use their unique assumption in eqn. 4c with data acquired by others to plot each green point in Figure 4. The red curve is not a “new insight” as many learn how to use a French curve in grade school drafting to connect the data dots. Here N&Z use the equivalent in math. This is not new. If Earth, for example, changes to a significantly different atm. composition then Earth will not plot on this particular red curve.

Konrad does have a good point that “airless” spacecraft (smaller planetary bodies) do not exhibit Tna and they should if the N&Z assumptions for Tna were fundamentally valid. Some objects have not been pounded to moon regolith so need radiative emissivity theory, practice & experiment to find operational global T In space not just by invoking assumed Fig. 4. Same is true for exoplanets.

2) Konrad shows pictures of experimental lab apparatus but has never published data from any runs so the wary are unpersuaded by his assertions. Especially when many authors over decades have already provided, published & confirmed data from experiments on the actual Earth L&O system.

3) Stephen writes “it is radiation from outside plus conduction within that causes T” but does not show supporting T calculation from those inputs or experimental evidence so the wary are not persuaded either.

Similarly, Stephen writes global avg. temperatures are set by atm. mass, insolation and gravity all of which have readily available data yet Stephen has never used that data to show a calculation for such T. Stephen never will do so because basic 1960s atm. radiative-convective science shows global T is actually not set by those parameters.

4) Tallbloke posts up 3:19pm the work of others without comment other than a “long lineage” to a P-T effect since of course there IS one ever since Poisson’s work early 1800s at constant density. BTW N&Z Fig. 4 is not P-T, Fig. 4 is P-(non-dimensional assumption).

85. tallbloke says:

Heh, afternoon Trick, welcome back to the fray.

4)Tallbloke posts up 3:19pm the work of others without comment other than a “long lineage” to a P-T effect since of course there IS one ever since Poisson’s work early 1800s at constant density. BTW N&Z Fig. 4 is not P-T, Fig. 4 is P-(non-dimensional assumption).

N&Z don’t claim Fig 4 is a direct P-T plot, and I bet you can’t find a quote from them where they do. (Strawman argument)

basic 1960s atm. radiative-convective science shows global T is actually not set by those parameters [atm. mass, insolation and gravity].

No it doesn’t. But because it measures a useful and accurate symptom of the temperature underpinned by atm. mass, insolation and gravity, Trick falls into the fallacy (he’s not alone) that the object of measurement (radiation) is the causative agent of the temperature (it isn’t). I think I’ll call this one ‘Argumentum mensura ergo causa’ until someone comes along to correct my Latin grammar.

“airless” spacecraft (smaller planetary bodies) do not exhibit Tna and they should if the N&Z assumptions for Tna were fundamentally valid. Some objects have not been pounded to moon regolith so need radiative emissivity theory, practice & experiment to find operational global T In space not just by invoking assumed Fig. 4. Same is true for exoplanets.

Because sooner or later we’ll find an exoplanet that the Zargians from galactic sector 4 covered in titanium plate. 🙂

86. Rog said:

“I think we’ll find that higher temperature due to “higher Ke per unit volume due to higher pressure” amounts to pretty much the same thing as your “better conduction due to higher density”, so keep developing your ideas,”

Well, yes, both do amount to pretty much the same thing but how do you think pressure per se could cause surface heating ?

To cause surface heating you have to have conduction as a prerequisite and the more matter that is in contact with the irradiated surface the more conduction there will be and thus the more heat.

So density it must be.

You can have as much pressure as you like but unless there is conduction there will be no heating. As Ned’s work stands at present there is an implicit assumption that heat just comes from nowhere simply due to the pressure.

You can use pressure as a basis for the calculation but the real cause is conduction which is inevitably proportionate to density.

87. Rog said:

“Note that density isn’t included in any of the foregoing”

Actually, Rog, isn’t n, the number of moles a density function ?

88. tallbloke says:

Stephen: As Ned’s work stands at present there is an implicit assumption that heat just comes from nowhere simply due to the pressure.

I think you’ll find that Ned and Karl specify quite clearly that pressure due to gravity acting on atmospheric mass enhances the Kinetic energy content of the near surface atmosphere. Maybe you should read their paper again.

conduction which is inevitably proportionate to density.

Got a link to a derivation for that?

Actually, Rog, isn’t n, the number of moles a density function ?

No. The unit is defined as the amount or sample of a chemical substance that contains as many constitutive particles, e.g., atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, or photons, as there are atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12 (12C), the isotope of carbon with standard atomic weight 12 by definition.

89. stpaulchuck says:

the elephant in the room has been noted in this thread as well as elsewhere – DOLLARS.

If (generally) climate temperature is naturally determined and the input from humans is minuscule then there is NOTHING we can do to change the events. Therefore, there is zero dollars in searching for non existent “fixes” to a non problem and all those research projects get defunded (hopefully!).

Where there IS money then, is in studying the past and coming up with strategies for the future based on reasonable predictions, i.e. adaptation strategies. Those would be worth mucho deniro to governments and industries.

But then the Lysenko-ists would have to change up to a new paradigm. Yeah. Sure. Any day now. The only thing more stodgy and bureaucratic than government is academia.

90. gallopingcamel says:

The abstract of the N&Z paper opens thus:
“A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory.”

What a powerful statement that is! Furthermore N&Z can back it up with detailed reasoning.

In October 2011 N&Z published this poster:
http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf

The poster implied that the GHE (GreenHouse Effect) is 134 Kelvin, in sharp contrast the the 33 Kelvin claimed by Scott Denning and other “Respectable Climate Scientists”. It took a while but now most climate scientists, respectable, maverick or amateur can agree with Ned’s revised estimate. The GHE is ~90 Kelvin.

There is still some discussion about the effect of rotation rate on airless bodies:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/

However this is a mere detail that should not distract us from Ned’s main point. He is telling us that “Climate Science” has been off the rails since the 1970s!

My high school physics teacher could prove that the temperature gradient in a column of dry gas was equal to -Cp/g using thermodynamics. That analysis can be tested against observations of Earth and we find that it agrees with observations unless vapors are present as on Earth and Titan. Then in 1967 and 1968, Sagan and Pollard published a series of papers that correctly predicted the surface temperature of Venus. Here is a link to a correction that Sagan issued when he realized that Cp varies with pressure:

I mention Sagan’s work as it considered the effect of atmospheric composition. According to Sagan the surface temperature of Venus would be 727 K if the atmosphere was 100% nitrogen and 721 K if it was 100% carbon dioxide. He did not expect gas composition to have a large effect given that the Cp of nitrogen is close to that of CO2 when pressure is taken into account (Specific Heat at Constant Pressure).

In the 1970s Sagan got seduced by the “Dark Side” even though he must have known that Hansen could not explain the surface temperature on Venus or the GHE on Earth in terms of carbon dioxide. Ned says that gas composition can be ignored and I agree as long as we are adding CO2 to an atmosphere that is 80% nitrogen (as on Earth).

Ned’s analysis is very economical given that it uses only two variables (TSI and pressure). However I am still hoping to provide a more general method using Finite Element Analysis. This approach has worked well for modeling airless bodies. In the mean time I am much impressed by Robinson & Catling who have developed a radiative-convective model from “First Principles”:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

91. i) “I think you’ll find that Ned and Karl specify quite clearly that pressure due to gravity acting on atmospheric mass enhances the Kinetic energy content of the near surface atmosphere. ”

Would that be with or without conduction ?

ii) “conduction which is inevitably proportionate to density.”

How could it not be ?

iii) “The unit is defined as the amount or sample of a chemical substance that contains as many constitutive particles, e.g., atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, or photons, as there are atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12 (12C), the isotope of carbon with standard atomic weight 12 by definition.”

That is the definition of one mole which is a quantity of matter. If there are many moles in a given volume then how is that not a measure of density ?

92. oldmanK says:

An interesting thread, but something that caught my eye prompts me to add to it. Quote tb and oldbrew: ” April 17, 2018 at 9:53 am

TB – no-one else has a cut and dried theory of ice ages either.

(oldbrew) But they always come to an end.”

They do not just come to an end, they trip from one extreme to another and the cycle repeats. We can imagine the effect of extreme glaciation, but the other end is, afaik, ‘debatable’. True, the last cycle was about 100kyrs, but there is no denying one or both extremes are severe. Add to that something else. 10kyrs to 5ky ago were very different than the last 5kyrs, and there are now a horde of proxies to prove it. The devil in the detail is also important.

93. Trick says:

tb 2:45pm: ”N&Z don’t claim Fig 4 is a direct P-T plot..”

Correct, and neither should tallbloke at 3:19pm: “we can point to an equally long lineage propounding the pressure-temperature effect.” This is physically true only at constant density.

”Trick falls into the fallacy (he’s not alone) that the object of measurement (radiation) is the causative agent of the temperature (it isn’t).”

No, I do not. The 1960s basic radiative-convective science is not all about radiation – just check out its name: radiative-convective. Radiative, convective and conductive independent energy transfers are all in operation in global planetary climate. There is more physics involved to setting global temperature than simply Stephen’s atm. mass, insolation and gravity.

Titanium plate? Typically thin gold plate is used on space craft and of course an exoplanet would consist of natural unprocessed titanium and gold etc (i.e. not worked shiny by Zargians).

If a case can be made that the exoplanet surface w/o atm. would be pulverized regolith illuminated by sun like star at 1 au then a reasonable first est. it would fall on the N&Z Fig. 4 curve once the required Earth like or Venus like atm. composition and surface pressure (abscissa) has been reasonably estimated.

94. oldbrew says:

oldmanK – ‘they trip from one extreme to another and the cycle repeats’

Like a pendulum?

95. oldbrew says:

In the ‘Standard Atmosphere’ table below, if we divide Altitude row=0km by A. row=10km we get:
T = 1.2912838
P = 3.832798
D = 2.9682074
P/T = 2.9682072 = D

Data from: http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/

96. oldmanK says:

@ oldbrew: Not exactly. A trip point from deep glaciation to abrupt warming ( the Dryas period), then a slow chaotic drift to the next trip point. WUWT had an excellent piece here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/04/paleoclimate-cycles-are-key-analogs-for-present-day-holocene-warm-period/

The last 450kyrs show the process clearly as a saw-tooth (to use control theory jargon, an unstable process, bang-bang from one extreme to another; slow and plagued by friction in reverse; several conflicting variable inputs). Five trip points are evident, and none replicate earlier events. The terminations can be said to be ‘comparable’ but the slopes are different and definitely chaotic (and I would hazard they cannot be connected to any orbital elements, but intrinsic to Earth’s character)

97. Trick said:

“Radiative, convective and conductive independent energy transfers are all in operation in global planetary climate. There is more physics involved to setting global temperature than simply Stephen’s atm. mass, insolation and gravity.”

All that additional physics just deals with variations from place to place and has no effect on the total system energy content determined only by mass, gravity and insolation.

98. Roger Clague says:

tallbloke says:
April 18, 2018 at 1:17 pm

Note that density isn’t included in any of the foregoing[ pv = nRT].

Although pv = nRT is the original and most common form of the Gas Law there is another form that is valid at the surface . The form used by Nikolov. In which density does appear.
v is replaced by m/d m = mass of atmosphere does not change

p = dRT/M d = mass density

I used to argue against the use of the gas law in the atmosphere. But I now accept the density form can be used at the surface

That’s because as Ned pointed out, density is a derivative quantity, a function of temperature and pressure.

I think p is the physically dependent variable
d and T cause p
Any variable can be made the derived quantity in an equation by algebra.

Why is p the dependent variable

d is caused from out side the atmosphere gas system by mass of gas emitted into the atmosphere by the planet and the chemical history of the emissions
Thus Venus has a dense atmosphere of CO2 but Earth has la less dense atmosphere and little CO2 because CO2 has been turned to calcium carbonate solid by living organisms

T is caused outside the gas system by the sun ( tropopause T) and the lapse rate (g/c)

99. Trick says:

” All that additional physics just deals with variations from place to place..”

Stephen 6:36pm, this is your misconception that will never change as optimistic as TB is about that circumstance. The additional physics for global surface T deals with surface composition of a water planet, arid planet & also atm. composition along with surface pressure.

To prove you really have no misconception simply compute global surface T from Earth atm. mass, insolation and gravity data since you write these are all that sets such T. Can’t be done, I have no misconception about that circumstance.

A first course college meteorology text on atm. radiative-convective science shows how to compute Earth global surface T once global atm. emissivity, surface emissivity, 4-10year avg. annual insolation and albedo are measured. Same can be done for Venus (with an iterative approach due the IR opaque surface P) and the other solar system objects.

100. Roger Clague says:

Stephen Wilde says:
April 18, 2018 at 9:49 am

Neither pressure nor gravity can be a source of heat in themselves.

The gravito– thermal effect is not creating heat in the atmosphere. It it is changing of temperature from top to bottom.

T is velocity and g is acceleration
So g can change T
I have in a previous post calculated the change of T from tropopause to surface ( 70K) over 20km using the change in g 0.06m/s^2 and Newtons equation of motion v = sqrt 2gs

101. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 18, 2018 at 6:09 pm

Please explain the point you are making.
Are you claiming to show d is the dependent variable ?

102. tallbloke says:

Trick: Radiative, convective and conductive independent energy transfers are all in operation in global planetary climate. There is more physics involved to setting global temperature than simply Stephen’s atm. mass, insolation and gravity.

What you are arguing is that the N&Z curve is just some happy coincidence. Which you might have got away with before Pluto fell in line. (Mercury next). Also, take a look at what Galloping Camel just posted about it making little difference to Venus Surface T whether the atmosphere is mostly CO2 or Nitrogen.

Stephen: If there are many moles in a given volume then how is that not a measure of density ?

Sure, define a given volume and you get a new quantity not in the ideal gas law: Molar Density.

103. oldbrew says:

@ Roger Clague – the ‘point’ is what you see.

Interpretation is left to the reader.

104. oldbrew says:

Re lapse rate:
Venus:Earth solar irradiance ratio = 1.911:1
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

4th root of 1.911 * 6.5 K (Earth) = 7.642, close to Sagan’s estimate for Venus of 7.9 K / km.

105. Trick says:

tallbloke 7:24pm, I am not arguing any such happy coincidence.

N&Z obtained the data for their Fig. 4 green dots measured by others (cited), plotted them with their unique assumption for Tna, then drew the red line through the dots. I would have used my grade school drafting french curve to save the math work. The Fig. 4 curve will reasonably work as long as it is applied to similar composition physical atm.s, surfaces similar no atm. regolith, and sun like illumination circumstances reasonably consistent with their assumptions in computing Tna (eqn. 4c).

106. tallbloke says:

107. tallbloke says:

Trick: The Fig. 4 curve will reasonably work as long as it is applied to similar composition physical atm.s

“Similar composition physical atm’s”
Similar to 93bar 95%Co2 Venus, or similar to 1bar 0.04%CO2 Earth? Pick one. 🙂

108. Trick says:

7:55pm: ”The NET upward CONVECTIVE flux due to both sensible & latent heat transport is 84 + 20 = 104 W m-2.”

Net of what?

109. Trick says:

“Similar to 93bar 95%Co2 Venus, or similar to 1bar 0.04%CO2 Earth? Pick one.”

Both. They are on the same red curve! See Fig. 4.

110. tallbloke says:

Trick: Both

Wriggle wriggle. Lol. 🙂

Net of what?

Incoming vs outgoing IR of course. You’re not as sharp as you were.

111. Trick says:

8:11pm: In the tweeted picture, the global gross upward convective flux of 104 – the gross downward convective flux 104 = 0 net over the period studied.

Updrafts have to equal downdrafts you tube videos demo this convective physics just search on convection. Rain also equaled evapotranspiration over the period, net=0.

The upward convective flux is not NET of anything that I can see in the picture.

112. tallbloke says:

Trick: Rain also equaled evapotranspiration over the period, net=0.

Except the evaporation at the surface takes the latent heat of vapourisation with it to the tropopause, loses it to space as it condenses and returns as cold rain. Both processes cool the surface.

113. Trick says:

” loses (LH) to space”

None of Earth’s convection takes the LH to space, Earth is not losing its atm. that fast & it doesn’t rain in space. Picture shows all the convective LH is dumped off in the atm. and atm. radiates some to space as shown in the picture (component of the 239) and atm. radiates some toward surface (component of the 342). Surface energy balance net is zero from these processes so that there is no significant surface global T change due to the global gross 104 up and gross 104 down in the period studied.

114. tallbloke says:

How much of the IR from condensation/convection altitude make it back to surface Trick? Take your time. I’m off for a beer.

115. Trick says:

8:56pm: I agree going out for a beer seems more sensible than discussing this stuff. For me it would be going out for a WL Weller Special Reserve but the supply seems to have dried up recently so here I am.

”How much of the IR from condensation/convection altitude make it back to surface Trick?”

THAT is an interesting question. Short answer is the same amount up comes down as LH doesn’t build up in the atm. & the global surface T is fairly stable compared to all the chaotic rain & wind activity. The long answer that adds in the water cycle is from 2015 section 3) d. of:

L’ECUYER ET AL. The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early Twenty-First Century

Then see Fig. 4 this time in L’ECUYER ET AL which summarizes the usual suspects. They actually include right in the picture snow and rain 81 down component balancing the evapotranspiration 81 up in the period they studied. Very few of these cartoons break out the snow and rain down – most only show the upward arrows which leads to spurious comments. I will leave it at that for now.

116. tallbloke says:

Trick: Short answer is the same amount up comes down

I doubt that, since most of it is coming from condensing WV which is forming new cloud top on existing cloud.

L’ECUYER ET AL. The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early Twenty-First Century

Thanks for the reference. Here, have a bottle of Weller reserve on me.

117. Trick says:

Mmmmm…check your usual suspect sources, won’t be in stock. And sure, you are free to doubt. It’s always more interesting than not as displayed around here. Especially when there is evidence given for the cause of the doubt. Thanks for the discussion.

118. dai davies says:

tallbloke says: April 18, 2018 at 2:03 pm: ‘Have you quantified them?’

My quantification of the diurnal smoothing effect can be seen in my OCM Open Climate Modeller) package that can be run online at my site or downloaded. The user can vary basic parameters such as albedo and the plot results. There is a summary in the “Context” section of my RadiativeDelayInContext article.

dai

119. tallbloke says:

Trick, looks like there are a few bottles left here: https://www.royalmilewhiskies.com/w-l-weller-special-reserve-45-70cl/

120. gallopingcamel says:

Tallbloke, April 18, 2018 at 8:16 am ,

My understanding is that Scott Denning and Ned Nikolov both live in Fort Collins, Colorado so I keep getting the crazy idea that they might get together over coffee just as I used to meet with Nicola Scafetta in Durham, North Carolina.

Nah! That is never going to happen so they will keep on sniping at each other in scientific publications.

121. tallbloke says:

GC: Last time I saw a detailed interchange, Ned showed the physical meaninglessness of the “33K greenhouse effect” and Scott retaliated by trying to undermine the basis for Ned’s no-atmosphere baseline T(na). 🙂

122. Erik says:

This is not just a statistical representation of the ideal gas law? We know that rearranging those terms yields a close match to observed planet surface temperatures but that surely must be a circular argument?

123. Trick says:

Thanks tb 4:46am. Stupid shipping agents are cutting into my bar tab:

“Please be aware that due to issues with our shipping agent we are currently only able to ship to the following states…We are looking to resolve this shortly. 1 Bottle Shipping Cost: £49.50”

124. tallbloke says:

Trick: I’ll get you a bottle and send it over with Ned from our Porto conference this Sept. He’ll be able to ship it to you from Fort Collins for a much keener price.

125. Rog said:

“Sure, define a given volume and you get a new quantity not in the ideal gas law: Molar Density.”

The term ‘n’ in the ideal gas law refers to the number of moles and the term ‘V’ for volume is also present.

In combination they describe molar density which is therefore accommodated within the ideal gas law.

Pressure will then determine molar density and pressure is determined solely by mass and gravity for a given surface area.

However, that is not enough in itself to raise surface temperature. To do that one must add conduction which leads inevitably to convection because surface heating is always uneven.

Pressure sets the scene but the act of heating is performed by conduction and convection. If no conduction occurred you could raise pressure as much as you like and the surface temperature would fail to rise above S-B.

Conduction increases as density increases because at higher densities there is more atmospheric mass exchanging heat with the surface via conduction per unit of surface area.

126. tallbloke says:

Stephen, sounds good, I overlooked the volume on the other side of the equation. You can rearrange the equation to solve by molar density. In fact, now you’ve jogged my memory, I recall someone did so recently, I’ll look for the link.

Edit: here’s the pdf
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/density-gas-law.pdf

Ned and I found some problems with it, but have a look anyway.

127. Yes, the whole thing is getting clearer in my mind but it is a devil getting it across to others.

I would say that once an atmosphere reaches hydrostatic equilibrium there are three interdependent energy balancing acts going on thus:

Radiative energy from surface to atmosphere equals radiative energy from atmosphere to surface.

Conducted energy from surface to atmosphere equals conducted energy atmosphere to surface.

If any imbalance develops in any one of those then the other two use circulation / convective changes to neutralise that imbalance and the gas laws can be used to describe the adjustment process.

So, far from heating the surface, downward IR is already built into the hydrostatic scenario as is downward conduction.

Any increase in downward IR results in a decrease in downward conduction and vice versa.

The variable parameter is the vigour of convective overturning so if you increase the radiative capability of an atmosphere then convective overturning weakens because it no longer has to feed energy back to the surface so quickly for radiation to space since increased downward IR is doing the job for it.

However, the thermal effect of radiative gases is miniscule compared to the thermal effect of conducting atmospheric mass.

The entire ATE is due to conduction and the consequent convective overturning for any atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium.

128. Roger Clague says:

Stephen Wilde says:
April 19, 2018 at 3:32 pm

Pressure will then determine molar density

P= dRT/M is the molar mass form of the gas law.

Density d is mass density, m/v, mass of atmosphere over volume
not moles/v

pressure is determined solely by mass and gravity for a given surface area

Air pressure is not determined by mass and gravity

air p is 3d energy density
weight mg over a 2d surface cannot cause 3d energy density

d is not determined by pressure. It is caused by gas emissions from Earth

T is caused by the sun and g in the lapse rate formula g/c

Air pressure p is the dependent variable caused by T and d which are independently caused outside of the gas system

Air pressure is determined by inertial mass density d and average velocity of molecules T

129. CheshireRed says:

Thanks for the clean, layman’s-terms description Roger. It all makes so much sense but most of all because Ned and Karl’s paper is observation based. Not a model in sight. I suspect in private a LOT of climate movers, shakers and policy makers are deeply concerned at this development, for all the wrong reasons. (ie their wallet and professional and personal reputations.)

130. Ned Nikolov says:

Stephen, you said (April 19, 2018 at 4:57 pm):

Pressure sets the scene but the act of heating is performed by conduction and convection. If no conduction occurred you could raise pressure as much as you like and the surface temperature would fail to rise above S-B.

Never heard that before! First of all, as far as I know, conduction/convection and advection are mechanisms of heat dissipation, not heat generation. Secondly, how can you have no conduction & convection in a fluid gaseous system like the atmosphere?! Thirdly, what do you think is causing the extremely high temperatures in Earth’s mantle, where pressure reaches multi GPa values, convection?? … 🙂

131. oldbrew says:

The transfer of energy by a substance, without the substance itself moving, is called conduction. Metals are very good conductors. Non-metals are usually poor conductors (insulators). Gases are very poor conductors (air pockets make materials good insulators). [bold added]

http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/topics/heat/conduction.htm

132. Ned, those are fair questions but I have considered them.

i) Conduction and convection within gases draw heat from an irradiated surface and then store that heat as potential energy (not heat) eventually returning it to the surface as heat again at the end of a convective overturning cycle. The net effect is a delay in the return of incoming solar energy to space which shows up as a surface temperature rise. You should read my full narrative previously referred to up thread.

ii) You cannot have zero conduction and convection in an atmosphere due to uneven surface heating creating density differentials in the horizontal plane. However, if somehow they could be suppressed then all incoming irradiation of the surface would radiate straight out again from the surface and the S-B temperature could not be exceeded. It is conduction and convection slowing down the throughput of incoming radiation that causes the surface temperature rise and not pressure per se. Pressure is a mere proxy for the density created at the surface by mass and gravity.

iii) Convection within the mantle is well established and the same principles apply but because the materials are so dense (as a result of the extreme pressure) the effect is many magnitudes greater than the effect seen in the atmosphere. It is convection within the mantle that slows down the loss of internal energy to space and thus allows the interior to heat up so spectacularly. You still have conversion of KE to PE as mantle mass moves away from the centre of gravity and PE back to KE as it moves back towards the centre of gravity. Furthermore you do not get a similar lapse rate slope because the gas laws do not apply to solids so the heat gets close to the surface which leads to volcanic activity at the surface.

133. Oldbrew,

Gases are very poor conductors compared to solids but they conduct nonetheless and, in the case of atmospheric gases, convection greatly enhances conduction by constantly allowing a new supply of cooler gases to flow horizontally towards surface hot spots.

For our atmosphere that is sufficient to account for our observed ATE and it applies to all other planets with convecting atmospheres as well.

“How much of the IR from condensation/convection altitude make it back to surface”

I would say that depends on height since IR radiates in all directions.

However, that isn’t the important point since such radiation is simply derived from the latent heat of evaporation and is returned to radiation when condensation occurs for a zero net effect.

The important point is that the portion of energy taken from the surface and converted to PE in adiabatic expansion during uplift is ALL returned to the surface in the next descent phase of convective overturning. Whilst in PE form that energy does not register as heat and cannot be radiated to space at all.

135. A C Osborn says:

Trick says: April 18, 2018 at 10:20 pm

”How much of the IR from condensation/convection altitude make it back to surface Trick?”

THAT is an interesting question. Short answer is the same amount up comes down as LH doesn’t build up in the atm. & the global surface T is fairly stable compared to all the chaotic rain & wind activity.”

How does it manage to do so when the Free Path of an IR Photon is approximately 25 Metres?
And that only applies to Excited Atoms & Molecules that do not lose their excitement due to collisions.

136. A C Osborn says:

Of Course that is of the approximately 48% of Photons that actually head earthward.

137. Trick says:

A C 1:44pm asks: ”How does it manage to do so when the Free Path of an IR Photon is approximately 25 Metres?”

A C that is also an interesting question and as usual I suggest you consult a college text first course in atm. radiation because your answer is very complicated in a cloudy atm. as it quickly gets into probability theory to understand photon path length distributions. You are right that photon path length distributions can help understand Earth atmospheric radiative transfer.

Your generic 25m is off by several orders of magnitude even on a two-cloud layer day. Take a look at the picture tb posted 7:55pm. See the atm. window path? Therein the photon path length is infinite and that is for the global cloudiness!

Consider a clear Earth sky with source of illumination at 100km with upward and downward radiances at two adjacent wavenumbers in the near-infrared (wavelengths near 770 nm) where absorption in Earth’s clear atmosphere is mostly by molecular oxygen. At wavenumber 12970 cm−1 the absorption optical thickness is negligible whereas at the nearby wavenumber 12965cm−1 the absorption optical thickness significantly increases to 0.11. From that data lookup you should begin to see things are much more complex than your simple generic statement.

More generally, for the clear sky almost all path lengths of photons that contribute to the downward radiance are 100 km and hence so is the average path length. A single cloud layer changes the distribution but not by much. Two widely separated cloud layers, however, markedly change the photon path length distribution because of multiple scattering within each cloud and, more important, multiple scattering between clouds. This is why the downward radiance at the absorbing wavelength decreases. Longer path lengths expose photons to more chances of being absorbed by molecular oxygen.

With that, I’ll leave it to your interest level to pursue more in depth at your local college library.

NB: This all boils down to the cited picture wherein global measurements show the gross upward LH+SH total energy transfer (104) net of their downward total energy transfer (component of the 342) = 0. So LH+SH cycle doesn’t contribute to the energy balance at the surface over the period observed i.e. LH+SH cycling had no effect on global T in the period observed.

138. Roger Clague says:

Stephen Wilde says:
April 19, 2018 at 4:57 pm

the thermal effect of radiative gases is miniscule compared to the thermal effect of conducting atmospheric mass.

Radiative gases, 90% water vapor, absorb 78 W/m^2 from the sun

thermal conductivity of air 0.003W/m/m^2/K

T/h = 6K/km
1m has change of T 0.006K

air conducts 0.003 x 0.006 W/m^2 = 2 x 10^-5 W/m^2

Heat flux by conduction in air is very small and can be neglected

The variable parameter is the vigour of convective overturning

A variable or parameter is a measurable quantity in an equation.

vigor of convective overturning is a metaphoric description of a mechanism

the whole thing is getting clearer in my mind but it is a devil getting it across to others

I think the best way to convince is using defined ( S.I. Units ) and measurable quantities in equations formed from physical laws

139. Roger Clague says:

CheshireRed says:
April 19, 2018 at 9:34 pm

of N and Z 2017

Not a model in sight.

Ok not computer models, but I want a physical model, a mechanism.

An important factor in the success of the greenhouse gas theory is that it has simple physical mechanisms
a greenhouse and a CO2 a 3 atom molecule which can bend.

How does the gravity-thermal effect work?

How does gravity cause a change in temperature? In one sentence

I have my mechanism here

140. Richard111 says:

Just curious. Do models take into account that slightly less than half the radiation from molecules in the atmosphere would reach the surface?

141. oldbrew says:

‘How does gravity cause a change in temperature? In one sentence’

More/fewer molecules per unit volume of air. TB explained it in the intro and Ned Nikolov and others have described it in the comments. Air is thinner at the top of Everest etc. Everybody knows this – the higher you go the cooler it gets.

142. Roger, heat flux by conduction WITHIN air can be ignored but heat flux by conduction from a solid surface to air is much more significant. The air over sun warmed desert sand gets pretty hot does it not?
And warm advected air across a cold surface can very effectively reduce the rate of radiative cooling.

143. nickreality65 says:

The 396 W/m^2 upwelling and net 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop as shown on the K-T power flux balance diagram (Figure 10 Trenberth et al 2011jcli24) is calculated using the S-B equation with an assumed emissivity of 1.0 and an average surface temperature of 16 C, 289 K. Because of the conductive/convective/advective/latent heat participating processes of the atmospheric molecules the actual and correct radiative emissivity is about 0.16, i.e. 63/396.

This GHG energy loop is an inappropriate calculation with zero physical reality.

Without this energy loop the radiative greenhouse effect theory fails.

Without RGHE man-caused climate change does not exist.

It’s called “science.”

Don’t be frightened, spit out the Kool-Aid and give it a try.

144. Trick says:

Nick 6:49pm – the emissivity is measured with precision, calibrated instrumentation. By many authors over many decades. The emissivity is not simply assumed as you write.

145. Roger Clague says:

Oldbrew says:
April 20, 2018 at 5:03 pm

‘How does gravity cause a change in temperature? In one sentence’
More/fewer molecules per unit volume of air.

Nikolov and Zeller 2017 say
the physical nature of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ is a pressure-induced thermal enhancement independent of atmospheric composition.

Molecules per unit volume is mass density,d.
But N and Z 2017 does not mention mass density.

Tallbloke says

Atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere. The force of gravity squishes the atmosphere against the barrier of Earth’s surface.
The air at the bottom next to the surface gets squished the most, as it has all of the mass of the rest of the atmosphere pushing down on it from above. Halfway up the atmosphere, there’s only half of the atmosphere pressing on it from above. Pressure affects the density of the air. Lower pressure – less molecules per litre.

The model of compressing gas in a cylinder is not like the atmosphere
Compressing gas in a cylinder as in a diesel engine is a repeated process
The pressure in the atmosphere is an equilibrium state
The Earth surface is not like a cylinder it has no sides

The argument is circular. air density causes pressure and air pressure affects density

From the density /height graph I calculate that 1/3 of mass is above 8km (half- way up troposphere) not ½.

Why are p/h and d/h exponential?

Your gravito-thermal mechanism is not convincing

My theory is the opposite. Surface T causes d and p.

146. oldbrew says:

Roger C – who mentioned a cylinder?

Obviously gravity applies everywhere on Earth…

“the emissivity is measured with precision”
Wrong.

The effective emissivity of the surface materials of this planet have not been measured with precision. Only the apparent emissivity used to set IR instruments to give a correct temperature reading for textured surfaces exhibiting cavity effect within the hohlraum of our radiative atmosphere has been measured. Apparent emissivity is never equal to effective emissivity.

But even if you get effective IR emissivity and true solar absorptivity right, you cannot use these figures to calculate “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere”. The empirical results from the DIVINER mission proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prior to DIVINER, surface Tav estimates for the Lunar surface were derived by assuming IR emissivity was equal to solar absorptivity and setting albedo to 0.1. By misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, this yields 271K for Lunar surface Tav. The empirical results from DIVINER showed that this figure was ~80K too high.

This is empirical proof that instantaneous radiative balance equations do not work for solar heating and radiative cooling of complex surfaces. This of course means that the 255K estimate for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere is complete garbage. Therefore the assumption of a 33K atmospheric greenhouse effect is also garbage.

It is notable that when the empirical results were received from DIVINER, the scientists tried to improve theoretical modelling to match the empirical data. They found they had to break their model into latitude bands, include surface texture, include conductivity and thermal inertia for rock and regolyth, simulate the solar illumination cycle and calculate depth of absorption and emission. Every single one of these critical factors is missing from the climastrologists foundation calculation of 255K for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere.

148. Trick says:

konradwp1 10:13am (bold added): ”the assumption of a 33K atmospheric greenhouse effect is also garbage…foundation calculation of 255K for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere.”

Wrong.

Earth’s 255K is not an assumption – Earth’s ~33K is from measured data (~288K surface thermometer Tmean – 255K orbital brightness Tmean) over 4-10+ year annual periods AND simple 1LOT calculations from measured global data. Konrad’s misconceptions will never be resolved until Konrad shows the purported experimental data supporting his contentions. Free your data Konrad.

Also, Konrad consistently confuses Diviner measured brightness temperature from orbit with global lunar surface thermometer regolith temperature mean over 4-10+ year annual periods which is unknown since there is no lunar GHCN.

“255K orbital brightness Tmean”

A garbage response Trick. Rog is right, you are nowhere near as good as you used to be at deflection, distraction and dissembling.

Outgoing 240 w/m2 is what is observed at TOA. That would only equate to 255K if this planet were a theoretical blackbody. No surface materials or atmospheric gases on this ocean planet can be considered a blackbody.

240 w/m2 of outgoing LWIR from the earth tells you nothing about the temperature of any point in the surface or atmosphere of our climate system.

The claim of a 33K atmospheric greenhouse effect is solely based on subtracting 255K (result of garbage modelling) from our current surface average of 288K. Your claim that “33K is from measured data” is extreme mendacity.

150. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 22, 2018 at 9:14 am

Roger C – who mentioned a cylinder?

N and Z 2017
According to Eq. (10b), the heating mechanism of planetary atmospheres is analogous to a gravity-controlled adiabatic compression acting upon the entire surface.

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.‏ @NikolovScience
Following
Replying to @FactFascist @ARuighaver and 3 others
Al, compression (or adiabatic) heating as defined in thermodynamics is used in the operation of Diesel engines, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process …
9:22 AM – 6 Aug 2017

https://www.britannica.com/technology/diesel-engine

The diesel engine is an intermittent-combustion piston-cylinder device.
When I ask for a physical mechanism I mean a similar process that I can see and measure for my self.
Nikolov has correctly done this.
Do you agree with him that the gravito-thermal effect is the same as heating in a diesel engine?

151. oldbrew says:

RC – ‘Do you agree with him that the gravito-thermal effect is the same as heating in a diesel engine?’

Obviously the Earth isn’t a diesel engine. But we observe that the Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t fly off into space.

This might help…
http://www.reference.com/science/temperature-affect-air-pressure-90b37da760fa9d12
– – –
The value of atmospheric pressure decreases as altitude increases, because the height and weight of the pressure column from the top of the atmosphere to this higher altitude decreases.
http://www.reference.com/science/causes-differences-air-pressure-bc8b458e6475e876?qo=contentSimilarQuestions#

The ‘pressure column’ is due to gravity.

152. A C Osborn says:

Trick says: April 20, 2018 at 4:16 pm
First of all it is not “my” generic Mean Free Path length.
When you say “Your generic 25m is off by several orders of magnitude even on a two-cloud layer day.”
It has nothing to do with cloud cover whatsoever, purely the increasing density of the atmosphere as you get closer to the Surface. Every interaction with another atom or molecule cuts down the number heading to the surface by approximately 52%.
As usual you state your case with total confidence without a single reference to your data.
Perhaps you can supply some to show where the average path length quoted is incorrect?

153. Trick says:

A C 1:42pm: ”Perhaps you can supply (data) to show where the average path length quoted is incorrect?”

Sure, it’s so easy to do so A C even you can replicate the data. All you’ll need is an inexpensive handheld IR thermometer (mine is the Ryobi IR002 model).

Point the instrument at the clear sky at several angles to the horizon, take data horizon to zenith. Then when a cloud comes by or better yet an overcast day that you can get nearby aviation weather, point it at the cloud several places, take same angle data.

If the average path length of a photon is correct at 25m as you write, the IR thermometer will read the avg. air T 25m away i.e. the surface thermometer T where on avg. the photon was emitted and all your clear air data will be reasonably the surface thermometer T to experimental accuracy. Let us know what you find, show Konrad how to do science by actually posting up your data. I’ll post up the earlier data ref. I used if you will do the confirming work to read it as I suggested.

If Konrad were to actually post up data, Konrad and other readers would know that his 11:46am statement is wrong: ”240 w/m2 of outgoing LWIR from the earth tells you nothing about the temperature of any point in the surface or atmosphere of our climate system.” as the satellite brightness temperatures are calibrated to global balloon and sounding rocket air thermometer temperature. This is not possible on the moon for regolith.

154. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 22, 2018 at 1:40 pm

This might help….

The links you give help support my theory

Pressure cooker
tyre
portions of air in the atmosphere

In each case the conclusion is T causes p

The lid stops vapor escaping.
Ther speed of molecules increases and cause increased energy density = pressure

Increased T outside causes increased pressure inside the tyre

Air rising in the temperature falling gradient causes the pressure ( energy density ) to fall

The ‘pressure column’ is due to gravity.

You say g-p-T

I claim the evidence points toward g-T -p

I can provide a clear simple physical mechanisms for g-T ,T-p

155. oldbrew says:

Well you can look through either end of a telescope 😉
– – –
PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP

In a closed system where volume is held constant, there is a direct relationship between Pressure and Temperature. In a direct relationship, one variable follows the same change when it comes to increasing and decreasing. For example, when the pressure increases then the temperature also increases. When the pressure decreases, then the
temperature decreases.

METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/688/
– – –
because air has weight, it’s affected by gravity. So, nearer to the ground, there is more pressure because there’s more weight. As you rise in altitude, the weight is less, so there is less pressure and more space for the air to expand. This means fewer collisions, less pressure and less heat.

156. AViterito says:

It’s been interesting to see the lively and thoughtful discussion that Ned and Karl’s paper has engendered. As I see it, the study has value as an exploratory analysis but there are problems with the data (both qualitatively and quantitatively), along with the fact that the conclusions counter other things that are known about our atmosphere and its history.
Concerning the data:
– Your regression equation is generated using just five data points. According to Regression Modeling Strategies, you need to have 10 to 20 observations per parameter in order to have a reasonable amount of confidence in your results. Your sample size is woefully short of that minimum requirement. Here’s a discussion:

https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/29612/minimum-number-of-observations-for-multiple-linear-regression

– You argue that you have used NASA data for your analysis but a perusal of NASA’s data indicates differences between some of their estimates and the ones you chose. For example, Venus’ and Earth’s temperatures are identical to NASA’s listings. However, NASA lists Mars’ temperature at 210 K but you cite 190.56 K in your paper as per other sources. There are also variances for Bond albedos: Venus .77 (NASA) vs. .90 (Nikolov & Zeller), Moon .11 (NASA) vs .136 (Nikolov and Zeller), and Mars .25 (NASA) vs .235 (Nikolov and Zeller). Additional discrepancies are found for atmospheric pressures. My question is this: why do you only trust some of NASA’s data but not all of it (it would seem to me that NASA would have THE BEST data, no questions asked)?

– You chose to exclude Titan in developing the regression equation (10a), saying that earth’s temperature is better known than Titan’s. Earth’s temperature is better known than all the bodies you used in the analysis, yet you still included them! Seeing how Titan is the one body that falls off the line, it seems suspicious that you elected to drop it.

– You also chose to exclude Mercury from the analysis, and admitted that NASA’s estimate and your model’s estimate are 117 K apart! That’s an enormous difference that could radically alter your regression results, prompting a call for reanalysis when more/improved data were obtained.

Data issues aside, how do you account for the higher temperatures of the stratosphere and the thermosphere? These are layers of the atmosphere where the pressure drops and the temperature increases due to the direct absorption of electromagnetic radiation. This inconvenient fact is well documented, and is founded on the physical process underlying the “greenhouse effect”, i.e. solids and fluids are warmed when they absorb radiant energy. In short, this directly contradicts your conclusions.

Finally, how do you reconcile your findings with past temperatures? For example, generally accepted data on temperature variations for the past 400,000 years show a range of roughly 12 K. How does your model accommodate that? If you say “clouds” then you must consider albedo in the equation. If you say “changes in pressure” then how do you account for those changes? Stated another way, how would your paper read if it were written, say, 150,000 years ago?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

157. Roger Clague says:
April 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm

“In each case the conclusion is T causes p”

I agree with this. Because T can be determined without p, but p cannot be determined without T.

158. oldbrew says:
April 22, 2018 at 6:55 pm
Well you can look through either end of a telescope 😉

“because air has weight, it’s affected by gravity. So, nearer to the ground, there is more pressure because there’s more weight.”

This was a very weird reasoning. Air is not affected by gravity because it has weight, it has weight because there is gravity. There is pressure nearer the ground, because there is gravity. Without gravity, there wouldn´t even be any ground or mass.

Light has no weight, but it is affected by gravity.

“When the pressure decreases, then the
temperature decreases.”

But the power of heat flow will increase. Heat flow is independent of pressure, and heat flow is dependent on temperature potentials.If pressure decreases along with temperature with constant heat flow, the rate of transfer will increase. On the moon you have intensive heat flow from the sun, but low pressure.

159. Trick says:
April 22, 2018 at 2:35 pm

“Sure, it’s so easy to do so A C even you can replicate the data. All you’ll need is an inexpensive handheld IR thermometer (mine is the Ryobi IR002 model).

Point the instrument at the clear sky at several angles to the horizon, take data horizon to zenith. Then when a cloud comes by or better yet an”

You should take a closer look at the manual. An IR-thermometer uses the s-b law for heat transfer from and to a thermopile or a thermocouple. Kipp&Zonen clearly explains how a measurement of the sky will result in a negative value of incoming radiation between -5 and -150W/m^2. Your instrument can´t measure a positive value of heat flux from a lower temperature, because the s-b equation doesn´t include any transfer from a lower temperature.

“If the average path length of a photon is correct at 25m as you write, the IR thermometer will read the avg. air T 25m away i.e. the surface thermometer ”

An IR-thermometer is not a photoncounter. It is a sensitive thermometer, which uses electric resistance through a sensor which is relative to temperature. It measures a gradient inside the instrument, and extends that into the surroundings. It doesn´t measure photons, it measures the rate of heat transfer.

160. Trick says:
April 22, 2018 at 10:58 am

“Earth’s 255K is not an assumption – Earth’s ~33K is from measured data (~288K surface thermometer Tmean – 255K orbital brightness Tmean) over 4-10+ year annual periods AND simple 1LOT calculations from measured global data. ”

So you have a dU=Q+W calculation of effective temperature?

I am very interested in seeing that.

161. Trick says:

”You should take a closer look at the manual.”

I have. You also should do the experiment and post up the data. Hint: first calibrate the instrument pointing it at boiling water and a glass of ice water. Show your data. Talk is cheap.

”So you have a dU=Q+W calculation of effective temperature?”

Over 4-10+ year annual periods dU ~0 steady state with only a slight imbalance (recently 0.45 +/- 0.4 W/m^2) measured by Argo. Earth atm. is not doing work on the system in the period so W=0.

Surface 1LOT is way more complex, a first course atm. radiation text of your choice will show you a simple 1LOT balance calculation with all measured input data & see a recent ref. I gave tallbloke upthread for some of the needed measured input data and much discussion:

L’ECUYER ET AL. The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early Twenty-First Century

Trick, you responded to my statement:
”240 w/m2 of outgoing LWIR from the earth tells you nothing about the temperature of any point in the surface or atmosphere of our climate system.”
Claiming:
“ the satellite brightness temperatures are calibrated to global balloon and sounding rocket air thermometer temperature. This is not possible on the moon for regolith”.
Both these responses are false, just as your original claim that a 255K brightness temperature for Earth was “measured” was false.

Satellites measure the LWIR emission from the Earth with downward looking black cavity sensors. These measure the LWIR emission and the SW and UV reflection combined. Separate optical sensors measure just the SW and UV reflection. This secondary measurement is then subtracted from the first to give LWIR emission. This method of measurement is incapable of determining whether LWIR emission is coming from the surface or some level in the atmosphere atmosphere. It therefore cannot be calibrated against balloon and sounding rocket measurements.

Multi angle microwave soundings (Spencer and Christy) of the atmosphere are calibrated against balloon measurements. However these are readings of the microwave emissions of Oxygen molecules, not LWIR emissions.

Your claim that calibration for the satellite measurement of lunar regolith cannot be done is also false. This is precisely why the scientists and engineers on the DIVINER mission did all those lab experiments observing emissions from temperature controlled regolith samples in cryo-cooled vacuum chambers:
https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2012-03-08/2_thomas_pdf_10647.pdf

163. Trick says:

2:56am: “(Calibration of Diviner brightness temperature to moon global surface temperature) is not possible on the moon for regoltih.”

Per Konrad “this response is false”.

Then, per Konrad truly: calibration of the Diviner brightness temperature to global regolith thermometer temperature IS possible as the moon global regolith temperature data must be known per Konrad. This ought to be interesting how Konrad wriggles out of that silliness by actually providing the moon regolith global thermometer data. Free your data Konrad!

Hint: a pdf of Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment is not going to help posting up data on global moon regolith thermometer temperature.

Why not read the pdf Trick?

The DIVINER scientists effectively did place thermometers all over the moon. They did it before the launch of the mission. Apollo brought back surface samples. The DIVINER scientists matched those and placed them in a vacuum chamber cryo-cooled to space background temp. They then heated the samples to known temperatures and calibrated the Radiometer against the emissions from these regolith and rock samples.

These are the very type of empirical experiments that would be required to support the climastrologist’s crazed claims of 255K for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere. Earth surface materials would have to be placed in a similar vacuum chamber then illuminated with solar radiation in a simulated diurnal cycle and their temperature physically measured. There is a very good reason climastrologists never try this. Their foundation claim of 255K for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere is out by almost as much as the 271K Stefan-Boltzmann estimate was out for the airless moon.

165. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew
April 22, 2018 at 6:55 pm

In a closed system where volume is held constant, there is a direct relationship between Pressure and Temperature. In a direct relationship, one variable follows the same change when it comes to increasing and decreasing.

This is right for the pressure cooker and the tire.
However the atmosphere is not closed. The volume can change. Also the temperature is not fixed it changes with height

We can overcome these restrictions by using

1) the molar mass form of the gas law at the surface

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/density-gas-law.pdf

2) the Kinetic Theory of gas for the troposphere.

OB links to a site saying
because air has weight, it’s affected by gravity. So, nearer to the ground, there is more pressure because there’s more weight. As you rise in altitude, the weight is less, so there is less pressure and more space for the air to expand. This means fewer collisions, less pressure and less heat.

As air rises in the atmosphere the T and mass density d get less.
Lapse rate T/h = g/c this independent of p

T x mass density (d) = energy density
T and d get less so energy density gets less

Pressure ( energy density, S.I. Unit = J/m^3 ) gets less

T cause p in the atmosphere

166. tallbloke says:

Roger C: However the atmosphere is not closed. The volume can change. Also the temperature is not fixed it changes with height

At last! He’s got it!

Roger C: T cause p in the atmosphere

Sigh. As you were.

“T cause p in the atmosphere”

”Sigh. As you were.”

You are correct Rog. Surface pressure is set by atmospheric mass and gravity. If you raised the average atmospheric temperature by 20 C, surface pressure would remain at 1000 millibars.

However if you raised atmospheric pressure on Earth, this would raise average air temperature. Not because of the N&Z hypothesis, but just because conductive exchange between the solar heated surface and atmospheric gases would be improved. Note the higher air temperatures in land areas below sea level.

168. wildeco2014 says:

Looks like it is sinking in for some.😊
It sounds so obvious when crystallised to such a simple verbal formulation but it takes a long time to work through all the basics so as to arrive at that conclusion against all the contrary assertions.

169. oldbrew says:

RC – ‘However the atmosphere is not closed. The volume can change.’

Does expansion or contraction of the volume change the mass, or even the average volume?
– – –
Konrad – If you raised the average atmospheric temperature by 20 C, surface pressure would remain at 1000 millibars.

Earth would have to move nearer to the Sun to achieve that temperature increase.
– – –
lifeisthermal quoted – “because air has weight, it’s affected by gravity. So, nearer to the ground, there is more pressure because there’s more weight.”

'Weight' should be 'mass' there I think. Meteorologist has used the wrong term.

170. oldbrew says:

Just experimenting here…

Re-orienting the inverse square graph above…

”Just experimenting here…”

Yes, gravity does reduce by the inverse square law the further from planet you get.

But no, the pressure gradient in the atmosphere is not because of this. 99.999% of the gas molecules in our atmosphere are so close to the earth they could be considered to be in a gravity field so close to 9.8m/s/s as for the attenuation of gravity with altitude to not matter.

172. Trick says:

6:43am: ”Why not read the pdf Trick?”

I did. I even searched it for “thermometer” and found 0 hits. Konrad is consistently confusing thermometer kinetic temperature with brightness temperature. The global lunar regolith thermometer kinetic temperature field data doesn’t exist; Diviner data remains uncalibrated to global regolith thermometer data. While Earth’s measured brightness temperature 255K is well founded and reasonably well calibrated to air kinetic thermometer data within instrument accuracy.

”Their foundation claim of 255K for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere is out by almost as much as the 271K Stefan-Boltzmann estimate was out for the airless moon.”

Unless of course as long-time readers are aware proof of your supporting data doesn’t exist. Science works off data. It is many of Konrad claims that are completely unfounded in measured data & not Earth’s global brightness T 255K. Konrad’s experimental data is nowhere in sight. Never has been.

173. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 23, 2018 at 10:09 am

I agree the pressure /height profile of the atmosphere is an inverse square curve.

Any straight temperature gradient ( such as in the atmosphere) will cause a curved pressure and density gradient

I agree with this application of Kinetic Energy theory to predict what happens to pressure and density in a temperature gradient in a gas.

The pressure gradient is directly proportional to the gradient of square root of temperature

174. Roger Clague says:

April 23, 2018 at 11:28 am

99.999% of the gas molecules in our atmosphere are so close to the earth they could be considered to be in a gravity field so close to 9.8m/s/s as for the attenuation of gravity with altitude to not matter.

attenuation gravity at top of tropopause at 20 000km

(6420/6400) ^2 = 0.006

This does matter 0.006 x 10m/s^2 = 0.012m/s^2

image a molecule moving from the surface to 20 000m

v^2 = 2gs Newtons equation of motion s = distance

change of v = Sqrt 2 x change of g x s

= sqrt 2 x 0.006 x 10m/s^2 x 20 000m

= 50m/s

It is this change of velocity that causes the difference in T at surface and 20 000m

175. p.g.sharrow says:

“Science advances as fast as professors die.” A. Einstein

Max Planck discredited GHG theory in 1906 in argument with Svante Arrhenius. The professor admitted that his science was flawed and conclusions unwarranted. The professor went back to his post and continued to teach his theory to future teachers for over a generation…pg

176. Roger Clague says:

April 23, 2018 at 9:03 am

If you raised the average atmospheric temperature by 20 C, surface pressure would remain at 1000 millibars.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Note the higher air temperatures in land areas below sea level.

This a continuation of the lapse rate ( or enhancement rate as it should be known) T/h =g/c

T/h is a straight line because g/h is almost straight in the troposphere

177. tallbloke says:

Konrad: However if you raised atmospheric pressure on Earth, this would raise average air temperature. Not because of the N&Z hypothesis, but just because conductive exchange between the solar heated surface and atmospheric gases would be improved.

N&Z don’t go into molecular scale mechanisms for the ATE but I think they’d be quite happy to accept improved conduction to denser air as one of them.

“Konrad’s experimental data is nowhere in sight. Never has been.”
Another false assertion. The build instructions for my very simple experiments, photographs of the experiments and their results have been presented many times. For example, many times I presented this simple experiment:
https://imgur.com/a/XKXv8
You were told the results Trick. When equally illuminated with ~1000w/m2 of solar radiation, both blocks reached thermal equilibrium in around 2 hours. Block B stabilised at an average temperature ~80C, but Block A reached an average temperature of 100C. But both blocks have equal SW absorptivity and equal LWIR emissivity. The S-B calculation (1000 w/m2, a=0.8, e=0.9) worked for Block B but not for Block A. This simple experiment proved that the S-B calculation cannot be used for calculating solar thermal gain in materials opaque to LWIR and translucent to SW. The oceans covering 71% of this planet’s surface are opaque to LWIR and translucent to SW, therefore the simple experiment proves that the S-B calculation cannot be used to determine solar thermal gain in Earth’s surface materials.

That fictional “global brightness temperature” of 255K is only valid for a theoretical blackbody emitting 240 w/m2. The Earth is not a blackbody, so that figure cannot be used for any climate calculation, most certainly not for “surface Tav without radiative atmosphere”.

Roger Clague says: April 23, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Surface pressure is largely a function of atmospheric mass and gravitational force. Heating the atmosphere doesn’t change its mass or the force of gravity.

Yes, in weather temperature can be seen to slightly effect surface pressure, but this is due to flow resistance (the atmosphere doesn’t have infinitely low inertia or viscosity). From pole to equator there can be an 80C temperature variation, but pressure remains around 1000 millibars. The only major deviations (~100 millibars) from this are in the centre of large rotating storms where centrifugal forces come into play.

180. Trick says:

“You were told the results Trick. “

Never for the relevant data, Konrad’s misconceptions remain unresolved.

Thanks for putting up some but incomplete data on your blocks. I note you do not compare the relevant component brightness temperature to component thermometer temperature data as they show the same and that doesn’t agree with your beliefs.

I actually built that one. There is no deviation from S-B in either of the block components as my Ryobi IR002 accurately displayed the brightness temperature that each kinetic thermometer temperature indicated for each block (within instrument accuracy & after correctly indicating boiling water & ice water temperatures). I set them up in the daytime calm conditions, clear sky sunlight when I took my data. Of course the blocks develop different temperatures, that ought to be obvious.

And, btw, Earth oceans are not translucent to SW nor opaque to LW – none of the SW comes out the other side and the incident LW is absorbed in the top layers along with about 2-5% total reflection over the spectrum & incidence angles. Look up data that has been taken on the real land & ocean system (not your lab blocks) by many authors over the years or a good 1st course text in atm. radiation if you want to learn why your experiments are not persuasive to the wary. I know you won’t & you never will as real, natural ocean emissivity data doesn’t agree with your beliefs.

”The Earth is not a blackbody..”

Correct, way to go Konrad, in the wild measurements show both the natural land surface and oceans reflect about 2-7% total incident illumination unlike a BB. The rest is absorbed as none is transmitted. Wind speed affects ocean waves but the small difference in absorptivity & reflectivity has also been measured for various reasonable wind speeds. Look up in the wild L&O emissivity data from the author of your choice. Easy & free on the web.

“Thanks for putting up some but incomplete data on your blocks.”
You are just flailing now Trick. I have always put those results up when showing the experiment. You clearly claimed “Konrad’s experimental data is nowhere in sight. Never has been.”. That claim was false.

I actually built that one.
Photos or it didn’t happen Trick. I don’t just provide build diagrams, I happily provide photos:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=esrb86&s=8
You won’t have photos will you Trick. You’ll just have another excuse …

”I know you won’t & you never will as real, natural ocean emissivity data doesn’t agree with your beliefs”
This shows you don’t understand what the two block experiments is about. It’s not about emissivity or absorptivity. Both blocks are intentionally designed to have equal absorptivity and emissivity to each other. The only variable being investigated is depth of SW absorption.

Trick, the 255K for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere was derived by the very same method 271K for Lunar surface Tav without atmosphere was derived. DIVINER showed 271K for Lunar Tav was out by ~80K. How is the calculation that failed so spectacularly for the Moon magically going to work for the far more complex surface of the Earth?!

182. oldbrew says:

Just came across this…

Researchers from the University of Plymouth, the Centre National de la Récherche Scientifique, l’Université de Bordeaux and l’Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer have developed a new climate index, termed the West Europe Pressure Anomaly (WEPA).

It is based on the atmospheric pressure difference between the Canary Islands and Ireland, and is very strongly linked to the winter wave variability along most of the west coast of Europe.

– – –
It’s a link in this report:
Winter wave heights and extreme storms on the rise in Western Europe
April 24, 2018

http://phys.org/news/2018-04-winter-heights-extreme-storms-western.html

183. Trick says:

”Photos or it didn’t happen Trick.”

It happened. Anyway, any wary reader already has enough info. to do the same experiment I did, material costs and time are not prohibitive so no further photos are required, Konrad’s are good enough for replication. Konrad has never put up the relevant data only the obvious data showing 2 thermometer temperatures are different. Where exactly did the brightness T not equal the thermometer kinetic T in the experimental materials thereby breaking S-B Konrad? Nowhere. Free ALL your data Konrad!

”The only variable being investigated is depth of SW absorption.”

Which isn’t of interest as the thermometer in the shade will register a lower T just by inspection as anyone can learn by constructing the experiment. And is not relevant to water anyway as there is no water in the experiment.

Konrad, the brightness temperature 255K for Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere is derived by the very same method brightness temperature 271K for moon Tav without atmosphere is derived assuming no refraction in either body due the surface particle sizes. DIVINER showed derived brightness temperature for Lunar Tav was out by ~74K in part because Earth based tests of the regolith particle sizes shows refraction is important factor in emissivity for the moon surface largely pounded into powder. Earth surface has not been pounded into powder so refraction is negligible (as required for S-B application) & calibration of the satellites is quite good. I’ve told you this before and you continue to not be interested researching that data.

The global thermometer temperature field for the moon surface is unknown so there is no way to know if Diviner results were well enough calibrated for the satellite global brightness temperature to equal the global thermometer surface powder temperature. The expense to do so is currently unwarranted.

As I’ve written before, the experiment Konrad should do is investigate the surface particle size effects of refraction on surface S-B emissivity. I can tell you surprising emissivity numbers will arise as that experiment is routinely performed by students at the college meteorology graduate level and that interesting science will start to inform on why the ~74K occurs for these two worlds.

184. Roger Clague says:

April 23, 2018 at 11:28 am

Yes, gravity does reduce by the inverse square law the further from planet you get.
But no, the pressure gradient in the atmosphere is not because of this.

The air pressure gradient looks like a ^2 curve.
Why does air pressure not increase in direct proportion to depth, as it does in water?

185. p.g.sharrow says:

Buoyancy, warmed air has a great deal more buoyancy then warmed water…pg

186. jimsiverly says:

Tallbloke at April 23, 2018 at 11:06 pm:

“‘Konrad: However if you raised atmospheric pressure on Earth, this would raise average air temperature. Not because of the N&Z hypothesis, but just because conductive exchange between the solar heated surface and atmospheric gases would be improved.’

N&Z don’t go into molecular scale mechanisms for the ATE but I think they’d be quite happy to accept improved conduction to denser air as one of them.”

This seems like something many of us could agree on.

187. James Siverly says:

On the question of whether T determines P or P determines T:

If you take a thermometer and a barometer to any fixed point in the atmosphere and start taking measurements throughout the day, which variable is going to appear to depend on the other?

188. oldbrew says:

In the Standard Atmosphere table: (p/d) / t = a constant.
The constant corresponds to the specific gas constant for dry air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Temperature_and_pressure

189. tallbloke says:

James: We’re not discussing small scale weather variation here. We are discussing planetary scale atmospheric mass, pressure, volume and density in a system bounded by the surface at the bottom, and the expansion due to Solar heating in opposition to the force of gravity at the top.

190. wildeco2014 says:

Why would one need anything more ?

191. wildeco2014 says:

Last comment out of sequence.
I mean to ask why one would need anything more than improved conduction to denser air to explain the entire ATE.

Roger Clague says: April 24, 2018 at 3:36 pm
“Why does air pressure not increase in direct proportion to depth, as it does in water?”

A fair question. The answer is that for practical purposes water is an incompressible fluid whereas air is a compressible fluid.

Think of water as a stack of bricks. The pressure between each brick is in direct relation to the number of bricks above. Pressure will decrease by one brick’s weight every one brick height you go up the stack.

Think of air as a stack of sponges. The pressure between each sponge is in direct relation to the number of sponge above. But because the lowest sponges will be compressed flatter than their original form, pressure change as you move up the stack will no longer have a linear relationship to an uncompressed sponge’s height.

193. oldbrew says:

As height is gained from the surface, the rate of density decrease exceeds the rate of pressure decrease (according to the Standard Atmosphere table).

Dividing the d rate by the p rate gives the rate of temperature decrease.
– – –
The International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is an atmospheric model of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth’s atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations. It has been established to provide a common reference for temperature and pressure and consists of tables of values at various altitudes, plus some formulas by which those values were derived. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) publishes the ISA as an international standard, ISO 2533:1975.[1] Other standards organizations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the United States Government, publish extensions or subsets of the same atmospheric model under their own standards-making authority.

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

Green = pressure, Red = density, Blue = temperature (ratio vs. height)

Trick says: April 24, 2018 at 1:49 pm

As predicted Trick, you claimed to have replicated my experiment, but strangely cannot provide any photos. Yet you demand to be believed when you claim “it happened”.

If it happened Trick, you would have no trouble answering the following simple questions:

What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant SW illumination?

What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to intermittent SW illumination?

What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant or intermittent LWIR illumination?

But you can’t honestly answer any of those simple questions because you never constructed and ran the experiment. You have deliberately misled readers here, and you ask “wary readers” here to mistrust my valid empirical experiment on the basis of your mendacity.

One thing we have certainly empirically demonstrated here is the complete lack of ethics and honesty of the AGW believer.

oldbrew says: April 25, 2018 at 9:03 am
“Dividing the d rate by the p rate gives the rate of temperature decrease.”

It is important to note that while this rule holds generally true below the tropopause, the situation changes above that level. After the tropopause, the lapse rate reverses and temperatures begin to increase.

Up to the tropopause the temperature profile conforms to the adiabatic profile. A decrease in pressure leads to a decrease in temperature. Above the tropopause temperatures rise with increasing altitude and decreasing pressure. Molecular temperatures in the mesosphere are in the hundreds of degrees.

The answer to this is vertical circulation patterns. There is strong vertical circulation below the tropopause, but little above. The observed lapse rate below the tropopause is not just a function of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, but just as importantly, air circulation across that vertical pressure gradient. And that vertical circulation must be so fast that the speed of conduction is negated.

Why strong vertical circulation exists below the tropopause and not above, is due to our friends: radiative gases and liquids. The tropopause is where our atmosphere runs out of the most essential radiative molecule: H2O. Radiative subsidence of air masses is a critical component of strong vertical circulation in the troposphere. Where H2O runs out, strong vertical circulation ends, and above that lapse rate reverses.

For an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium it follows that the average of all the different lapse rates found in the vertical column must equal the lapse rate imposed by atmospheric mass and gravity via the declining density gradient with height.
A distortion at one point in the column is always offset by an equal and opposite distortion in another part of the column.

That is why, for example, Earth’s vertical lapse rate structure looks like a ‘w’ placed on its side.

A distortion one way in the troposphere and mesosphere is offset by distortions in the opposite direction in the stratosphere and thermosphere.

197. Trick says:

”What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant SW illumination?”

The block’s respective brightness temperatures follow S-B because my Ryobi IR002 displays the respective thermometer temperature of each block. The thermometer in the shade records a lower temperature as Konrad’s data indicates.

”What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to intermittent SW illumination?”

The blocks respective brightness temperature and thermometer temperature agree that they cool at night and warm during the day with both thermometer and Ryobi IR002 T curves plotting same T within instrument accuracy.

”What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant or intermittent LWIR illumination?”

The blocks respective brightness temperatures follow S-B because my Ryobi IR002 displays the respective thermometer temperature of each block. The thermometer in the shade records a lower temperature as Konrad’s data indicates.

I do not ask readers to mistrust Konrad’s data nor mislead any reader. Science is based on proper replicable experiments, the more the better. If I hadn’t built the experiment I would not be able to report the agreement between brightness temperature and thermometer temperature for each component of the respective assemblies.

—-

”After the tropopause, the lapse rate reverses and temperatures begin to increase.”

Here I will ask readers to be wary of Konrad’s writing as the standard atm. data in the midlatitude tropics shows this is incorrect. Above the tropopause the fluid becomes warmed from above so convection thus ceases resulting in an isothermal 216.65K US Standard atm. over about 9km of z height.

198. oldbrew says:

konrad – yes, the Standard Atmosphere data quoted above only relates to the troposphere.

Stephen Wilde says: April 25, 2018 at 12:04 pm

Stephen, the molecular lapse rate in the atmosphere from surface to mesopause bears no relation to the atmospheric pressure gradient past the tropopause.

I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t have been trying to work out how the atmosphere increases surface temperature by 33 degrees. You should have been working out how the atmosphere cools the surface by 24 degrees.

200. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 24, 2018 at 7:55 pm

In the Standard Atmosphere table: (p/d) / t = a constant.
The constant corresponds to the specific gas constant for dry air.

This confirms the molar form of the gas law can be applied at the surface and any horizontal height. At any height up to the tropopause, p,d and T are the same at all points in the system
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-molar-form-of-the-ideal-gas-law

p = dRT/M

p/d T = R/M R and M constant

However we need to also explain the vertical gradients

g/h is nearly constant
p/h is ^2
d/h is ^2
T is linear

I don’t see how constant g can cause a curved p/h

However
pressure is directly proportional to velocity of molecules(v)
T is proportional to v^2
pressure is proportional to sqrtT, hence the curved p/h gradient

oldbrew says:
April 25, 2018 at 9:03 am
As height is gained from the surface, the rate of density decrease exceeds the rate of pressure decrease (according to the Standard Atmosphere table).
Dividing the d rate by the p rate gives the rate of temperature decrease.

Please you show calculations to confirm this.

201. Roger Clague says:

April 25, 2018 at 8:54 am

Think of air as a stack of sponges. The pressure between each sponge is in direct relation to the number of sponge above. But because the lowest sponges will be compressed flatter than their original form, pressure change as you move up the stack will no longer have a linear relationship to an uncompressed sponge’s height.

All sponges are compressed flatter than there original form. According to ( in direct proportion to ) the number of sponges above.
Why are the lowest sponges compressed more than in direct proportion to the number and mass of sponges above, as they are everywhere else? Gravity is almost the same at top and bottom

This is Pascals model of 1648. He talked of woolsacks not sponges.
Bernoilli proposed the Kinetic Theory of gas in 1738
Which should now be used to understand gas properties

Trick says: April 25, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Do stop blathering Trick. You lied. You never built or ran the experiment as instructed. If you had you could easily answer:

What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant SW illumination?

What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to intermittent SW illumination?

What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant or intermittent LWIR illumination?
As a scientifically illiterate AGW believer, you cannot correctly answer a single one of those simple physics questions.

Go on Trick. It’s a simple physics experiment. Three simple questions to get right. That shouldn’t be too hard.

Only an AGW propagandist would fail that simple test.

203. Trick says:

204. oldbrew says:

Roger Clague says: April 24, 2018 at 3:36 pm
“Why does air pressure not increase in direct proportion to depth, as it does in water?”

The rate of change of the atm pressure difference per 1km. altitude is marginal on the SA table – about 0.03%.

205. Roger Clague says:

OB

The rate of change of the atm pressure difference per 1km. altitude is marginal on the SA table – about 0.03%.

How did you calculate this ?

206. oldbrew says:

RC – by comparing the change rates at successive altitudes e.g.:

0-1km: 1013.25/898.746 = 1.1274041
1-2km: 898.746/794.952 = 1.1305663
2-3km: 794.952 /701.085 = 1.1338881

1.1274041 / 1.1305663 = 1.0028048 = ~0.03% difference

207. James Siverly says:

There seemed to be a sub thread here involving whether T or P determines the other. Roger Clague claims T determines P. In a close system, P, T, and D depend on the constraints placed on the system and the ideal gas law. But in the atmosphere, the variables are not constrained. So which is more likely to be independent of the other?

My guess is that pressure, being somewhat constrained by gravity and altitude (especially on a calm day), will be relatively constant compared to the changes in air temperature and density due to the warming and cooling between sunrise and sunset. The pressure will determine T x D and T will determine D as air expands when heated.

While this may not relate specifically to the N&Z relationship, I wonder what makes ideal gases 22.4 L/mole, at std pressure and temperature, regardless of the gas composition involved?

Roger Clague says: April 25, 2018 at 2:01 pm
Roger, here is a quick graphic of bricks vs. sponges:
https://imgur.com/a/AuUfRFB
(for graphing purposes each sponge is assumed to weigh as much as a brick). As you can see, each sponge is compressed by the weight of the sponges above it. The bottom sponge is being compressed most by nine sponges above, the second sponge less by only eight and so on. So when pressure vs height is plotted, this gives an exponential curve for the stack of sponges (air) and a linear plot for the stack of incompressible bricks (water).

Trick says: April 25, 2018 at 2:42 pm

Yet you falsely claimed to have replicated the experiment, which is why you can’t properly answer the following simple physics questions:

1 – What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant SW illumination?

2 – What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to intermittent SW illumination?

3 – What is notable about the average temperature and the surface temperatures of the two target blocks after they reach thermal equilibrium when exposed to constant or intermittent LWIR illumination?

210. Der Ganzumsonst says:

What puzzles me, is the role of the atmospheric albedo.
Take Venus for instance where 90% of the solar energy is reflected, so it doesn’t enter the system.
Nor can it be enhanced by pressure.
Yet the formula, in witch the atmospheric albedo is omitted, fits!
That’s a truly stunning discovery.

211. Trick says:

Yet I have replicated Konrad’s experiment, which is why I have already properly answered Konrad’s 3 physics questions using the data I observed.

Talk is cheap Konrad, use your IR thermometer and discover the same data as I have so to prove my answers for yourself as any interested reader can replicate. Natural experimental data is king, not words.

212. Roger Clague says:

James Siverly says:
April 25, 2018 at 8:04 pm

There seemed to be a sub thread here involving whether T or P determines the other. Roger Clague claims T determines P.

Welcome to the debate. I am interested in the vertical gradients g/h, p/h, d/h and T/h
Not at the moment horizontal p,d and T

The only example of gas pressure causing temperature I have been offered is the diesel engine.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/diesel-engine
The diesel engine is an intermittent-combustion piston-cylinder device.
The atmosphere is not intermittent. It is an permanent equilibrium.
It it not confined in a cylinder. It open at the top.
The temperature is changed because of entropy not kinetic energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws
This law [ pv =nRT] has the following important consequences:
1. If temperature and pressure are kept constant, then the volume of the gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas.
2. If the temperature and volume remain constant, then the pressure of the gas changes is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas present.
3. If the number of gas molecules and the temperature remain constant, then the pressure is inversely proportional to the volume.
4. If the temperature changes and the number of gas molecules are kept constant, then either pressure or volume (or both) will change in direct proportion to the temperature.

1. p constant
2. T constant
3. T constant
4. T causes p

!,2 and 3 not relevent.to the debate.
Nowhere does it say pressure causes temperature
4 confirms my theory

I wonder what makes ideal gases 22.4 L/mole, at std pressure and temperature, regardless of the gas composition involved?

This is indeed surprising.
10^23 molecules of H2, mass 2, has the same pressure as 10^23 molecules of CO2, mass 40.
My conclusion is that the mass of molecules does not affect p and T.
So gravity cannot cause pressure
gravity causes temperature ( v^2) change

My mechanism is
gravity m/s^2 changes the velocity m/s of molecules

213. oldbrew says:

RC – It is not confined in a cylinder. It is open at the top.

Why hasn’t it floated off into space – or is the tropopause the ‘top’ here?
– – –
In thermodynamics, an adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a thermodynamic system and its surroundings.

214. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 26, 2018 at 6:05 pm

RC – It is not confined in a cylinder. It is open at the top.

OB Why hasn’t it floated off into space – or is the tropopause the ‘top’ here?

RC the tropopause is the top of of the thermodynamic atmosphere. Above the tropopause the temperatures are calculated from microwave radiation measurements from widely spaced molecules.
Also the tropopause temperature is where the atmopshere warming effect starts

215. oldbrew says:

Is volume(V) constant in the troposphere, or if not does it at least have a known average value?

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html

216. oldbrew says:

Influence of Pressure and Density on Temperature: The Demijohn experiment:

The relationship between density and pressure can be demonstrated in a corked demijohn combined with a bicycle pump. As air is pumped into the demijohn, the temperature (measured by a thermistor probe) increases. The increase in temperature is due to an increase in density (more air is pumped into the jar, increasing its mass compared to an equivalent volume of air in the surrounding room), and an associated increase in pressure. When the jar is depressurised, the temperature falls to its initial value.
This is described by the equation p = R r T in the following way:

Rearranging the equation to examine the effect of variations of pressure and density on temperature, we write: p/(r R) = T
This says that pressure divided by (density multiplied by a constant) equals temperature
In the demijohn experiment, we increase the air pressure and the density. As it turns out, the % increase in pressure is greater than the % increase in density, so the term p/rR increases. Hence, temperature increases.
This explains the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure) – [bold added]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/pressure.html

The region of the atmosphere where the lapse rate changes from positive (in the troposphere) to negative (in the stratosphere), is defined as the tropopause. Thus, the tropopause is an inversion layer, and there is little mixing between the two layers of the atmosphere. [bold added]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere#Tropopause

The troposphere is not literally closed, but effectively so, at the tropopause. There is no ongoing net loss of atmosphere – unless someone knows otherwise.

217. Trick says:

3:16pm: ”This explains the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure)>”

Does not explain it. True ONLY at constant density. The temperature also increases with decreasing pressure in Earth atm. All this debating over P~T is ideally true ONLY at constant density. Again, look at any weather station: P following T is simply not observed true in nature’s lower or upper atm.

P proportional to T IS ideally true only when density is held constant. Pistons and cylinders do not inhabit an atm.

218. James Siverly says:

Roger Clague says:
April 26, 2018 at 5:34 pm

“The atmosphere is not intermittent. It is an permanent equilibrium.”

The atmosphere changes all day long and is never in permanent equilibrium. I think it is the most important misconception that leads to warmist conclusions.

“4. If the temperature changes and the number of gas molecules are kept constant, then either pressure or volume (or both) will change in direct proportion to the temperature.”

Vertically, the temperature of the atmosphere is neither constant nor linear. If you track the changes in the variables at any altitude, I suggest mostly the density—not the pressure—will adjust to accommodate the temperature changes. This is what gives rise to convection.

“My conclusion is that the mass of molecules does not affect p and T.
So gravity cannot cause pressure”

That sounds logical, but it isn’t proof. The ideal gas law applies to controlled conditions, but does it apply to pressure, temperature, and density gradients? Would the pressure gradient of an H2 atmosphere on Earth be the same as with the current atmosphere?

219. oldbrew says:

Trick – P proportional to T IS ideally true only when density is held constant.

The Standard Atmosphere table doesn’t have constant density.
(p/d) / t = a constant.
The constant corresponds to the specific gas constant for dry air.

220. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 27, 2018 at 3:16 pm

Influence of Pressure and Density on Temperature: The Demijohn experiment:
The increase in temperature is due to an increase in density”

That is density causes temperature

When the jar is depressurised, the temperature falls to its initial value.

The jar is dedensified, that the density is allowed to reduce
This explains the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure

The writer now claims pressure causes T in atmosphere but said density caused T in the jar.

Nowhere in the section Relations between density, pressure and temperature does it say p causes T
Have to agree with Trick.
This experiment shows density changes T in a fixed volume. Not that p changes T
Also it is a fixed volume so not like the atmosphere

221. Trick says:

“The Standard Atmosphere table doesn’t have constant density.”

That is consistent with my point so anyone writing T follows P or ”This explains the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure)” has not looked at and understood Earth atm. data whether real time or US standard avg.s.

222. Trick says:

James: “I suggest mostly the density—not the pressure—will adjust to accommodate the temperature changes. This is what gives rise to convection.”

There is very little to no convection in the lower ~9km of midlatitude stratosphere where jetliners like to cruise for the smooth air.

What gives rise to convection is any fluid warmed from below in a gravity field. This means at the tropopause the fluid ceases to be warmed from below and begins to be warmed from above. Nothing to do with accommodating to T changes as T doesn’t change vertically therein on avg. as ~9km of those layers are measured US Standard isothermal.

223. oldbrew says:

The author said ‘The increase in temperature is due to an increase in density (more air is pumped into the jar, increasing its mass compared to an equivalent volume of air in the surrounding room), and an associated increase in pressure‘.
– – –
Increase in mass and decrease in mass are obviously direct opposites
= = =
Trick – The Standard Atmosphere table doesn’t have constant density.”

That is consistent with my point

Your point spoke of constant density, but as the SA doesn’t have it and the real atmosphere doesn’t either, what is its relevance?

224. Trick says:

“Your point spoke of constant density.”

Yes, which doesn’t happen in an atm. thus T does not follow P therein. So “this” does not explain the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure). There is much more to the radiative-convective atm. story.

225. oldbrew says:

What the university said was:
‘This says that pressure divided by (density multiplied by a constant) equals temperature’.

That’s shown in the SA table.

226. Trick says:

oldbrew – yes, “This says that pressure divided by (density multiplied by a constant) equals temperature’.” is an ideal law therefore ideally true & which is different than: “This explains the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure)” which is true only at constant density. In the atm. weather station data shows an increase in temperature with decreasing pressure at times.

227. oldbrew says:

Trick – ‘In the atm. weather station data shows an increase in temperature with decreasing pressure at times.’

Sure there are always local conditions, but they don’t overthrow the lapse rate, or gravity.

228. Trick says:

”but (the local conditions) don’t overthrow the lapse rate”

Changing the subject huh? Sure they do.

For example, consider the local conditions on a hot summer clear sky afternoon in the tropics the temperature on an asphalt parking lot may be 40C or higher. If you are standing in such local conditions, your feet will be in air at 40C but your nose sniffing air at 35C (or less). That’s a distance order of 1 meter. For these local conditions, the lapse is 5000C/km or ~500 times the DALR.

The standard lapse is NOT what the lapse rate in the atm. is or should be. DALR is different than the IGL subject of “This explains the general reduction in temperature with altitude (a reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure)”.

229. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 27, 2018 at 7:03 pm

The author said ‘The increase in temperature is due to an increase in density (more air is pumped into the jar, increasing its mass compared to an equivalent volume of air in the surrounding room), and an associated increase in pressure‘

associated means increasing d causes increase of p

Later the author says
In the demijohn experiment, we increase the air pressure and the density.

Here the author put air pressure before density in the sentence. Although we know d causes p.

reduction in temperature due to decreasing pressure

Finally density is dropped and only pressure is mentioned.

The author is playing with words to get a pre determined but wrong conclusion.

In this experiment d causes T and p
p does not cause T

230. Still going round in circles here.
It is very simple.
A purely radiative exchange of energy in and out complies with S-B.
If one then adds a conductive exchange between surface an atmospheric mass then that interferes with the radiative exchange in and out so S-B does not apply.
The greater that interference the higher above S-B the surface temperature will rise.
The amount of interference is dependent on atmospheric density in contact with the surface because greater density leads to more effective conduction.
Density is set by mass and gravity alone because the atmosphere is open to space and so total volume cannot be constrained in order to increase average density by compression or decrease it by expansion.
Compression and expansion do occur locally but they net out to zero for the system as a whole.
A change in average temperature can only occur if there is a change in mass, gravity or insolation from outside. Since average (not regional or local) surface pressure cannot be altered other than by more mass or more gravity it follows that average temperature cannot be changed either so pressure and temperature are locked together such that the formula must work as proposed.
The ATE is simply a consequence of conduction and convection between an irradiated surface and the mass of an atmosphere and nothing else.

231. Roger Clague says:

April 27, 2018 at 7:45 pm

As air pressure declines so does density

p is put before d, this suggests p causes d But we know d causes p

232. Trick says:

”If one then adds a conductive exchange between surface an atmospheric mass then that interferes with the radiative exchange in and out so S-B does not apply.”

S-B still applies in that case Stephen. Use my example above, the IR thermometer you are holding in calm conditions looking down at the asphalt surface will also display brightness T 40C same as the thermometer lying there. If the wind kicks up and the breeze cools off the surface, then reduces the surface temperature as shown on the thermometer & the IR brightness temperature will show the same T reduction tracking the surface thermometer. How you ever get this wrong idea in your head that S-B does not apply with convection is a mystery.

”The ATE is simply a consequence of conduction and convection between an irradiated surface and the mass of an atmosphere and nothing else.”

Another mystery source as Stephen has never calculated Earth surface global T (~288K) from just insolation, atm. mass and gravity. Never will as that calculation cannot be done. Stephen has been wrong about that for years and years. His conclusions based on that are thus unfounded. Albedo, surface emissivity and atm. emissivity are also necessary.

233. James Siverly says:

Trick says:
April 27, 2018 at 6:45 pm

What does planes flying in the stratosphere have to do with whether T causes P or P causes T?

Yes, the tropopause is defined by the switch in sign of the change in T with respect to altitude and ON AVERAGE has fairly constant T at a certain latitude and season. But whatever that temperature is, it doesn’t determine the pressure of the air. The pressure is whatever the standard pressure is at that altitude and its measured temperature determines what the density will have become as a result of P and T.

234. Trick says:

”What does planes flying in the stratosphere have to do with whether T causes P or P causes T?”

Nothing on the topic of IGL that I can see. The atm. related point for IGL is: P=density*R*T, T follows P and P follows T only at constant air density.

Now think thru what planes flying in the stratosphere have to do with the topic of what drives convection & the tropopause where local convection reduces substantially (for smooth plane ride) with increasing z in Earth atm.

235. James Siverly says:

I’m sorry I ever mentioned convection. Only results as temperatures increase due to solar heating of the surface.

What you’re getting at is over my head.

236. Trick says:

James, ok. Never too late to start learning more meteorology if you have an interest in climate. Neither a blog nor wiki is recommended, I usually rec a 1998 1st text in atm. thermodynamics by Bohren et.al. if you have accomplished the pre-req.s.

237. gallopingcamel says:

Tallbloke said:
GC: Last time I saw a detailed interchange, Ned showed the physical meaninglessness of the “33K greenhouse effect” and Scott retaliated by trying to undermine the basis for Ned’s no-atmosphere baseline T(na). 🙂

Scott Denning no longer supports the 33 K GHE. He sent me predictions from a newer model and it agrees closely with mine as shown on your blog a year ago:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/

According to the Diviner LRE, the Moon’s average equatorial temperature is 212 K. If you look at the temperature for a rotation period in my guest post, for a period of 29.3 days, my model is a little low (211 K) while Scott’s is a little high (216 K).

Note that Scott’s model and mine are in close agreement when it comes to the effect of rotation rate. Ned seems to think that rotation rate has little effect.

238. Roger Clague says:

212 -216K is the tropopause temperature of Earth. The T caused by radiation only, like the moon , before the atmosphere effect starts.

239. oldbrew says:

Trick – ‘Albedo, surface emissivity and atm. emissivity are also necessary.’

Albedo of Venus is much higher than Earth, but temperature at 1 bar pressure is about the same – allowing for different distance from the Sun of course.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
– – –
RC – ‘But we know d causes p’

Venus atmosphere has much higher density than Earth, but see above.

240. Trick,

S-B applies to a system containing conduction and convection but only if the system is viewed from outside. Inside the system there is a divergence from S-B all along the lapse rate slope from top to bottom and the size of the divergence from S-B increases with increasing depth and density as the effectiveness of conduction increases with depth.

Radiative processes within the atmosphere can cause divergences along the lapse rate slope itself but convection ensures that divergences one way are always offset by equal and opposite divergences elsewhere. Hence the shape of a ‘w’ placed on its side for the lapse rate slope in Earth’s atmosphere.

If surface winds cool the surface in one location they warm it in another location for a zero net effect.

Since mass and gravity determine both pressure and density the Earth’s global T has been calculated by reference to just insolation, mass and gravity.

That is what the formula under discussion has done and it applies to all planets with atmospheres above a solid surface.

Albedo, surface emissivity and atmospheric emissivity are only factors affecting the thermal structure within the atmosphere AFTER the surface T has been set. Those factors will determine how vigorous atmospheric convective overturning needs to be for hydrostatic equilibrium to be maintained.

241. Trick says:

”Albedo of Venus is much higher than Earth, but temperature at 1 bar pressure is about the same”

Sure, this not surprising or new. Given IGL P=density*R*T, if you select 1bar and input the density measured on Earth at 1bar and density measured on Venus at 1bar of course the IGL works the same for T but the altitudes are much different (surface and high up) driven by composition. The information about the atm. composition, albedo and orbital distance is contained in the measured atm. density and altitude of 1bar on the 2 planets.

—–

Stephen’s imagination is quite active today. Atm. science weeps due Stephen’s unresolved blog misconceptions.

”S-B applies to a system containing conduction and convection but only if the system is viewed from outside.”

There is no such restriction in science – that is only Stephen’s misconception. S-B applies viewed inside the Earth system as well as viewed outside. There is no divergence from S-B all along the lapse rate slope from top to bottom since S-B applies at atm. top and bottom and all along the way. The satellite S-B radiometer data at top match the lower thermometer temperature after calibration to reasonable accuracy for use or the satellites S-B application would be useless. The surface thermometer T also matches the S-B brightness T.

”the Earth’s global T has been calculated by reference to just insolation, mass and gravity.”

What an unresolved misconception. Show this never before seen calculation.

”That is what the formula under discussion has done and it applies to all planets with atmospheres above a solid surface.”

Which formula? N&Z Formula 4c for Tna? That is from empirical data for the no atm. moon not the planets with atmospheres so Stephen’s statement is just another of Stephen’s many unresolved misconceptions, N&Z:

“To calculate the Tna temperatures for planetary bodies with tangible atmospheres, we assumed that the airless equivalents of such objects would be covered with a regolith of similar optical and thermo-physical properties as the Moon surface”

Stephen Wilde says: April 28, 2018 at 9:44 am
Stephen, you have at least one thing right. The Stephan-Boltzmann equation cannot be used to solve for average temperature at any level from surface to TOA. It provably didn’t work for the simple airless surface of the moon, and it cannot possibly work for the complex surface of the Earth.

Trick is desperate (so desperate he lies about replicating experiments) for 255K to be accepted as Earth surface Tav without radiative atmosphere. But 255K was simply obtained with 240 w/m2 thrown into the S-B equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity.

If if the S-B estimate of 271K was so terribly wrong for Lunar surface Tav, there is no hope that 255K (calculated by the same method) can possibly be right for Earth surface Tav in absence of radiative atmosphere.

243. Trick says:

Konrad 11:27am maintains incorrectly: ”255K was simply obtained with 240 w/m2 thrown into the S-B equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity.”

Again, and consistently, Konrad mixes brightness temperature with thermometer temperature. And makes an ordinary mistake about atm. absorptivity setting. More precise science wording:

1) Global ~255K Earth brightness temperature was simply obtained with 240 w/m2 net of albedo (0.3) insolation thrown into the S-B equation with Earth L&O surface emissivity rounded up to 1 (from multiauthor measured ~0.97) and Earth atm. absorptivity set to zero.

2) Global ~288K Earth surface thermometer temperature was obtained by GHCN.

3) Global ~288K Earth surface brightness temperature was simply obtained with 238 w/m2 net of albedo (0.3) insolation (Stephens 2012 10yr. observed) thrown into the S-B equation with Earth L&O surface emissivity (diffraction and refraction negligible) 0.97 measured rounded up to 1 and Earth observed atm. absorptivity set to measured 0.78.

1) Global ~271 K Moon brightness temperature was simply obtained with 240 w/m2 net of albedo (0.11) thrown into the S-B equation with surface emissivity rounded up to 1 and Moon atm. absorptivity set to zero.

2) Global Moon surface thermometer temperature field is unknown (no Moon regolith GHCN).

3) Global ~197K Moon surface brightness temperature was simply obtained graphically from orbit of Diviner radiometer data thrown into the S-B equation with Moon surface emissivity ~0.95 and Moon atm. absorptivity set to 0.

—-

Because large parts of the moon surface constituent particle sizes have been pounded to powder, diffraction and refraction are known by test to become important and any satellite radiometer with Earth based constituent particle size settings will then obtain substantially lower brightness temperatures than actual thermometer temperatures.

Konrad is correct there have been Earth based emissivity measurements for lunar samples. But I have not been able to find the Diviner radiometer actual emissivity settings used similar to the 0.95 setting in a low-cost hand-held IR thermometer to readout brightness temperatures that do equal thermometer temperatures.

Perhaps a reader knows where to find that Diviner instrument design data. Did the instrument designers properly compensate for the substantial diffraction expected from proper amount of moon surface powder constituent particle sizes on the order of wavelength of incident radiation?

244. oldbrew says:

Trick – ‘the altitudes are much different (surface and high up) driven by composition’

Huh?

245. Roger Clague says:

Tricks says

Stephen has never calculated Earth surface global T (~288K) from just insolation, atm. mass and gravity.

Neither has Ned Nikolov. A scientific theory must include a mechanism which suggests an equation which can calculate a value of the property. This calculation is then compared with the observed value.
The mechanism must be able to calculate the property.

My calculation of atmosphere warming effect

Surface T ( T(s)) = 290K
tropopause T ( T(t)) = 215K
Atmosphere warming = (290-215) = 75K

Imagine air moving from tropopause to surface
At 215K average velocity(v) = 450m/s
At 290K (v) = 500m/s
this 50m/s increase in average velocity causes the warming

The 50m/s change in (v) = delta v is caused by change of gravity acceleration (delta g)
(delta v)^2 =2 x deltag x s Newtons laws of motion (s) = distance over which deltag acts
The top of the tropopause is 20 000m

delta g at 20 000m = 0.006m/s^2
delta v^2 = 2 x 0.006 x 10 x 20 000
= 2400
delta v = 50m/s

Gravity changes the velocity and therefore the temperature of molecules.

So I would like to know why I am wasting my time posting this

246. oldbrew says:

RC – ‘Gravity changes the velocity and therefore the temperature of molecules.

‘The temperature of a mass of air depends on the average velocity of the air molecules and their mass, and so temperature generally increases with air density.

The atmosphere is bombarded by shortwave radiation (including UV) from above, and shortwave + longwave radiation from below, so the atmosphere receives energy from above and below.

Combined with the dependence of temperature on air density, this gives the atmosphere a distinctive temperature profile. From the surface, temperature decreases with altitude, as the air becomes thinner.’

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/pressure.html

247. Der Ganzumsonst says:

Earlier I wrote:

What puzzles me, is the role of the atmospheric albedo.
Take Venus for instance where 90% of the solar energy is reflected, so it doesn’t enter the system.
Nor can it be enhanced by pressure.
Yet the formula, in witch the atmospheric albedo is omitted, fits!
That’s a truly stunning discovery.

I came to terms with my confusion.
I looked at clouds at both sides now.
A layer of clouds form a barrier, say a resistance for outgoing radiation that tends to warm the surface.
On the other hand incoming radiation is reflected, that tends to cool the surface.
In Ned Nikolov’s “Climate in Action” atmospheric albedo, these two phenomena neutralize each other.
A working mechanism could be the altitude/density of the cloud layer.
So if, for whatever reason, the pressure on the earth would increase, which would lead to a higher surface temperature, the increased albedo of more cloud formation would have no effect on the temperature.

However, modulation of clouds from outside the climate system still has consequences for the temperature.

248. Ned Nikolov says:

@Der Ganzumsonst:

Yes, our empirical results provide new insights on the role of albedo in planetary climates. This is how I think these results should be interpreted:

1. The notion that clouds cause warming on a global scale is incorrect. Even mainstream climate scientists acknowledge that the net effect of cloud albedo is cooling. The often-cited example of warmer nights under cloudy skies compared to a clear sky simply reflects local time-limited effects rather than a global long-term effect. The water vapor forming the clouds that reduce the rate of night cooling at a location had to be evaporated somewhere else causing cooling at another location. One should be careful not to confuse local with global phenomena, since they are subject to different drivers!

2. Atmospheric pressure causes an adiabatic thermal effect (ATE) on a planetary scale (currently known as the “Greenhouse effect”). This ATE gives rise to a specific albedo (depending on particular physical conditions) that is a consequence of the thermal energy present in the climate system. So, the bulk of the albedo of planets with tangible atmospheres is a byproduct of the climate system itself. One can view this as a “baseline albedo that is implicitly accounted for by our Eq. 11 and illustrated in our Fig. 4 (see paper at: https://tinyurl.com/ydxlfwn7).

3. The “baseline” albedo produced by ATE is subject to modulations (influences) by Sun’s magnetic/electric activity either directly through Earth’s electric circuit or indirectly through the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux. These influences are relatively small, however, compared to the bulk of the albedo. Nevertheless, they are measurable and can cause departures of the global surface temperature (Ts) from its long-term baseline value (Tsb) determined by TOA solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure. On Earth, these departures (global temperature fluctuations) are in the order of ±1.0 K around Tsb, and occur on time scales of decades to centuries. This is what we call “climate change” on a human time scale! The Sun-induced changes of cloud albedo are limited by negative feedbacks operating within the climate system. Typically, the larger ATE, the stronger the negative feedbacks and the smaller the temperatures departure from Tsb are.

4. Changing atmospheric pressure on a planet will cause a shift in the “baseline” albedo. Observations suggest that higher pressures tend to be associated with more dense & opaque atmospheres and higher cloud albedos (e.g. compare Venus, Earth and Mars). However, there appears to be no simple (or direct) relationship between pressure-controlled ATE and the baseline cloud albedo! If pressure were to increase on Earth, our planet’s albedo will likely increase as well due to a higher surface temperature causing the formation of more clouds. But we cannot currently predict this change in baseline albedo… There are good reasons to believe that the unusually warm climates of the Mesozoic era (the time of the dinosaurs) were caused by higher atmospheric pressures (up to 2.8 bar compared to 0.9855 bar at present). Earth likely had a much thicker cloud cover then and a higher overall albedo.

249. Der Ganzumsonst says:

@Ned Nikolov

I do not see an external reference to atmospheric albedo in your equation (11).
The only variable is pressure P.
Therefore, by definition, the baseline-albedo that you mentioned, as far as it is atmospheric, has no effect on the surface temperature.
That’s what I tried to grasp in the first place.

250. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
April 30, 2018 at 11:23 am

RC – ‘Gravity changes the velocity and therefore the temperature of molecules.

St Andrews University
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/pressure.html

‘The temperature of a mass of air depends on the average velocity of the air molecules and their mass, and so temperature generally increases with air density.
Combined with the dependence of temperature on air density, this gives the atmosphere a distinctive temperature profile. From the surface, temperature decreases with altitude, as the air becomes thinner.’

RC
I don’t accept that increasing density increases T. Gas properties depend on number density not mass density.

I don’t accept this jar experiment. I can’t find any description of a similar experiment. Can you refer me to a complete description of the experiment claimed by St Andrews University. Or better still a video of such a simple experiment.

Increasing density of molecules will not change their speed and thus their temperature.
Temperature does not depend on density or pressure

T ( speed of molecules) can change p and d.
p and d cannot change speed of molecules T

T does not depend on d.
the d/h gradient is caused by T, by diffusion. Diffusion depends on T that is v^2. That is why it is curved.

251. Der Ganzumsonst says:

A thought experiment.

To go along, you should accept, just for now, that atmospheric albedo can be neutral, even on Venus.

I.e. reflection during the day of incoming radiation can be compensated by nightly blocking of outgoing radiation.

Atmospheric albedo ,when balanced in equilibrium will be energetically neutral because the climate system can’t alter its bias point.
However, atmospheric albedo is never in equilibrium because of outside sourced substantial influence on, for instance, cloud forming nuclei.

The climate system is constantly adapting to an ever-changing variable.

That’s why Nikolov & Zeller don’t “see” atmospheric albedo.

In the long run it is of no consequence.

252. oldbrew says:

RC – I don’t accept that increasing density increases T. Gas properties depend on number density not mass density..

The unit of density is kilograms per cubic metre (kg m³).
Univ. of St. Andrews says (under ‘Vertical changes in pressure and density’):

(1) The air pressure at sea-level is c. 1000 mbar, or 100,000 Pascals. If the air is at 25° C (298° K), then:

r = 100,000 / (287 x 298) (recall that the gas constant for dry air is 287)
= 1.17 kg m³ (this figure is very close to the mean figure for sea-level density quoted above)

(2) For 500 mbar (the air pressure at around 5,500 metres above sea-level), the air temperature is typically -30° C (243° K)
thus:

r = 50,000 / (287 x 243)
= 0.72 kg m³

This is a little over half of the value for sea-level, showing that the pressure is the overwhelming influence on the change in density.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/pressure.html
– – –
Meteorologist Jeff Haby: pressure and density decrease more quickly with height in the low levels of the atmosphere as compared to the upper levels. It is about 5,500 meters from the 1000 to 500 millibar level but about 42,000 meters from the 500 millibar level to the 1 millibar level.

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/123/

253. Roger Clague says:

OB refers to
Meteorologist Jeff Haby:

pressure and density decrease more quickly with height in the low levels of the atmosphere as compared to the upper levels. It is about 5,500 meters from the 1000 to 500 millibar level but about 42,000 meters from the 500 millibar level to the 1 millibar level.

RC
We have gravity(g), pressure(p), density(d) and temperature(T)
He have evidence
g/h linear
p/h curved
d/h curved
T/h linear

What causes what?

The consensus is g-d -p -T

But T is velocity. Neither d nor p can change T

g can change velocity and hence T

I propose g-T-d-p

linear -linear- curved -curved

The change from linear to curved is because d/h is caused by diffusion. Diffusion depends on v and so on sqrtT.

254. oldbrew says:

What we do know is that gravity* and solar irradiation are both determined by distance from the Sun, whereas pressure and density are not.

(*The Sun’s gravity)

255. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
May 5, 2018 at 10:24 am

What we do know is that gravity* and solar irradiation are both determined by distance from the Sun, whereas pressure and density are not. (*The Sun’s gravity)

Tsurface is caused by insolation ( tropopause T) plus atmosphere effect,gh/c. g = Earth gravity, h = height of atmosphere
c = specific heat

Insolation and Earth ‘s gravity are causes outside of the atmosphere
pressure p and density d are properties completely within the atmosphere

T is caused from outside and causes d and p inside the atmosphere
d and p properties of inside the atmosphere cannot cause T which is caused from outside

256. Roger Clague says:

Much confusion is caused by the way the gas Law is written.
It is wrong to write the gas law as PV = nRT
It should be: nRT = PV ( we read from left to right)
Change in T ( velocity) causes changes in P ( energy and V( density) Charles Law
P and V can change each other Boyles Law
Change P or V cannot cause changes in T
It is not a two way equation

257. oldbrew says:

RC – Change P or V cannot cause changes in T

When a parcel of warm air rises it expands, so V increases. Net result: T and P decrease.
– – –
Wind
Wind is caused by multiple layers of hot air rising and colder air falling around the Earth. As hot air rises, the loss of atmospheric pressure causes the hot air’s temperature to lower. Decreasing the pressure causes the hot air to further expand as it cools, providing more force, via the air molecules, for the creation of wind currents.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8218560_happens-warm-air-rises.html

258. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
May 6, 2018 at 7:10 pm

When a parcel of warm air rises it expands, so V increases. Net result: T and P decrease.

By what mechanism does change of volume or pressure change T?

As hot air rises, the loss of atmospheric pressure causes the hot air’s temperature to lower.

Again

By what mechanism does reducing pressure lower T?

259. Roger Clague says:

Ned Nikolov says in a tweet : Pressure relates directly to T.

RC
Why not say pressure(p) causesT if you believe that.
I say p does not cause T
T causes p
As Gay- Lussac discovered

What does compression of gas do?

It reduces volume. This increases density and pressure.
Reduced volume, increased d and p do not change velocity which causes T.

Diesel engine heating from starter plug, fuel burning and entropy heating, not compression

I am using Maxwell-Boltzmann statistical gas thermodynamics
Not classical solid/liquid thermodynamics as you do. You do not mention velocity of molecules in your paper or tweets.

Wikipedia adiabatic compression causes heating calculation

By what mechanism is the extra 15 bar of pressure created.?

260. oldbrew says:

RC – Again

By what mechanism does reducing pressure lower T?

Observation matters. No need for belief.

261. Roger Clague says:

oldbrew says:
May 7, 2018 at 6:14 pm

RC – Again
By what mechanism does reducing pressure lower T?

OB Observation matters. No need for belief.

RC
OK refer me to observations of change of pressure causing change of temperature.

A mechanism is the opposite of a belief. A mechanism is something I can see happening
It seems you believe in p causes T without a simple mechanism
There is a mechanism for T causes p. Increased v of molecules causes increased collisions.

Referring to a diesel or jet engine is not a mechanism.

262. Ned Nikolov says:

Der Ganzumsonst says: “… the baseline-albedo that you mentioned, as far as it is atmospheric, has no effect on the surface temperature.

That is correct! Pressure & solar irradiance produce a baseline albedo, which is why that albedo does not show up (is not needed) in the equation predicting the baseline temperature. However, deviations from the baseline albedo cause departures of the surface temperature from its baseline value. This is all discussed and mathematically modeled in our next paper presenting an extension to the current model that predicts latitudinal temperatures and meridional temperature gradients in addition to the global average temperature.

263. Brett Keane says:

Ned:
For years, I have seen the ATE/Gas Laws as being so confirmed by the solar system data, that there is no wriggle room for the various warmista/lukey positions (Willis, this means you 🙂 ).
There is I think some doubt about the full radiative warming from TSI as it heads to the surface, a few percent. Any thoughts on this? Allmendinger for instance notes from experiments how NIR light frequencies,IIRC, warm Argon about the same as CO2 can be warmed by TSI.
There seems to me to be some error allowed in the energy budgets we see, and my thoughts ended up in this area, so far…….. Albedo too was a conundrum, and it seems to be more internal effect than cause. Brett Keane, NZ

264. Der Ganzumsonst says:

@ Ned Nikolov

Meanwhile, I’ll hold on to the “Thought experiment” that I posted earlier.

265. oldbrew says:

Meteorology corner…

How a complex low-pressure system sent temperatures plummeting
May 11, 2018 by Adam Morgan, The Conversation

It’s the kind of weather system you see on average once every year or two. What is a little unusual is to see such a deep pool of cold Antarctic air so early in May. Canberra, for example, is forecast to have a maximum of 9℃ on Friday – which would be its coldest day in the first half of May since 1970.

In weather-speak, “complex” describes a weather system with an intricate structure. Starting as a cold front across Victoria and Tasmania, this complex low now has multiple low-pressure centres at the surface, and is interacting with a broad low-pressure system in the upper levels of the atmosphere. These upper and low-level weather systems reinforce each other.

The other factor contributing to the complexity is the warmer waters of the Tasman Sea. The East Australian Current brings warmer waters down the east coast, raising ocean surface temperatures in the Tasman Sea relative to the neighbouring Bass Strait and Southern Ocean. When these low pressure systems develop over the western Tasman Sea, that warm water provides a lot more energy through evaporation.

When all the elements align, with a cold front and its associated cold air mass moving over warm water, beneath an upper-level low in the same place providing reinforcement, a deep and complex low-pressure system can develop.

266. nickreality65 says:

Here’s the elevator speech abstract.
The up-welling part of the CO2/GHG energy loop, 15 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 as depicted on the K-T and many similar “heat” balance diagrams is nothing but a S-B BB calculation that assumes the surface emits as a black body. As my experiment demonstrates, this is not possible.
396 is more than the 342 that arrives from the sun. (Although it’s a really^4 stupid model.)
333 net is more than the 240 that enters the atmosphere or leaves ToA.
333 net is more than the 160 that arrives or leaves the surface.
The 396 is a “what if” S-B BB calculation scenario and NOT REAL!!!!!

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard P. Feynman

For the up/down/”back” radiation of greenhouse theory’s GHG energy loop to function as advertised earth’s “surface” must radiate as an ideal black body, i.e. 16 C/289 K, 1.0 emissivity = 396 W/m^2.

As demonstrated by my modest experiment (1 & 2) the presence of the atmospheric molecules participating in the conductive, convective and latent heat movement processes renders this ideal black body radiation impossible. Radiation’s actual share and effective emissivity is 0.16, 63/396.

Without this GHG energy loop, radiative greenhouse theory collapses.

Without RGHE theory, man-caused climate change does not exist.

Over 13,200 views of my six WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.
Step right up, bring science, I did.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/19972-Space-Hot-or-Cold-and-RGHE
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15855-Venus-amp-RGHE-amp-UA-Delta-T

267. nickreality65 says:

W/o an atmosphere the earth would be hot and barren exposed to the sun’s breath of 394 K/121 C/ 250 F much like the moon, ISS, spacewalkers, satellites, etc.

That is entirely opposite the incorrect RGHE handwavium theory that says earth would be 33C colder w/o atmosphere.

268. tallbloke says:

Nick: W/o an atmosphere the earth would be hot and barren exposed to the sun’s breath of 394 K/121 C/ 250 F much like the moon,

The Moon is cold and barren on average, around 198K compared to 288K for Earth. Hot near the equator on the dayside though for sure.

269. nickreality65 says:

Average is meaningless, it’s the variation that matters.
For example:
Earth: Lit side 308 K, dark side 268 K, average 288 C, range 40 C. The atmosphere’s heat capacity moderates the swing and creates the surface ToA difference (Q=UAdT same as insulated house) and makes it habitable. Well, for us anyway. Aliens? depends.
Moon: Lit side 388 K, dark side 188 K, identical average 288 C, range 200 C.
And that’s how the earth would as be w/o atmosphere.
BTW the K-T energy loop 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 BB surface radiation is complete crap and when it goes so does RGHE and man-caused CAGW. All the other handwavium issues are just gum flappin’.
Yes? No?

270. nickreality65 says:

To be 33C or not to be 33C

There is a popular fantasy that the earth is 33C warmer with an atmosphere than without due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE and 0.04% atmospheric CO2.
Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start – or so I hear.

The 33C difference is between an alleged average surface temperature of 288K/15C and 255K/-18C, the alleged surface temperature without an atmosphere. Let’s take a closer look.

Just which average surface temperature? The two extremes? (71C + -90C) / 2 = -10C? Or the average of all the real actual (adjusted, homogenized, corrupted) measurements 90% of which are in the US, Canada, Europe and Australia? What about the sea surface? Satellite data? Over thirty years?

Per IPCC AR5 glossary the average land surface temperature is measured 1.5 meters above the ground, but 80% of the land (Africa, Siberia, South America, SE Asia) doesn’t even have reliable weather instrumentation or data.

The average sea surface temperature is a combination of buckets and thermometers, engine cooling intakes, buoys, satellites, etc.

This composite “global” surface average temperature, one number to rule them all, must represent: both lit and dark sides, both poles, oceans, deserts, jungles and a wide range of both land and sea surfaces. The uncertainty band must be YUGE!

The 255K is a theoretical calculation using the S-B ideal BB temperature associated with the 240 W/m^2 radiative balance at the top of the – wait for it – atmosphere, i.e. 100 km.

So, what would the earth be like without an atmosphere?

The average solar constant is 1,368 W/m^2 with an S-B BB temperature of 394 K or 21 C higher than the boiling point of water under sea level atmospheric pressure, which would no longer exist. The oceans would boil away removing the giga-tons of pressure that keeps the molten core in place. The molten core would push through the floor flooding the surface with dark magma changing both emissivity and albedo. With no atmosphere a steady rain of meteorites would pulverize the surface to dust same as the moon. The earth would be much like the moon with a similar albedo (0.12) and large swings in surface temperature from lit to dark sides. No clouds, no vegetation, no snow, no ice a completely different albedo, certainly not the current 30%. No molecules mean no convection, advection, conduction, latent energy and surface absorption/radiation would be anybody’s guess. Whatever the conditions of the earth would be without an atmosphere, it is most certainly NOT 240 W/m^2 and 255 K.

The alleged 33 C difference is between a) an average surface temperature composed of thousands of WAGs that must be +/- entire degrees and b) a theoretical temperature calculation 100 km away that cannot even be measured and c) all with an intact and fully functioning atmosphere.

The surface of the earth is warm because the atmosphere provides an insulating blanket, a thermal resistance, no different from the insulation in the ceiling and walls of a house with the temperature differential determined per the equation Q = U * A * dT, simple to verify and demonstrate. (Explains why 250 km thick atmosphere of Venus with twice the irradiance heats surface bigly compared to earth.)

A voltage difference is needed for current to flow through an electrical resistance.
A pressure difference is needed for fluid to flow through a physical resistance.
A temperature difference is needed for energy to flow, i.e. heat, through a thermal resistance.

RGHE upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation is a fictional anti-thermodynamic non-explanation for the “33C without an atmosphere” phenomenon

271. p.g.sharrow says:

We have a absolute measurement of the Earth’s total energy gains and losses available to us. The tons of ice at the poles. Any gain or loss in energy must be demonstrated in melting or freezing of the working fluid on the Earth’s surface at it’s coldest areas.

One of the first occupations I mastered was in Refrigeration, design, maintenance and repair. The criteria of measurement, used to indicate a system’s capability and condition, was in tons of ice available to effect energy removal.

The Earth’s surface is mostly covered with water, specially the southern hemisphere. Water is the working fluid that conditions the Earth’s surface. Gains and losses in the size and mass of Ice in the pole areas will tell you of the gains and losses of energy in that hemisphere. You don’t really need to consult flaky thermometers and questionable technic of energy measurement to determine gains or losses of energy on the Earth’s surface. Just measure the extent of ice cover for your proxy…pg

272. oldbrew says:

Just measure the extent of ice cover for your proxy…pg

Sounds easy, but ice thickness (volume) also matters.

273. Tenuc says:

Hi pg,
Great point you raise here and this macro effect is the main reason our climate, at the millennial scale, changes so little. This despite changing levels of insolation and differing amounts of energy coming from the rest of our galaxy as our solar system weaves its way around its centre. Of course there will be some regional effects, but overall it is wonderfully stable.

274. nickreality65 says:

Three decades of rancorous handwavium debate over evidence for and the physics behind the Radiative Greenhouse House Effect and man-caused climate change, aka CAGW.

What a waste since none of it is real.

The earth being 33 C warmer with an atmosphere is based on the difference between two completely unrelated made up numbers: 288 K, a wild ass guess pulled straight out of WMO’s butt and 255 K, a theoretical S-B BB ideal calculation for the 240 W/m^2 Long Wave Infrared Radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere.

Furthermore, the lunar studies by Volokin/Nikolov and Kramm clearly conclude that without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, a barren rock with the lit/hot side maybe 390 K, the dark/cold side maybe 150 K and not even colder by 33 C.

The LWIR up/down/”back” GHG energy warming loop is a theoretical S-B BB ideal baseline calculation for any surface at 288 K and likewise not real. Contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render impossible any BB emission from the surface.

No 33 C warmer + No GHG energy loop = No RGHE & No CAGW.

Am I wrong?
Always possible – for all of us.
’cause if I’m not wrong decades of research, “evidence,” publications and billions of dollars goes straight in the dumper and the entire trillion dollar global climate change industry is suddenly unemployed.

275. oldmanK says:

p.g.sharrow says: June 4, 2018 at 4:33 pm quote: “Water is the working fluid that conditions the Earth’s surface. Gains and losses in the size and mass of Ice in the pole areas will tell you of the gains and losses of energy in that hemisphere.” This is important as it is the phase change that absorbs or ejects a lot of energy – at constant temperature.

Tenuc, later, agrees and says ” the main reason our climate, at the millennial scale, changes so little”. Well,,, from deep glacial (YD) to interglacial (Holocene, or today) there is considerable change in energy input, and over quite short period of time (in rel spk).

How is that explained?

276. oldbrew says:

oldmanK – usually by Milankovitch cycles, but other factors are always possible, in theory.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/

277. oldmanK says:

oldbrew – A look at conditions at the YD/deglaciation is food for thought. See link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

Of the seven traces/curves only the lower two are factual. Those two, which show five abrupt deglaciations, do not follow either the obliquity (which anyway is an assumption/backward extrapolation of dubious nature) or the eccentricity (??).

Either way, the Milankovitch cycles do not explain the sudden reversal of the ‘heat engine/pump’ that causes such fast polar ice loss. IMO the heat engine points to the MC as being of no effect in the matter of deglaciations.

278. oldbrew says:

Like some other areas of science, there are some problems with current theory (i.e. Milankovitch-based glaciation cycles), but more convincing alternatives have yet to take its place.

279. p.g.sharrow says:

Solids do not become Liquid in a linear fashion. Due to the conductivity of energy in solids,You can pour energy into the solid for a long period of time until it all becomes ready to liquefy and then the solid collapses into liquid. It takes 180 Btus of energy to turn one pound of 32F solid water into liquid 32F water. If you add 1 Btu per 1 hundred years, to your pound of ice, it would take 18000 years for your pound of ice to become a pound of water. BUT! it will remain solid for the 18000 years, then liquefy! Massive ice fields are created from the top being covered with super cooled water/ice. In at least 180 Btus per pound of energy deficit Most of the energy needed for the melt off comes from below.
The nature of water is the FIRST place you must go to understand the cause and effect of climate and changes of climate…pg

280. oldmanK says:

p.g.sharrow, agreed. Likely it is why deglaciation is a relatively rapid affair. Once energy input approaches melting point (external; there will be still a thermal gradient to permafrost), the melting accelerates because ratio of surface area to volume of ice is increasing. The question is why melting in a few kyrs, when it took 100k to build up?

Heat from below? I would guess that is constant, and not enough. (% of heat budget from internal fission is very low). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget

281. p.g.sharrow says:

@oldmanK, First, one should look at the mechanism of accumulation of the Ice Field and it’s energy flow, It is in energy deficit to some degree due to it’s temperature as well as the 180 Btus of formation of snow. Next energy inputs as modified by it’s inherent insulation value, Snow is quite insulative but as the field accumulates and compresses it loses R value as it’s conductivity increases.Winter, the field loses energy, Summer it gains. but as it thickens the internal energy balance swings are reduced. At the latitude of Anchorage it takes about 20 feet of packed snow @32F to equal the summer melt (about 100 feet of powder) Remember this is snow that falls on dry bare ground at the start of winter. If it starts falling on existing ice/snow much less will be needed to survive the next summer.
The coastal areas that receive this amount of snow breed Glaciers without getting very cold. Rarely down to 0F in the coldest of winter. The interior areas that rarely receive 5 Feet of snow over a winter at minus 40-60F are dry.
Perma frost exists where the water table is high enough to provide high conductivity of winter cold deep into the soil. Too deep to be reached by the summer heat. Higher up “dry” soils have no perma frost in them or under them. A 5 month winter of Minus 40F will freeze wet soil down over 15 feet. If that soil is saturated, the summer sun and rain will not thaw it more then 3 feet, but down over 100 feet it never freezes.
This is all about energy balance not temperature, Heat energy rises/radiates up toward the COLD of space. The speed of that energy leakage as modified by the insulation blanket above it determines the life of the cold snow/ice that falls from the cold atmosphere cooled by space..
Once the land is covered by whiteness of snow, energy loses back into space are increased, the balanced is tipped and the cycle is renewed. Energy being added from below and lost from the top.
At the start there is heavy snow from”warm” ocean evaporation falling on cooling land. As snow/ice fields grow they further cool the land and suck in more moisture until the ocean evaporation is reduced and normal snow falls slowly continue the build. As the Ice deepens the field intrudes further up into the “snow line” elevation. Meanwhile the energy deficit is slowly being filled from below. At some point the surface melt snow fall balance equalizes and dust blown from the drying land accumulates to create soil atop the Ice mountains and the sun on dark soil warmed surface waters descend into the ice below that has been accumulating energy from below. FLUSH! The great flood. “Perma-frost” ice under the thickening blanket of rich soil is melting away to refill the depleted oceans.
Look to Mars to see what a permanent IceAge looks like…pg

282. p.g.sharrow says:

Eeeeeuuh; Wikepedia as a fountain of fact! 90 Btus per meter square per year
Put an insulation blanket on top of that geothermal energy and how many years will it take to melt a foot of ice between earth and that blanket? about 30 Btus per meter square per year
heating about 500 pounds of Ice to melt.
SWAG 3,000 years to melt a foot of ice with geothermal energy. 😎 …pg

283. oldmanK says:

@ p.g.sharrow; While agreeing with you in general, I see the situation as ‘in balance’ with a tendency to continued permanent-ice loss. Still it does not explain the sudden onset of an interglacial, or, in reverse, the very slow jerky move to deep glaciation. The earth has had near 11kyrs of intermittently fast/slow ice melt/loss since the YD. Lack of ice cover means more dusty surface area, which will aid ice melt, but not the reverse.

There is a missing mechanism that does the switching; from deep glacial to fast interglacial, and then reverse again to an inexorable long trek to deep glacial. I point to obliquity as the culprit, not as it has been envisaged theoretically, but as seen from the ‘footprints’ it has left during the Holocene; ie its tendency to abrupt swings.

284. p.g.sharrow says:

@oldmanK; Your argument for Obliquity as THE cause might be a bit much, but it is a real contributor to the changes in energy pumping from the Tropics where it is added to the oceans toward the poles where it is lost. Obliquity modifies the vector of tidal pumping that moves ocean and atmosphere from east to west, tropics to pole in the return circulation caused by the arrangement of the continents.

Is the glass half full or half empty? 🙂 In my opinion the setup for the last 4 million years is Ice age with warmer jerks with the present very warm Jerk that is nearly over.

Hopefully we have agreed that the atmospheric surface average temperature is a measurement of energy density, and as the surface density increases so does the average surface temperature.

That also changes the vapor pressure on water which changes the the speed of evaporation of water and energy from the oceans. Higher vapor pressure results in warmer oceans. Cold oceans retain more gasses then warm oceans. Cool the tropic oceans and there is lower density in the atmosphere at the surface. A change of density equal to 500 feet of elevation moves the snow line 500 feet up or down as well as 500 miles north or south.

The present arrangement of continents and oceans results in solar heated tropical waters being pumped north and south to be cooled, placing the planet in this near ice age condition where changes in small things can tip the balance back and forth…pg

285. oldmanK says:

@p.g.sharrow; Yes. I know I’m trying to preach an alien – and unwelcome – sermon. Others have done same before me and failed. So —–.

Still, following my own words/perceptions has led to some interesting discoveries (which add credit to the sermon),—, but that is now another matter.

286. […] science meeting was engaging in did not seem to include any reference to Nikolov and Zeller’s Universal Theory of Climate, which could have helped them out […]

287. Pes says:

Lots of science talk, but also consider the old saying “who benefits” , is it Trilateral Commission with their globalization dreams and Al Gore with his billions of CO2 money, is it UN and their “sustainable development”, IPCC with their proven falsified climate data (“hockey stick”), or is it we the people who want to live in a free world?