Nikolov & Zeller: Reply to Dr Roy Spencer’s blog article.

Posted: January 17, 2019 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, climate, Critique, physics, radiative theory, solar system dynamics, Temperature, Thermodynamics
Tags: , ,

Confusing Diabatic and Adiabatic Processes within the Climate Theory:

A Reply to Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog Article “Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
Physical Scientist

In a recent blog post, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attempted to criticize and dismiss the importance of our recent discovery about the physical nature of the atmospheric “Greenhouse effect” (Nikolov & Zeller 2017). I normally do not reply to blog articles, but this one reflects a fundamental generic confusion in the current climate theory that is worthwhile addressing for readership clarification. In his blog, Dr. Spencer demonstrated several misconceptions about our work that could be due to either not having read/understood our papers or perhaps an incomplete grasp of thermodynamics. The fact that Dr. Spencer cites a newspaper article about our research instead of the actual published paper may indicate a lack of familiarity with the technical details of our study. These are some key misrepresentations that I spotted in his article:    

1. Dr. Spencer incorrectly referred to our main finding as a “theory” when, in fact, it is a discovery based on vetted NASA data extracted from numerous published studies. This empirical pressure-temperature (P-T) function emerged from reported NASA measurements in the process of Dimensional Analysis, which is an objective technique employed in classical physics to derive/extract physically meaningful relationships from observed data.

As discussed in our paper, the new interplanetary P-T relationship shows features of a possible heretofore unbeknown macro-scale physical law given its high accuracy, broad environmental range of validity, and statistical robustness. Hence, this relationship is not a coincidence and demands a theoretical explanation that we provide in the paper by comparing it to other well-known P-T physical relationships. Thus, our study is rather different from the work of Fourier (1827), where he conjecturally proposed what is now known as the atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect. His proposal was later accepted on faith by Arrhenius (1896) and Callendar (1938). These researchers were not able to distinguish between gas IR absorption measured in a laboratory and the surmised “radiant-heat trapping” in an open atmosphere, which has never been observed. The “Greenhouse” concept is an example of a “contrived theory” based on conjectures that requires proof (i.e. empirical verification), while ours is an empirical fact that begs for a theoretical interpretation. Dismissing an observed pattern such as our highly accurate cross-planetary P-T relationship using “theoretical” arguments is backward to the Standard Scientific Method. Yet, Dr. Spencer employed a misconstrued thought experiment suggested by Willis Eschenbach in Jan of 2012 as a tool to “disprove” our empirical findings published in a 2017 paper?! Such an approach only raises eyebrows, as it indicates an inability to distinguish facts from fiction. Furthermore, we have addressed the conceptual and math errors made by Willis Eschenbach in a reply dated Feb 9, 2012, which Dr. Spencer failed to mention in his critique.

2. Dr. Spencer did not consider the role of adiabatic processes in atmospheric dynamics that are complimentary to the well-understood diabatic heating by solar radiation. An adiabatic process alters the internal kinetic energy and temperature of a gaseous system without exchanging heat or matter with the surrounding environment. The change of internal energy in this process is solely due to a change of system’s internal pressure. The adiabatic process emerges from combining two fundamental laws of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy and the Ideal Gas Law! Since pressure is a force per unit area, it is intimately related to kinetic energy because, in gases, Kinetic Energy (Joule) = Pressure*Volume. The direct effect of pressure on temperature (i.e. the adiabatic heating & cooling) is evident in all thermodynamic systems. A classic example of a sustained global adiabatic thermal effect in the troposphere is the well-known decrease of temperature with altitude known as adiabatic lapse rate. It is caused by a temperature change (dT) with pressure and the pressure decrease (dP) with altitude (z), i.e. dT/dz = -(dT/dP)(dP/dz). The observed vertical pressure gradient is the core reason for the existence of a negative lapse rate in the troposphere. The magnitude of the actual lapse rate, however, depends on the strength of surface solar heating and other factors such as vertical moisture profiles. Many scientists (Dr. Spencer including) confuse the lapse-rate cause with factors controlling the lapse-rate magnitude. Other common examples of adiabatic heating in the atmosphere include Chinook winds, Santa Ana winds, and Sudden Stratospheric Warming. Air convection and cloud formation could not occur without the adiabatic cooling/heating experienced by rising/falling parcels of air as they move through tropospheric levels of various pressures. In fact, as pointed out in our paper, no thermodynamic system can possess kinetic energy and temperature above absolute zero without some form of pressure present. Even electromagnetic (EM) radiation has pressure! Thus, an EM flux commonly measured in W m-2 is basically a product of photon pressure (in Pascal, Pa) and the speed of light (m/s) when decomposed into its fundamental physical units, i.e. 1 W m-2 = 1 Pa*m/s. Disregarding adiabatic processes in a thermodynamic system such as the atmosphere is equivalent to ignoring (misunderstanding) half of the system’s behavior. Our analysis of NASA planetary data revealed that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (currently known under the incorrect name “Greenhouse effect”) is a stable form of a macro-scale adiabatic heating caused by a permanent air compression at the surface that is independent of gaseous composition. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 of our paper reproduced below (the ratio Ts/Tna on the vertical axis quantifies the atmospheric thermal effect). This result is in full compliance/agreement with the classic Thermodynamic theory and does not violate any natural laws. Specifically, an adiabatic (pressure-induced) warming cannot violate the First Law of Thermodynamics as claimed by Dr. Spencer, because it is derived from that Law!

Figure 1. The Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) expressed as a ratio of actual surface temperature (Ts, K) to a ‘no-atmosphere’ surface temperature (Tna, K) of planetary bodies plotted against surface atmospheric pressure (kPa) reveals a tight relationship across the Solar System (Fig. 4 in Nikolov & Zeller 2017).

3. As well as misunderstanding adiabatic processes, Dr Spencer overlooked a crucial new finding in our study: Atmospheric long-wave radiation is a manifestation (or byproduct) of the kinetic energy in the troposphere, rather than a cause for such energy. This is discussed on p. 14 of our paper:

As with any other gaseous system, the internal energy of the troposphere (measured in Joules), which gives rise to both air temperatures and long-wave radiation, is determined by the product Pressure*Volume. The pressure is set by atmospheric mass, Earth’s surface area and gravity, while the tropospheric volume is controlled by solar heating. The atmospheric volume varies with solar insolation/heating as indicated by the observed difference in tropopause heights between Equator and the Poles, while the surface air pressure is mostly independent of solar radiation and temperature. Dr. Spencer claims that our concept violated the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy), because our model does not consider atmospheric IR back radiation. First, it should be pointed out that an empirical model derived from measured data cannot violate Nature’s laws, because it reflects reality! The fact that our regression model accurately describes the global average surface temperatures of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System without explicitly considering long-wave IR radiative fluxes indicates that such fluxes are not a needed component for predicting global temperatures! That’s consistent with the notion that the IR back radiation is a consequence (result) of atmospheric temperatures. Secondly, viewing the IR back radiation as a separate energy source to the surface that augments the solar flux as done by Dr. Spencer in an effort to explain Earth’s elevated temperature above the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) “no-atmosphere” value is physically and methodologically incorrect for the following reason. According to the “Greenhouse” theory, the IR back radiation represents a wavelength-transformed solar flux (from short-waves to long-waves). Yet, it is also interpreted as a diabatic (external) energy source to the surface. This self-contradictory view leads to an inexplicable paradox. The solar radiation absorbed by the entire Earth-atmosphere system is ~240 W m-2. However, the average down-welling IR radiation in the lower troposphere is measured at 342 W m-2 while the IR flux emanating from the surface is ~398 W m-2 (see the 2013 IPCC AR5 energy-budget diagram).

If the Sun were the sole source of energy to the climate system as claimed by the “Greenhouse” theory, how could long-wave IR fluxes in the lower troposphere exceed the total absorbed solar flux by more than 40%? The discrepancy between short- and long-wave radiative fluxes becomes extreme on Venus: that planet only absorbs 65 W m-2 solar radiation due to a 90% cloud albedo, while its lower troposphere emits >15,200 W m-2 IR flux towards the surface! This paradox cannot be explained by a simple absorption and re-emission of solar radiation, because such a mechanism cannot elevate (especially in the presence of convection) the tropospheric internal kinetic energy above the net solar input as observed in reality. It’s also important to note that the re-radiation of IR energy is qualitatively different from and should not to be confused with reflection. Greenhouse gases do not reflect IR radiation! Therefore, trying to explain the down-welling IR flux and surface temperature diabatically, i.e. through radiative fluxes alone, leads to a conflict with the First Law of Thermodynamics, since such an explanation effectively creates energy out of thin air. Thus, it must be physically incorrect. Our discovery of the adiabatic nature of the Atmospheric Thermal Effect provides a new feasible way to explain the observed energy-flux paradox without violating Nature’s laws. Air pressure caused by gravity acting on the atmospheric mass enhances (by virtue of its force) the amount of solar energy absorbed directly or indirectly by the atmosphere. This adiabatic thermal enhancement is consistent with the First Law of Thermodynamics and evident in the general form of the semi-empirical Equation for calculating the average surface temperatures of rocky planets (Ts) derived in our paper, i.e.

Ts = Tna Ea

where Tna is the planet’s surface temperature in the absence of atmosphere (i.e. the S-B temperature value), and Ea is the adiabatic atmospheric thermal enhancement quantifying the relative effect of pressure on temperature. For planetary bodies with no atmosphere, Ea = 1.0. For bodies with an atmosphere, Ea increases above 1.0 as a non-linear function of total pressure reaching 3.18 for Venus (the rocky planet with the most massive atmosphere in our Solar System). For Earth Ea = 1.459 , which means that our atmosphere boosts Planet’s average surface temperature 45.9% above its S-B value.

4. Finally, Dr. Spencer confuses one’s ability to observe/measure IR back radiation with the correctness of one’s understanding about the role of that radiation in global climate and the Atmospheric Thermal Effect. No one denies the existence of long-wave radiative transfer and IR back radiation in the atmosphere, but its global meaning has been misinterpreted for nearly two centuries. Just as it was “obvious” to medieval scholars studying the movement of heavenly bodies that Earth was at the Center of the Universe, since all lit objects in the sky seem to revolve round us, so too it has been “obvious” to climate scientists for 190 years that the down-welling IR radiation was responsible for the warming effect of Earth’s atmosphere. It took a proper placing of Earth in the context of a cosmic continuum of climate drivers to discover that the IR back radiation was in fact a byproduct (an effect) of Sun’s diabatic heating and atmosphere’s adiabatic enhancement of the amount of absorbed solar energy.

In conclusion, the “radiative Greenhouse effect” does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure. Adiabatic processes, although well understood in classical Thermodynamics, are not part of the current climate theory, which focuses almost exclusively on diabatic radiative processes. As a result of this conceptual bias, climate-science classes taught at Universities do not properly explain the direct effect of pressure as a force on the temperature of thermodynamic systems. Instead, pressure is only discussed as a factor affecting the atmospheric IR optical depth assumed to control surface temperature through a purported “trapping” of radiant heat, which is not observed in the open, convective atmosphere.

The above points are clearly explained in our 2017 paper. It is therefore puzzling why Dr. Spencer failed to grasp them assuming he had read the paper. Or maybe he hasn’t? The thought experiment proposed by Willis Eschenbach in 2012 (i.e. 5 years prior to the publication of our paper!) to “disprove” our findings has no basis in real physics and reflects a poor understanding of thermodynamics. While such a dismissive and indefensible position might be excusable for Mr. Eschenbach, who has no formal education in physical sciences, it is certainly inexcusable for Dr. Spencer to claim that our empirical results backed by vetted NASA data and fully explainable by adiabatic processes represent a “violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy”.  

My big question regarding the above debate is this: Why do some “climate skeptics” such as Dr. Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts and Wills Eschenbach go out of their way to defend a discombobulated 19th-Century theory, which is at the heart of the anthropogenic climate-change exaggerations that they claim to have been fighting against for decades? It makes no rational sense for skeptics to argue ad nauseam about marginal issues such as rates of warming or sea-level rise while vigorously protecting by all means the rotten core of a concept that allows the promotion of exaggerated claims about such issues to be made in the first place.

Comments
  1. Pablo says:

    On water vapour, the main “greenhouse gas”.

    If the lapse rate is less than the adiabatic (dry lapse rate) due to the presence of water vapour, potential temperature increases with increasing altitude. On average 3.3ºC/ km.
    This is the heating potential of water vapour. However this is at the expense of evaporative cooling at the surface and an upward movement of lighter most air with its latent heat to shift heat upwards and away from a solar heated hot surface to a cooler air mass elsewhere.
    This the true power of water vapour, as a moderator of extreme temperatures not a heating of the surface.

    The oceans with a heat capacity much greater than the atmosphere are the “fly wheel” of the system.

  2. pochas94 says:

    The problem I have with N&Z theory is it omits discussion of radiation as the only way to close the earth’s energy balance. This crucial last step depends entirely on radiative emission, either directly from the surface, or from radiatively active gasses in the atmosphere, mainly water vapor (“Greenhouse Gasses’). N&Z theory implies that this process is independent of the composition of the atmosphere, when a transparent atmosphere radiates from the surface while a real atmosphere radiates from some altitude which depends on a line-by-line radiative solution that considers tau, the transparency of the overlying atmosphere. From this mess emerges the equivalent emissions height, the height at which the Stephen-Boltzmann equation applies for emissions from earth to space. And that temperature and that altitude determines the temperature elevation at the surface, governed by the adiabatic processes you describe. To have a complete theory and not an empirical assertion you absolutely must recognize the role of radiatively active gasses in the transport of heat within the atmosphere and more importantly, from the atmosphere to space. That done, we will have gotten somewhere.

  3. Ned Nikolov says:

    Pablo, you are right – water vapor only serves to vertically redistribute the energy within the troposphere. Evaporation cools the surface, while vapor condensation aloft warms upper layers of the troposphere by releasing the latent heat absorbed during evaporation. This reduces the average temperature lapse rate from its dry adiabatic value of ~9.8 K/km to an “environmental” value of ~6.5 K/km…

    Note also that our model is for surface temperatures only and does not require knowledge of vertical temperature profiles to work.

  4. Ned Nikolov says:

    pochas94, your reasoning is incorrect. Please, read our 2014 paper to understand, why the “emission height” and the “effective emission temperature” Te are non-physical quantities for spheres. The reason is purely mathematical. If a quantity is mathematically wrong, it cannot be physically correct:

    Volokin D, ReLlez L (2014) On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect. SpringerPlus 3:723 doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

  5. oldbrew says:

    Why should the natural carbon cycle not be able to cope with a few (relative to total atmospheric mass) extra molecules of carbon dioxide?

  6. Brett Keane says:

    Ned, like you, I wonder at folk who, for instance, ignore Maxwell and all Thermodynamics in order to place a well-known Effect as a Cause! Indeed, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink, as we say.
    Never mind, the penny will drop. One fine day. That is more than enough metaphors I think. Brett

  7. Brett Keane says:

    On this blog we have played with the fact that clouds, even those fluffy little cuties of morning cumulus cottonwool, hold many Elephant-loads of water in the air, thousands in fact on average in one viewscape. They evaporate again and lift those ‘Elephants’ towards the void before releasing their Latent Heat as radiation eventually escaping our Planet. No problem with radiation in its place but for heavy lifting eg of ‘Elephants’, radiation pressure is not up to it at Planetary temperatures/strengths. The Equipartition factor works everywhere else. Whyever not here. The Ideal Gas Law is used in figuring the makeup of the Sun (enough gas and you have nuclear ignition for starters Leif). So think on and be enlightened. It feels real good, I can assure everyone. Brett

  8. JB says:

    As I see it, the objectors are going over old ground, which discussions they are either ignorant of, and/or are suffering from poor reading/comprehension/intellectual capacity.

  9. Ned Nikolov says:

    JB, good point! I sometimes wonder about the intellectual capacity of some climate “skeptics”, who seem unable to grasp simple concepts that already have deep roots in classical thermodynamics …

  10. How could back radiation cause any increase in temperature at the surface or in lower altitudes? A photon will not add kinetic energy to an atom or molecule which is at a higher temperature, ie. higher energy level, will it? It will simply be reflected back. If a photon cannot make an electron ‘jump up’ another orbital shell, it’s just reflected, and because of the lapse rate the atmosphere is on balance warmer below the level of absorption. Someone tell me why I am wrong.

  11. Ben Wouters says:

    Ned Nikolov says: January 17, 2019 at 3:39 pm

    Evaporation cools the surface, while vapor condensation aloft warms upper layers of the troposphere by releasing the latent heat absorbed during evaporation. This reduces the average temperature lapse rate from its dry adiabatic value of ~9.8 K/km to an “environmental” value of ~6.5 K/km…

    Have to disagree. The latent heat is released when RISING air reaches its condensation level and a cloud starts to form. When the air continues to rise the INTERNAL temperature of that air will decrease according the wet adiabatic lapse rate.
    The two adiabatic lapse rates are ONLY valid for rising (or sinking) air.

    The environmental lapse rate is ruled by the fact that the atmosphere has to maintain its Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity. So pressure at every altitude has to be at the value needed to “carry” the weight of the column above.

    The Föhn effect (Chinook winds, Santa Anna winds etc) is the result of air rising against a mountain slope, forming clouds and thus cooling wet adiabatically. If rain falls during the uphill traject, the down slope traject will have mostly dry-adiabatic warming, creating the higher temperature when the air reaches the same altitude as where it started to rise. (no rain, no Föhneffect)

  12. I don´t know if my comment will be welcome here, because of different reasons, one is that I am not an academic positioned member of the scientific community so the following might be seen as a naive contribution; also because I am a Biologist with a PhD which was about observational studies in aerodynamic behaviours but not as a physicist and that can play against my chances to value what I have to say if I do not use the appropriated vocabulary, methodology, … and also because I wrote about in 2014 and it might be too old for the actual state the discussion. However I want to leave you to decide it:

    I believe that I understand what the core of the discussion is about and I want to offer what I have as the result of my humble attempt to use my skills in discussing climatic developments.
    https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/

    October 21, 2014 New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4859.3440
    November 14, 2014 Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488
    February 10, 2015 Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1

    Increases in atmospheric CO2 have being claimed to store energy in the form of heat raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Accordingly, such development would induce the atmosphere to expand allowing more water vapour to be contained. CO2 storing heat and water vapour carrying latent heat and molecular mass add altogether energy in different forms which, in turn, fuel adiabatic processes, weather events and atmospheric circulation.

    When considering global circulation, there are patterns of circulation which are built upon strong differential gradients of energy. Warm humid air from tropical or sub-polar regions getting in contact with cold dry air from Polar regions, under the Coriolis effect triggered by the rotation of the Earth, create a current in form of a Jet around the Pole (Lat. 60N) moving from West to East in the North Hemisphere, being called The Polar Jet Stream.

    In the first instance, it could be assumed that increasing heat and water vapour contained between the Equator and sub-polar regions would increase the differential gradient of energy between sub-polar and polar atmospheric circulation, increasing the strength of the Jet Stream. That would keep concentrated and isolated cold masses of air from sub-polar circulation. Accordingly, the difference between atmospheric temperature in the Pole and in the Equator would be high and increase with more GHGs.

    However, following the second law of thermodynamics, the close contact and persistence of such area of contact would induce in time, an increase in the percentage of air getting exchanged from both atmospheric areas. That scenario would develop a decrease in the difference between Polar and Equatorial temperatures. Situation which can be already observed in the records available.

    Here I hypothesise that it can be considered that the volume of the atmospheric system accommodating increasing conc. of GHGs and water vapour has expanded from sub-polar regions into Polar Circulation. Consequently, following the second law of thermodynamics, an added space for those gasses to expand would allow for the atmosphere containing GHGs and water vapour to retain more heat with no increase in atmospheric temperature. Which it could explain why under increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 there has been a so called “pause” in global warming.

    If my intuition is right, based on what I shared in the other post giving “A New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation.“, it will become more frequent to see polar masses of air getting introduced in lower latitudes as part of having a low differential gradient of energy between the Jet Stream and cyclonic (L and H) events, allowing frequent transition of masses of air getting from both sides of the Jet Stream.

    October 21, 2015 Discussing Climatic Teleconnections. Follow Up On My Previous Research (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2962.7605
    March 10, 2016 Tangled in Words. Atmospheric Dynamics, Stefan Boltzmann Calculations and Energy Balance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28443.57120
    November 17, 2016 Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24688.35848
    January 20, 2017 Climate and Indexes. A dashboard of Confusion. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25016.96007
    April 19, 2018 Climate, Weather and Energy. Using a Climatic Regime to explain Weather Events by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Research DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27923.58406

  13. Erl Happ says:

    So far as the Southern Hemisphere is concerned the Greenhouse effect takes a holiday in December and January. In these months the warmest decade in the southern hemisphere (taken in its entirety) was 1978-87 while the decade leading up to 2017 was a tenth of a degree C cooler.

    CO2 is well mixed. It’s effect can be adjudged to be no more than is apparent where the hypothesized consequence is least. So, no effect.

    Alternatively, you must argue that some factor that we have not discovered can overwhelm the effect of the supposed greenhouse effect.

    The greenhouse effect is no more than a hypothesis. A hypothesis that should be discarded on the basis that it does not accord with what we observe. It doesn’t explain anything.

    We have a long way to go before we can say we understand why surface temperature changes as it does.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Dr Fdez-Sevilla: Welcome to the talkshop. I’m certain Dr Nikolov will be interested in your work.

  15. Stephen Richards says:

    minarchist (@3GHtweets) says: The radiation cannot jump. Insufficient energy. It passes through the Molecule / element without being absorped. That applies also to energy that is of the ‘wrong value’.

  16. Ned Nikolov says:

    Ben Wouters:

    What you said above about the lapse rates and Föhn (Chinook) winds is correct and does not contradict my statements. I was merely pointing out that these phenomena depend on pressure gradients and illustrate the non-radiative adiabatic effects of pressure on temperature. This in contrast to the climate theory, which views the effect of pressure on surface temperature strictly through the atmospheric IR optical depth.

    I had reviewers of our manuscripts with PhD degrees arguing that pressure ONLY affects temperature through atmospheric IR opacity, and therefore our P-T relationship is “impossible”… 🙂

  17. Ned Nikolov says:

    Diego Fdez-Sevilla:

    I will take a look at your papers … Thank you for sharing.

  18. Ben Wouters says:

    Ned Nikolov says: January 17, 2019 at 8:52 pm

    This text triggered my response:

    This reduces the average temperature lapse rate from its dry adiabatic value of ~9.8 K/km to an “environmental” value of ~6.5 K/km…

    Your text is not really clear. Condensation does not reduce the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (DALR) to the Environmental Lapse Rate but to the Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate (WALR) as long as the air keeps rising and condensing.
    The DALR and WALR do not create the Environmental Lapse Rate. These processes are called Adiabatic because they do NOT influence the surrounding atmosphere.
    You would be surprised how few people know this basic fact.

  19. Ned Nikolov says:

    The point of discussion here is why high-ranking “climate skeptics” are trying to defend the “Greenhouse theory” at any cost even resorting to dismissal of basic thermodynamics and violating the Scientific Method?

    Any thoughts on that?

  20. This might be an opportune moment to remind readers of my earlier post published on this site here:

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

    wherein I created a narrative description of the real world processes that support Ned’s proposition.

  21. oldbrew says:

    Ned Nikolov says:
    January 17, 2019 at 9:36 pm

    Only speculating but perhaps they feel threatened in some way by your papers.

  22. Brett Keane says:

    Ned, perhaps the training of Meteorological forecasters has something to do with that? SW might know….. With Hippies, early ingestions do have similar effects to what we see….. Some Geophysicists turned Starmen and good ones? Most Geologists know better so I dunno. Except that Universities are hothouses of narrowness and working out in the field is the only antidote for that. I went back to Uni in my Middle Age and saw all that sort of thing. Love of real Fieldwork did help in perspective for some. Fieldwork is tricky for starmen though (grin).
    Must go back and study Hans Geiger’s work again, just came to mind. Brett

  23. arfurbryant says:

    minarchist (Jan 17 2019 7:12pm) is bang on.

    The entire CO2=AGW charade is based on the assumption that radiation is heat.

    The radiation emitted by CO2 molecules in the (cold) atmosphere is ‘thermally irrelevant’ to any surface molecule unless the local atmosphere is warmer than the surface (which is very rare, globally). Back-radiation simply cannot cause heating of the surface because the average wavelength of the back-radiation is too long. Only radiation of higher energy (shorter wavelength) can be absorbed for internal energy gain. It doesn’t matter how man cold objects you place around a warm object, it won’t get any warmer.

    But the gravy train is just too established…

  24. Pablo says:

    The fundamental error of today’s flat earth physics is averaging out the incoming solar radiation over the whole surface of the Earth for night and day and wondering why the atmosphere radiates more energy than the sun!

  25. Pablo says:

    It would also be interesting to quantify how much intermolecular radiation of water vapour further reduces the lapse rate “Since exchange of heat by radiation between two like objects results in a net loss by the the warmer and gain by the cooler….That is, it tends to bring the air of different levels to the same temperature.”

  26. gbaikie says:

    I would say that most of Earth’s air is warmed at it’s ocean surface.
    And most of Venus air is warmed at it’s cloud level.

  27. gbaikie says:

    Ned Nikolov
    I would contend that if Earth lacked it’s ocean, then Earth would have a lower average temperature.
    In your view, does a liquid ocean have any warming effect [causes a higher average global temperature]. If so, why?

  28. Ben Wouters says:

    Ned Nikolov says: January 17, 2019 at 9:36 pm

    The point of discussion here is why high-ranking “climate skeptics” are trying to defend the “Greenhouse theory” at any cost even resorting to dismissal of basic thermodynamics and violating the Scientific Method?

    Maybe they are beginning to realize that anyone who claims the atmosphere warms the surface is implicitly also claiming that the atmosphere then also must heat the deep oceans, which is obviously impossible. Yet their temperature is already ~275K.

    Try heating a swimming pool by blowing cold air over its surface.

  29. oldbrew says:

    I remember Roy Spencer objecting a few years ago when I said on his blog that longwave radiation (DLR) doesn’t penetrate the ocean, saying something like ‘where did that idea come from’?

    Does Back Radiation “Heat” the Ocean? – Part Three
    December 5, 2010 by scienceofdoom

    In Part One we looked at the absorption of solar and atmospheric radiation (aka “back radiation”) in the ocean.

    About half of the solar energy is absorbed in the first meter, but most of the DLR (downward longwave radiation), or “back radiation”, from the atmosphere is absorbed in the first few microns of the ocean surface. And all of the DLR is absorbed in the first 0.1mm of the ocean. [bold added]

    https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/05/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-three/

  30. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: January 18, 2019 at 8:53 am

    We’re living on a planet that consists of molten rock and molten iron. Yet we wonder why it’s temperature is so high……………..

  31. Ben Wouters says:

    Whatever heats the oceans surface has no influence below ~500m.

    Every spring /summer this surface layer warms a bit, every autumn/winter this energy is lost again AT THE SURFACE. No heating of the deep oceans from above.
    In the mean time, some 3-4 km below the hot interior of the earth slowly warms the water at the ocean floor, maintaining the ~275K “base” temperature of planet Earth.
    This 275K base temperature makes it possible for the sun to increase the temperature of the surface layer a bit, as shown in the diagram above.

  32. Ben Wouters says:

    gbaikie says: January 18, 2019 at 8:17 am

    I would say that most of Earth’s air is warmed at it’s ocean surface.

    About 70% at the oceans surface and 30% at continents 😉
    But we also have some direct heating by the sun, in the Thermosphere, Stratosphere and some in the Troposphere where water vapor, clouds and even CO2 intercept a part of the solar radiation.

  33. pochas94 says:

    For all climate experts posting here:
    If the earth’s atmosphere were replaced by an equal mass of argon, what would happen to the surface temperature?
    a) Nothing
    b) Warmer
    c) Cooler

  34. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Why can’t I measure the temperature of the air using an IR thermometer yet if I point it up to a clear sky I can read the temperature that the Earth is radiating to space (around 32C below the 2m air temperature). That’s a rhetorical question by the way.

  35. Pablo says:

    More extremes the same average.

  36. Jan Braam says:

    There’s something about atmospheric albedo.

    In equation EQ(4C) calculating the no atmosphere temperature, Tna, there’s only a standardized moon-like surface albedo.
    In equation EQ(11) calculating the total atmospheric thermal effect, ATE, there’s no albedo at all.

    Somehow solar radiation must set the initial temperature for pressure to act upon.
    Say this is the no atmosphere temperature Tna. I think atmospheric albedo will stop this from happening.
    Yet the formula fits!

    There might be a new rule dooming, stating that atmospheric albedo is always energetically neutral.
    I.e. Reflection during the day of incoming radiation equals nightly blocking of outgoing radiation in Wm2.
    Only outside sourced modulation of atmospheric albedo, like cosmic rays or solar magnetic field, can disturb the balance.
    I picture myself, in the case of planet earth, a climate or weather system consisting of a rather slow PI- control loop trying compensate for disturbances.
    It will overshoot, in will undershoot and it will never catch up, but it won’t change the bias-point of the system.

  37. Stuart Brown says:

    Pochas – I vote for cooler, though no climate expert. Slightly. Then my surface temperature would rapidly cool to the same temperature and I wouldn’t feel a thing!

  38. gbaikie says:

    –Ben Wouters says:
    January 18, 2019 at 6:45 pm
    gbaikie says: January 18, 2019 at 8:17 am

    I would say that most of Earth’s air is warmed at it’s ocean surface.

    About 70% at the oceans surface and 30% at continents 😉 —

    Yes, but ocean warms air more than 70%.
    Or all of the Earth’s land areas warms the air far less than 30%.

    And tropics is about 80% ocean.
    And the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world.

    –But we also have some direct heating by the sun, in the Thermosphere, Stratosphere and some in the Troposphere where water vapor, clouds and even CO2 intercept a part of the solar radiation.–

    Yeah. But I think of the list, probably, clouds warm the most.

  39. pochas94 says:

    @Stuart
    Correct, solely because of transparent atmosphere (no greenhouse gases). You are now a “Climate Expert” in my book.

  40. gbaikie says:

    –Kelvin Vaughan says:
    January 18, 2019 at 7:15 pm
    Why can’t I measure the temperature of the air using an IR thermometer yet if I point it up to a clear sky I can read the temperature that the Earth is radiating to space (around 32C below the 2m air temperature). That’s a rhetorical question by the way.–

    If point straight up it’s about 0 C.
    Only sunlight mostly enters earth straight up.
    Things radiating IR in hemispherical direction [radiates in a random direction which excludes radiating direct of the ground/ocean surface].

    So to any degree that atmosphere could warm, it’s coming all directions of the sky. And most of area of the sky is below 40 degrees. Also most of the warmest air is below 40 degrees.
    So, try pointing the IR thermometer at angle of say 30 degrees or less. [though, don’t point a tree or something].

  41. I would feel more comfortable if the word pressure was replaced by pressure/density.

    Correct me if I am wrong but does higher pressure increase the density of atoms increasing the effect of the sun’s energy?

  42. gbaikie says:

    –pochas94 says:
    January 18, 2019 at 6:59 pm
    For all climate experts posting here:
    If the earth’s atmosphere were replaced by an equal mass of argon, what would happen to the surface temperature?
    a) Nothing
    b) Warmer
    c) Cooler–

    Atmosphere would be more transparent to sunlight- one get more of the 1360 watts per square meter
    reaching the surface. Therefore sunlight can heat the surface to higher temperature- sand would be able to get hotter.
    But in terms global average temperature or average air temperature of a day in any given spot on Earth, I think the presence of the ocean makes a large difference.
    If you want be prevent water vapor from getting into atmosphere, you cover oceans by say 1 foot thickness of transparent glass. That would roughly, or loosely. turn the ocean into being like a solar pond and one would have higher global average temperature. And colder poles.
    Most of Earth’s air would be warmer, but poles would get less heat transported to them. or say starting at 50 degree latitude it starts to get colder and gets more dramatically colder as get closer to pole.
    If you want to remove the ocean, it depends if you want the topography of ocean floor to remain the same as it is currently. Or if you want to fill ocean basins with sand or concrete or whatever.

  43. The N & Z discovery is fine but some of the explanation is not. There is no down welling energy from the atmosphere. Energy can only flow in one direction as found with the 4th postulate of thermodynamics (in terms of entropy- defined in postulate 3) The IPCC cartoon from Dr Trenberth is nonsense see here https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2015/09/. Trenberth has admitted that the cartoon is wrong. Point 3 above in the Dr N explanation should not have been included.

  44. gbaikie says:

    –The N & Z discovery is fine but some of the explanation is not. There is no down welling energy from the atmosphere.–
    There is no down welling radiant energy from the atmosphere [which can warm the warmer surface]?
    Or generally, speaking higher elevation is not warmer.
    With the thermosphere there is higher temperature, but it’s not warmer. Due to lack density of gas in thermosphere it lacks the ability to warm something in the manner that air at sea level pressure does warm objects which have a lower temperature.
    But cooler than surface temperature air , which falls as a air mass and is thereby entering higher density air environment can warm to higher temperature then it was before it fell, and have higher temperature then the surface.
    Or this is plausible: wiki:

    “Nonetheless, one can study the forces at play in the atmosphere to arrive at a good speculation of the climate. As winds blew across the “Mediterranean Sink”, they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high even during the coldest phase of any glacial era. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 °C (18 °F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 °C (72 °F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Under this simplistic assumption, theoretical temperature maxima would have been around 80 °C (176 °F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain permitting little life other than extremophiles.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

  45. gbaikie says:

    Btw I would generally say if Venus lacked acid clouds, it would not be so hot.
    But also if Venus didn’t a global wind which takes four days travel around the planet- a massive upper atmosphere with wind speed of 200+ mph. It also would be as hot.

  46. pochas94 says:

    cementafriend: “Energy can only flow in one direction”

    Only if you are referring to “net energy” If you had IR vision in the water vapor bands you would see almost the same energy no matter which direction you looked. It comes at you from all directions. This is a major thing you must get straight, otherwise you will be wrong even before you start thinking about radiant energy transfer between multiple hot bodies. All of them emit and all receive energy from all of the others. Yes, even the cooler ones send energy to the warmer ones. Any arguments?

  47. Mike Flynn says:

    “Our analysis of NASA planetary data revealed that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (currently known under the incorrect name “Greenhouse effect”) is a stable form of a macro-scale adiabatic heating caused by a permanent air compression at the surface that is independent of gaseous composition.”

    You are confusing correlation with causation.

    The Earth is a large blob of molten iron and rock, core temperature maybe 5500 K. It sits in an environment of around 4 K.

    The surface lies somewhere along the thermal gradient. You can measure its temperature with a thermometer. It is what it is. Gravity does not heat the atmosphere near the surface, or anywhere at all. Gravity is a force. Nor does gravity heat the ocean depths which have much greater pressure.

    Analyse away. No GHE, no gravitothermal effect, either. Nature has conducted an experiment with the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so. The surface is no longer molten. It has cooled – notwithstanding gravity, CO2, theories, models, correlations or stupid amateur computer graphics prepared by deluded mathematicians.

    Fact is whatever is left, even if you’ve stopped believing it.

    Cheers.

  48. Q. Daniels says:

    With some care, Intrinsic Convection is visible to the naked eye. That is, a shaft of light shining through dust in still air will reveal visible scintillation. That scintillation is the result of minute movements of air, causing the dust to tumble. Those movements are intrinsic, and they velocity distribution can be derived from the Maxwell Boltzmann Distribution.

    The opposing logic (by Boltzmann) claims ‘Molecular Chaos’; that all velocities are independent and uncorrelated. This is visibly false.

    The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is a consequence of the fact that the motions of interacting particles in close proximity do actually correlate, and those correlations persist over small times and distances.

    You can see it happening.

  49. pochas94 I suggest you have never had any actual experience with heat transfer and you are just parroting the thought bubbles of so-called scientists who do not understand the engineering subjects of thermodynamics and heat transfer. I have had experience and have made lots of measurements. Another thing you should know, that the S_B equation applies to surfaces in a vacuum (see Stefan’s and Boltzmann’s original work). Gases do not have a surface (even at molecular level). Prof Hottell determined a modified form to make estimates of heat transfer from flames and enclosed gases based on volume, pathlength, partial pressure of radiating gases (mainly water vapour) and calculated emissivity factors. I have designed burners for various fuels to maximise the emissivity factor and flame temperature. I understand combustion aerodynamics and chemical reactions. Entropy can only be increased by work input.

  50. pochas94 says:

    Mike Flynn: I never trust a “correlation.”

    Q. Daniels: Agree with all.

    cementafriend: So happy you can design burners.

  51. oldmanK says:

    Interesting discussion. But where’s the elephant? If it is all so stable how do we get this from one moment to next? (Abruptly; just after YD, and at similar instances before?). From where does the latent heat/energy to melt so much ice so quickly come from?

  52. oldbrew says:

    A big temperature drop/rise implies a corresponding loss/gain of atmospheric pressure.

    http://www.westfield.ma.edu/cmasi/gen_chem1/Gases/ideal%20gas%20law/pvnrt.htm

    Over very long timescales…

    14. For the last 2.6 million years we have entered the present age of having a relatively thin atmosphere. This is an Ice Age. The Earth’s atmosphere is relatively thin and so the Earth’s climate oscillates roughly every hundred thousand years between glacial ice ages and warmer interglacial times such as what we are currently experiencing.

    Source [incl. graphic] : https://dinosaurtheory.com/rocks_fossils.html

  53. Petter Tuvnes says:

    Ned: The empirical findings by your paper are in agreement with the analytical calculations based on the gas law, gravity and thermodynamics, and are quite convincing.
    There is however strange that it is the TSI that makes up the equation and not ASR (absorbed solar radiation = TSI – albedo irradiation). It is the ASR that thermalizes in the atmosphere and surface, and it seems illogical that albedo do not have any significant influence. This implies that 2 equal bodies/planets at same distance from the sun, with the same atmosphere, but with the only difference that the albedo is very different should have the same GMAT. I don’ understand why it is so. Can you please explain why TSI and not ASR correlates with GMAT?

  54. Ben Wouters says:

    gbaikie says: January 18, 2019 at 8:24 am

    I would contend that if Earth lacked it’s ocean, then Earth would have a lower average temperature.

    Earths surface temperature would then be slightly above the average Lunar temperature of ~197K. An atmosphere does reduce the energy loss to space.

  55. Ben Wouters says:

    Mike Flynn says: January 19, 2019 at 2:36 am

    The Earth is a large blob of molten iron and rock, core temperature maybe 5500 K.

    Unbelievable this basic fact doesn’t register in the climate discussion.

    Temperatures in European continental crust. In spite of the geothermal flux of ~65 mW/m^2 the crust is hot.
    Yet we are supposed to believe that our thin, cold atmosphere has heated the deep oceans to ~275K, some 80K above the average Lunar surface temperature.

  56. gbaikie says:

    –Ben Wouters says:
    January 19, 2019 at 11:04 am
    gbaikie says: January 18, 2019 at 8:24 am

    I would contend that if Earth lacked it’s ocean, then Earth would have a lower average temperature.

    Earths surface temperature would then be slightly above the average Lunar temperature of ~197K. An atmosphere does reduce the energy loss to space.–

    Any significant atmosphere [of any gases] will increase the average global temperature.
    The atmosphere will cause the planet’s surface to absorb more energy.
    Earth has about 10 tons of atmosphere above every square meter, during the day the entire atmosphere warms and during night it cools.
    10,000 kg of air has specific heat of about 1 kJ per kg. Water has about 4.18 KJ per kg or couple meter depth of ocean water require same amount of energy to be absorbed to raise 1 K as compared to same square meter of atmosphere. Both ocean and atmosphere absorb a lot more energy in a day then say a sidewalk or lawn or rocks.
    Ocean absorbs the most of sunlight, but atmosphere also absorbs a lot energy.
    The lunar surface absorbs less energy than a sidewalk on Earth. The lunar surface is highly insulative surface- better than fiberglass insulation.
    Plus Moon and slow rotation. If had faster rotation it would absorb more energy from the sun.
    If Moon had bare rock and faster rotation, then it would absorb a lot more energy, but still a lot less than Earth atmosphere absorbs.

  57. oldbrew says:

    Petter Tuvnes says:
    This implies that 2 equal bodies/planets at same distance from the sun, with the same atmosphere, but with the only difference that the albedo is very different should have the same GMAT. I don’ understand why it is so. Can you please explain why TSI and not ASR correlates with GMAT?

    Why would they have a difference in albedo?

  58. Ben Wouters says:

    oldmanK says: January 19, 2019 at 8:24 am

    From where does the latent heat/energy to melt so much ice so quickly come from?

    From the hot interior of the Earth obviously.

    During a glacial a permanent sea ice-sheet extends to south of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge.
    So no brine / cold water sinking to the bottom in the Nordic seas / Arctic ocean.
    Gulfstream is kept out by the ice as well.
    Being rather shallow the Arctic ocean is heated from below by the geothermal flux (~100 mW/m^2) and erupting magma. The flux alone is enough to warm the water under the ice 1K every 1-2000 years. When warm enough the ice will melt from below and the warm water will be exposed.

  59. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: January 19, 2019 at 9:34 am

    A big temperature drop/rise implies a corresponding loss/gain of atmospheric pressure.

    Suggest to read up on the Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity our atmosphere is in.
    As long as the mass (~weight) of the atmosphere remains the same, the surface pressure remains the same. Higher temperatures only mean an expanding atmosphere, NO increase in surface pressure.

  60. oldbrew says:

    Ben W – OK, so a volume change which would mean a density change.

  61. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: January 19, 2019 at 12:46 pm

    Ben W – OK, so a volume change which would mean a density change.

    Obviously.

  62. Steve Richards says:

    Hmmm!

    I note that in:

    https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/final_reports/T/K7/CCT-K7.pdf

    Page 92 contains:

    “The slopes are in most cases larger than the theoretical value of 7.3 μK/cm. The average of
    all slopes measured at the BIPM is 9.9 μK/cm (std. deviation 2.6 μK/cm), the average of all
    participants’ measurements – excluding the two extreme results …..
    Why is this so? Does it imply that the use of the theoretical value leads to wrong corrections for the effect of hydrostatic head between the water surface and the measurement position? The difference between the observed and the theoretical slope corresponds to a difference of
    50 μK for a height of 20 cm. ”

    Water pressure increases temperature!

    This is a common and known problem when trying to make extremely accurate temperature measurements in triple point water cells.

    Each 10 mm of water depth, the temperature increases by approx 9.9 μK, why would the atmosphere not have a similar effect?

  63. oldmanK says:

    Ben W – Tks. However: if “flux alone is enough to warm the water under the ice 1K every 1-2000 years” @ 4.186J/gm sp ht. I suspect/speculate geo flux alone cannot supply 333.55 J/gm in just 4kyrs (14 to 10 in link) to cause the abrupt melting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png Another gremlin may be also at work.

  64. oldbrew says:

    Steve Richards says:
    January 19, 2019 at 2:18 pm

    Re ‘why would the atmosphere not have a similar effect?’

    Air is compressible, water not, so they aren’t 100% comparable.

  65. Kristian says:

    Ben Wouters says, January 19, 2019 at 11:22 am:

    Temperatures in European continental crust. In spite of the geothermal flux of ~65 mW/m^2 the crust is hot. Yet we are supposed to believe that our thin, cold atmosphere has heated the deep oceans to ~275K, some 80K above the average Lunar surface temperature.

    No, Ben. This is NOT what anyone’s saying. The presence of our atmosphere on top of the global surface makes the SURFACE warmer on average than if the atmosphere weren’t there. With the ocean SURFACE much warmer than the ocean layers further down, any heat from below trying to escape the ocean will have a HARDER time than if the surface were as cold as space (or the Moon).

    This isn’t so hard, Ben. Look at Europa. Its surface is an icy crust, but below it lies most likely a liquid ocean. The crust INSULATES the ocean, like a lid on a pot, which makes it capable of staying liquid from even just a tiny average flux of heat from the moon’s interior. If there were no insulation, the heat would’ve escaped to space much faster, much easier, and the ocean would’ve been much colder on average, maybe even frozen solid. Good thing it naturally freezes from the top! (And it does so because there’s hardly any atmosphere present.)

    Note, though, that the tiny geothermal flux is NOT (!!!!) capable of keeping the SURFACE liquid. The surface balance is fully controlled, fully determined, by the Sun/atmosphere system.

    And THAT is what we’re talking about. The thermodynamic connection between the surface, the Sun and the atmosphere.

    The tiny average amount of heat being transferred to the ocean from the Earth’s crust needs something that enables it to accumulate over time. That something is the basic thermodynamic phenomenon called “insulation” – the slowing down of the rate of heat loss at any given temperature.

    This is what the atmosphere is doing.

  66. Kristian says:

    Ned,

    I’m baffled by your insistence that the temperature relationship between the Sun, the planetary atmosphere and the planetary surface temperature hinges on TSI, when TSI is not the solar heat flux of any planet or moon in our solar system. Only a HEAT flux (the net thermal transfer of energy) can affect the TEMPERATURE of a thermodynamic system, not just a ‘partial’ one, a ‘hemi-flux’.

    To see conceptually how this three-body relationship would and should work, just think of the solar HEAT, the ASR (TSI minus reflected SW (“albedo”)) as directly thermally tied to each planet’s/moon’s “effective (black-body) temperature in space”. In the case of Earth, this temperature (T_e) would be the well-known 255K figure (from ASR=240 W/m^2), while in the case of Venus, it would be ~232K (from ASR=163 W/m^2). And from this level, then, where the remaining portion of the incoming radiation (the TSI, the SW_in) is fully absorbed, AFTER some portion of it has been fully reflected back out to space (the SW_out) by the planet’s/moon’s global albedo, we simply follow the environmental lapse rate of each specific planet/moon atmosphere down to the surface, to find the average surface temperature (T_s). What sets the Z_e and the ELR on each particular celestial body, has to do with the physics and dynamics of each particular atmosphere.

    In this way, it is the ASR (the solar heat, the SW_net) which is connected to the planetary/lunar T_s, not the TSI directly, which makes no thermodynamic sense.

  67. Steve Richards says:

    oldbrew:

    Correct, water and air are different! Air is very compressible, water – very little compression possible (not zero).

    However, compressed air molecules are ‘closer together’ when under compression.

    If you have 1m^3 of air at 1bar, bathed in photon of xW/m^2 and you have 10m^3 compressed into a 1m^3 space, bathed by the same photon beam of xW/m^2, would the compressed example warm more than the uncompressed example?

    Should like a simple ish experiment to try.

  68. Ben Wouters says:

    Kristian says: January 19, 2019 at 5:14 pm

    The tiny average amount of heat being transferred to the ocean from the Earth’s crust needs something that enables it to accumulate over time. That something is the basic thermodynamic phenomenon called “insulation” – the slowing down of the rate of heat loss at any given temperature.
    This is what the atmosphere is doing.

    Sorry, wrong again (as usual)
    That basic phenomenon called insulation is provided by the solar heated surface, both for continents and for oceans.
    Typical surface layer temperature variation for continents:

    Typical mixed surface layer temperature variation for oceans:

    So the sun only increases the temperature of a shallow surface layer a few degrees.

    With an average surface temperature of ~290K Earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2 to space in absence of an atmosphere (and cool down very fast)
    The insulation effect of the atmosphere reduces this ~400 W/m^2 to ~240 W/m^2, which the sun delivers on average, so we have a balanced ENERGY budget at our high surface temperatures.

  69. papijo says:

    In my opinion, this discussion results from the misinterpretation of the Trenberth diagram (or the version shown in this artcle). For most people, the “back-radiation big arrow” represents a heat flux, which it is not (take a chair outdoors, climb on it and if it were true, you would receive 340 W/m² as back-radiation, plus 400 W/m² from the ground radiation which is more than 4 times the heat flux received from the sun ! No need for an optical pyrometer to feel it !). Replacing these diagrams by somethig like this one would help to dissipate false theories. At ground level, the long wave radiation will never heat you, but will cool you (except may be in some very rare situations) !

  70. Kristian says:

    Ben Wouters says, January 19, 2019 at 6:56 pm:

    That basic phenomenon called insulation is provided by the solar heated surface, both for continents and for oceans.

    Yes. Just like I said. Pay attention. The solar-heated surface insulates the DEEPER layers beneath it. The atmosphere in turn insulates the SURFACE. The surface is HEATED by the Sun, and INSULATED by the atmosphere. How hard is this?

    With an average surface temperature of ~290K Earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2 to space in absence of an atmosphere (and cool down very fast)
    The insulation effect of the atmosphere reduces this ~400 W/m^2 to ~240 W/m^2 (…)

    Er, no, Ben. You still have serious problems with basic thermodynamic concepts, I see.

    HEAT fluxes, Ben. What are they? Read up and find out. Then come back and redo your budget.

    How much HEAT does the global surface of the Earth absorb per unit of time? And how much does it shed? Further, what determines the rate of heat loss from the surface?

    These fundamental principles are what you need to grasp, Ben. Before trying to educate people who already do …

  71. gbaikie says:

    –oldmanK says:
    January 19, 2019 at 8:24 am
    Interesting discussion. But where’s the elephant? If it is all so stable how do we get this from one moment to next? (Abruptly; just after YD, and at similar instances before?). From where does the latent heat/energy to melt so much ice so quickly come from?–*

    The elephant is the ocean.
    Our present world has to do with arrangements of ocean and land masses.
    Plate tectonic has a lot to with long history of Earth climate.
    Plate tectonic theory is relatively new, as compared to pseudo science of Greenhouse Effect Theory.
    Also relatively new is exploration of your ocean.
    In terms of melting ice or glacial ice. Rains works pretty fast. And it’s possible to get large build up snow fairly quickly [decades]. Of course we have what is called permanent polar ice cap which have remained and will remain for long time. And largely due with present arrangement of ocean and land masses which has caused to be in a Ice Age.
    In your ice age, ice sheets can grow in the temperate zones and when this happen it’s called a glacial period or ice age. Ice sheets are sort of like the Sahara desert, both have mechanism which make them persist. Trying to alter Sahara desert into grassland/forest could said to be a hard thing to do, though in terms of nature it is lasts time periods of thousands of years rather than tens of thousands of years. And ice sheet roughly seems to slower to form and last longer as compared to the Sahara desert. Both would require a “larger” or “significant” change in ocean circulation.

  72. Bruckner8 says:

    And, like every other N&Z thread, not one mind was changed. And in the various N&Z rebuttals (here and elsewhere), not one is mind is changed.

    Thus something is incredibly wrong with an assumption somewhere, no different than CAGW, but both sides have dug in, and speak past each other.

    I’d love to see all of these players (N&Z, Spencer, Eschenbach, Watts, Roger, etc) in a room, together, speaking directly at each other.

  73. Mike Flynn says:

    Kristian,

    A couple of things.

    The atmosphere prevents much of the Sun’s energy reaching the surface. You don’t make something hotter by turning down the heat source.

    The ocean is comprised of water. The less dense warmer water floats on the denser cooler water.

    Pay attention, Kristian – there is no magical insulator which lets more energy in than out.

    No GHE. You cannot even describe the GHE in any way which would allow a testable GHE hypothesis to be formulated, can you?

    After Nature’s four and a half billion year experiment, the results are in. A large blob of molten rock and iron suspended in a 4 K environment, gets colder, as it should.

    Feel free to use ALL CAPS if you think it will overcome your lack of facts to back up your belief in the non-existent GHE.

    Cheers.

  74. Brett Keane says:

    Mike Flynn; January 19, 2019 at 2:36 am: Gravity is not a Force. Find out why and learn from there please. The real fun of Physics starts when we understand how circumstances alter cases. That is why folk who ignore the Ideal Gas Laws and Maxwell, do so at their peril. Not that trolls care……
    Brett

  75. Mike Flynn says:

    Brett,

    According to Fermilab etc (Quantum Chromodynamics 101) –

    “Gravity, the force we are all most familiar with, is also one of the least understood.”

    Or, in your case, totally rejected.

    Cheers.

  76. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ Kristian: January 19, 2019 at 5:49 pm

    In order to understand, how TSI enters our model you need to read our 2 papers. The truth is NOT at all what you’ve assumed! TSI comes from the spherical integration of the Stephen-Boltzmann radiation law, which takes into account the surface albedo and heat storage properties of airless bodies …

    I’m really puzzled when people jump into grand conclusions based on little or no knowledge of the actual papers they are trying to criticize. This approach never works with new science!

    Please read each paper at least twice before attempting to formulate any conclusions. Our research has been in the work for several years, and it’s really naive to think that a cursory review of the Abstract or a quick scan of the text of the papers will give you what you need to fully grasp this new Paradigm. It won’t!!

  77. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ Kristian: January 19, 2019 at 5:49 pm

    You logic involving the effective emission temperature Te etc. is physically completely wrong! The reason for this explained in our 2014 paper, which shows that Te is a useless non-physical quantity spheres. Read this carefully to understand why:

    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

  78. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ Kristian: January 19, 2019 at 5:49 pm

    You logic involving the effective emission temperature Te etc. is physically completely wrong! The reason for this explained in our 2014 paper, which shows that Te is a useless non-physical quantity for spheres. Read this carefully to understand why:

    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

  79. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ gbaikie: January 18, 2019 at 8:24 am

    Our analysis showed that oceans and liquid water in general are a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect set by solar radiation and pressure, not a cause for it. This is discussed in details in our 2017 paper (Nikolov & Zeller 2017) linked to the above article. So, water has NO effect on Earth’s global temperature. Water has a moderate effect of regional temperatures through reduction of diurnal and seasonal amplitudes, but the global average remains unaffected.

    This is a new insight made only possible thanks to analyzing Earth’s temperature in the larger context of other planetary bodies in our Solar System. One cannot deduce this easily by looking at Earth alone, which explains why most scientists think that oceans control Earth’s global temperature. They don’t!

  80. Mike Flynn says:

    Ned,

    Your link starts –

    “It is an undisputed fact that the atmosphere can appreciably heat a planet’s surface above the temperature of an airless environment receiving the same stellar irradiance.”

    Nope. Highest Earth surface temperature using unconcentrated sunlight – less than 100 C.
    Highest surface temperature on the Moon – over 100 C.

    Same exposure time, of course.

    Maybe you are talking about some assumed or estimated average temperature? Estimates tend to be the refuge of the scoundrel, and are generally useless. Why would you think yours are accurate?

    The Earth has cooled since its creation. The Moon has cooled more – greater surface volume ratio, all that sort of stuff. Coldest temperature on the moon is about -240 C. Earth, about -90 C.

    Given the same solar power per unit input, the the Moon gets hotter and colder than the Earth. Averaging either is an exercise in futility. Try convincing somebody that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.

    You cannot state the GHE in any useful way, leading to a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?

    Neither can anybody else.

    Cheers.

  81. gbaikie says:

    –Mike Flynn says:
    January 20, 2019 at 12:24 am
    Kristian,

    A couple of things.

    The atmosphere prevents much of the Sun’s energy reaching the surface. You don’t make something hotter by turning down the heat source.

    The ocean is comprised of water. The less dense warmer water floats on the denser cooler water.

    Pay attention, Kristian – there is no magical insulator which lets more energy in than out.–

    Mike, I would say this magical insulator is broadly the specific heat of material.
    And another magical insulator is transparent material.

    So let’s say we use magic, and have entire earth surface be uniform temperature of 1 C. And say there are no clouds in the atmosphere.
    So start clock with Earth being 1 C, and one could assume Earth warms up and near poles cool down.
    It would require years to warm up to our present warmer Earth. So that indicates the magic of material having specific heat. Ocean water has a lot of specific heat- the ocean will require long time to heat up. Whereas sand will warm up fairly quick. But if one has cold atmosphere above the sand, the colder air draw more convective heat and prevent the sand from getting very warm. If air was 1 C at night and it was summer, the sand might warm to say 50 C despite cooler air, or if air was 30 C, the sand could warm higher than 60 C due to less convection heat loss to less cold air.
    So land area could warm up from 1 C, quicker than ocean at 1 C.
    The transparency of ocean [and it’s high specific heat] makes any warming occuring in one day of ocean very slight. But over week of time, the ocean surface should somewhat warm, but in terms getting tens of meters of warm tropical surface waters, this can’t occur within a year. But within weeks one get a significant amount evaporation and clouds forming.
    So earth gets warmer because it’s absorbing more earth than it’s emitting, and some point if time it roughly balances and emits about the same as it absorbs.

    Now to get more complicated, Earth has various cooling mechanisms. With magic we started with ocean of 1 C, but the reality is Earth ocean average volume temperature has been 1 C- though it’s surface has never had average surface temperature of 1 C [unless you believe in snowball earths].
    So in your icebox climate the average temperature of ocean has been in the range of 1 to 5 C, and it’s about 3.5 C, presently.

    Though I do agree that Earth being a molten rock has effected our global climate- and more at some times as compared to other times.

  82. gbaikie says:

    –Ned Nikolov says:
    January 20, 2019 at 1:44 am
    @ gbaikie: January 18, 2019 at 8:24 am

    Our analysis showed that oceans and liquid water in general are a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect set by solar radiation and pressure, not a cause for it. This is discussed in details in our 2017 paper (Nikolov & Zeller 2017) linked to the above article. So, water has NO effect on Earth’s global temperature. Water has a moderate effect of regional temperatures through reduction of diurnal and seasonal amplitudes, but the global average remains unaffected.–

    So, the generally accepted idea that tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world would be something you don’t agree with?
    Do you agree that tropics has much higher average temperature as compared to outside the tropics?
    Can you explain why it has such higher average temperature [and rains a lot].

    Do you accept the ocean surface has average global temperature of about 17 C and land average global temperature is about 10 C?
    You agree that Europe would cooler without the tropical waters transported by Gulf Stream?

  83. Kristian says:

    Ned Nikolov says, January 20, 2019 at 1:20 am:

    TSI comes from the spherical integration of the Stephen-Boltzmann radiation law, which takes into account the surface albedo and heat storage properties of airless bodies …

    No, Ned. It doesn’t. You don’t get to invent your own definition of TSI to make it all ‘work’.

    ASR (“Absorbed Solar Radiation”), the solar heat flux to the Earth system, the SW_net at the ToA, is the only solar parameter that matters when it comes to the temperature of the Earth. TSI is the solar heat flux to space, not to Earth, nor to any other planets or moons. Because it – by definition – specifically does NOT take the albedo of any celestial body it ‘encounters’ into account. ASR (SW_net) is TSI (SW_in) minus reflected SW (SW_out). For the Earth, the TSI is 340 W/m^2, while the ASR is [340-100=] 240 W/m^2. Only one of the two constitutes an actual HEAT transfer to the Earth system.

    (…) it’s really naive to think that a cursory review of the Abstract or a quick scan of the text of the papers will give you what you need to fully grasp this new Paradigm.

    It’s not a new paradigm, Ned. I’m sorry.

  84. Kristian says:

    Ned Nikolov says, January 20, 2019 at 1:26 am:

    You logic involving the effective emission temperature Te etc. is physically completely wrong!

    No. T_e is a purely conceptual value. That is not to say that any logic involving it is thereby “physically completely wrong”. In order to ‘explain’ or ‘predict’ the average surface temperature of a planet (its T_s) it works, thermodynamically, perfectly fine.

    The one thing you need to explain is by what mechanism the atmosphere forces the T_s up beyond pure solar equilibrium. Because there is no way one can predict the T_s straight from the surface heat budget alone. Earth’s surface heat budget is ~165 W/m^2 in, ~165 W/m^2 out. If Earth’s surface were a pure blackbody in space, these fluxes would correspond to a T_s of 232K. We know it’s much higher. Why is it higher? Because with a massive (warm, heavy, dense, viscous) atmosphere on top, the surface has to pay a price in order to balance the incoming heat flux from the Sun by an equal heat flux moving out. It simply can’t get there until it’s warmed sufficiently. It keeps warming from the net accumulation of internal energy [U] as long as Q_in > Q_out. While the incoming heat flux is purely radiative (Q_sw(sfc), from the Sun), the outgoing is really just the sum of three distinct fluxes, one radiative (Q_lw(sfc)), one conductive (Q_cond) and one evaporative (Q_evap), neither of which is individually large enough to balance the incoming solar heat flux. And once internal energy is thermally transferred from the surface to the atmosphere on top, via radiation (IR emission/absorption), conduction and/or ‘latent heat’ (evaporation/condensation), warming the lowermost part of the atmosphere, convection takes over, bringing the ‘thermalised’ energy efficiently further up and away from the surface, thus giving room for more energy to be tranferred from below. Convective power, then, is a major determining factor regarding the rate of surface heat loss at any given surface temperature. The greater the convective power, the more efficiently it transports any excess energy up through the tropospheric column, and, as a consequence, the lower the price the surface has to pay before it achieves heat balance becomes, which means the final T_s ends up lower even with an equal surface heat budget. A good case in point, the Sahara-Sahel region vs. the Congo:

    https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/

    https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/

  85. Mike Flynn says:

    Someone posted an article on The Hockey Schtick blog-

    “New paper confirms the gravito thermal effect . . .

    . . .Thus, the paper adds to the works of at least 40 others (partial list below) who have falsified the Arrhenius radiative theory of catastrophic global warming from increased levels of CO2, and also thereby demonstrated that the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory is instead the correct explanation of the 33C greenhouse effect on Earth, . . .”

    What a lot of rubbish. None of the authors referred to stated what was claimed.

    There is no “ . . . atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory . . .”.

    Maybe someone thought that inventing a new name for the non-existent “gravito-thermal effect”, and calling it new science, might obscure the fact that no GHE exists. Its supposed effect cannot be demonstrated, measured, or even described. Pseudoscience writ large.

    Cheers

  86. oldbrew says:

    Note: a few comments including replies have just passed moderation.

    Thanks for keeping the discussion civilised – more or less 😉

  87. Ned is correct that our oceans have no effect on the ATE.
    As I’ve explained elsewhere, the amount of solar energy that the oceans can retain is determined by the weight of atmosphere bearing down on the surface which sets the energy cost of evaporation.
    Thus the mass of the atmosphere sets both the ATE and the temperature of the oceans.
    However, as per my Hot Water Bottle Effect the thermal inertia of the oceans is so large that the oceans are responsible for virtually all climate related phenomena in our water world.
    That inertia creates temporary divergences from the underlying ATE over time and we see those divergences as climate variation.
    The primary source of those divergences is internal ocean cycles and associated effects on global albedo via cloudiness changes.
    Changes in albedo mimic changes in TSI and thus can affect the ATE but all such changes are fully reversible over time.
    No possible changes in atmospheric composition can have any measurable effect against oceanic variations unless atmospheric mass also changes.

  88. “The one thing you need to explain is by what mechanism the atmosphere forces the T_s up beyond pure solar equilibrium.”

    Very simple.
    Potential energy in the atmosphere continually recirculating up and down in an adiabatic loop which places 33k worth of kinetic energy at the surface in addition to continuing insolation at 255k.
    That additional kinetic energy at the surface is what holds the mass of an atmosphere off the surface against gravity and that is the mass induced ATE (otherwise known as the Greenhouse Effect).
    If that potential energy were ever to leak out of the adiabatic loop then the mass of the atmosphere would fall to the ground.

  89. oldbrew says:

    Venus at 1 bar pressure (same as Earth’s surface) – red lines added to original.
    Check temperature.

  90. oldmanK says:

    gbaikie says: January 19, 2019 at 9:35 pm

    Tks. There are several interesting points in the reply that, I find, invite comment.

    I replied to Ben W because I couldn’t see the described mechanism of heat transfer as having a high enough rate for such abrupt melting. It also appears at first sight ‘unstable’, ie it locks to one extreme state or the other, but no flip-flopping.

    One point: please do note that the Sahara twice flipped from desert to grass land in the last 10kyrs. It did so in 3550bce quite abruptly, in a century or so.

    Second point: Plate Tectonics. My understanding here is that plate tectonics is being hotly contested. The following excerpt from A Nur 2016 is clear “Many more crustal deformation investigators have simply paid little attention to rotations (–). This is especially perplexing because, as a research community, we seem to have adhered to the totally arbitrary assumption of irrotational crustal deformation. However, there is absolutely no a priori reason to make such a limiting assumption. There is no logical reason, and as this study shows, no factual reason to exclude rotations in crustal deformation. Fortunately a few (–) have already come to recognize how important kinematic mechanical rotations are for a fuller understanding of crustal deformation. McKenzie “Rotations make nonsense of the two-dimensional reconstructions that are still so popular among structural geologists” best said this. (McKenzie, 1990) are caused by material rotations. That is work for future research.”

    I point this out because abrupt tectonic rotations in the Med are evident, and linked to the abrupt climatic changes of the Sahara. None of this is the result of secular orbital changes. (ie ergo, where’s the elephant?)

    To dare add something from the heretical arena. Tectonic micro-plate rotations are evident in the Maltese islands prehistoric, and (as from last week) in Lampedusa too, and do record such rotations. See oldmanK says: January 20, 2019 at 2:50 pm in “Solar Climate Connection and Cosmic Rays” thread. But the evidence shows not only rotations but also abrupt obliquity change (the elephant??). The graph linked in my first post above shows obliquity -secular obl – on rt scale; a deceptive scale. Reduce scale by a factor of ten or more and one can perceive that secular obliquity leaves a signature on Temp anomaly but does not dictate over the whole glacial cycle. A change in ‘Mean’ position is far more determining than the small secular oscillation.

  91. pochas94 says: January 17, 2019 at 3:24 pm
    I think https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/ has the most complete analysis including the radiative “boundary condition” which sets the temperature which the interior gravitational gradient must match .

    I’ve got other priorities developing http://www.cosy.com/CoSy/ unless someone has interest in working together to implement these quantitative relationships to play with them and make them testable .

  92. Ben Wouters says:

    Kristian says: January 19, 2019 at 9:12 pm

    Yes. Just like I said. Pay attention.

    I don’t know what you said, but do know what you wrote:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-to-dr-roy-spencers-blog-article/comment-page-1/#comment-146025

    The presence of our atmosphere on top of the global surface makes the SURFACE warmer on average than if the atmosphere weren’t there. With the ocean SURFACE much warmer than the ocean layers further down, any heat from below trying to escape the ocean will have a HARDER time than if the surface were as cold as space (or the Moon).

    and

    The tiny average amount of heat being transferred to the ocean from the Earth’s crust needs something that enables it to accumulate over time. That something is the basic thermodynamic phenomenon called “insulation” – the slowing down of the rate of heat loss at any given temperature.
    This is what the atmosphere is doing.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-to-dr-roy-spencers-blog-article/comment-page-1/#comment-146032

    The solar-heated surface insulates the DEEPER layers beneath it. The atmosphere in turn insulates the SURFACE. The surface is HEATED by the Sun, and INSULATED by the atmosphere.

    All of a sudden you agree with me.
    Since the solar heated surface layer of the oceans forms an impenetrable barrier for the heat that enters at the ocean floor some 3000m below.
    The conclusion that the heat content of the deep oceans comes from the interior of the Earth is inescapable.
    On top of this the fact that the young oceans must have been (close to) boiling and thus have reached their present temperature by cooling down.

    As shown before:

    The surface temperature increases ~6K during spring and summer, the layers below even less. If you still want to claim that the atmosphere does some heating and not the sun, why the seasonal heating/cooling?

    As explained above this means that the atmosphere merely reduces the energy loss to space.
    At the TOA Earth loses ~240 W/m^2 on average, and the sun supplies ~240 W/m^2 on average.
    Balanced energy budget and no GHE, just an Insulation Effect by the atmosphere.

  93. gbaikie says:

    –which shows that Te is a useless non-physical quantity spheres. Read this carefully to understand why:

    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723–

    –Known as a natural Greenhouse Effect (GE), this near-surface Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) as named herein is presently entirely attributed to the absorption of up-welling long-wave radiation by greenhouse gases. —

    I agree that “presently entirely attributed to the absorption of up-welling long-wave radiation by greenhouse gases” is wrong. And it’s not even worth considering as in the realm of being scientific- and I would further say I never seen anyone try to seriously support it. Or it’s almost a straw man argument- though delusional people do “accept it” without question. And so in that sense not a straw man argument.

    And continuing:
    “This approach equates a planet’s average temperature in the absence of greenhouse gases or atmosphere to an effective emission temperature assuming ATE ≡ GE. ”
    So I am expecting that you going to explain average temperature or temperature of say Moon or even Mars.
    I will add a note, that Earth has very little greenhouse gases. And also that the thin atmosphere of Mars has about 30 times more CO2 per square meter of surface as compared to Earth. And no one is claiming in any serious way that Mars has a greenhouse effect. Or as I said, one can roughly assume Mars lacks an atmosphere.

    “The SB law is also routinely employed to estimating the mean temperatures of airless bodies.”

    I disagree. I would would say airless body are measured rather any attempt to give an average temperature.
    “We demonstrate that this formula as applied to spherical objects is mathematically incorrect owing to Hölder’s inequality between integrals and leads to biased results such as a significant underestimation of Earth’s ATE. ”
    I would say the only thing related to airless bodies and Greenhouse effect theory is idea of a Ideal thermally conductive blackbody which at Earth distance from the sun, has the “model” that indicates a uniform temperature of about 5 C.
    Which I tend to roughly agree with. And disagree when Greenhouse effect theory tries [miserably] to convert it into a reflecting blackbody and adds atmosphere and changes uniform to average temperature.
    So a large purpose of any model is to use it to determine how model is different than reality and why it is. Or roughly Earth should be about 5 C and the Moon should about 5 C. And how and why is it different?
    And btw, roughly, Earth is about 5 C. And it is about 5 C because it vaguely like a ideal thermally conductive body. And Moon is not about 5 C because it not vaguely like a ideal thermally conductive body. Or pretty much the opposite of an ideal thermally conductive body. [Though the Moon is dark colored- like a blackbody surface- and btw, Earth isn’t.]

    Anyhow I am interested in what average temperature of Mars is- nobody is giving a precise number or as precise as the imprecise Earth average temperature of about 15 C which we have roughly known for more than 100 years [and failing to get any more precise].

    Average temperature of Mars, being rocky surface temperature and/or air temperature less than meter above this rocky surface. Say 1 foot or whatever is easier.

  94. Ned Nikolov says:

    Kristian: January 20, 2019 at 3:18 am

    You have misunderstood what I’ve said. Please, read our 2014 paper to learn about the proper way to apply the S-B radiation law to a sphere. Learn about Holder’s inequality and why it makes the effective emission temperature physically meaningless!

    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

    All your arguments are addressed and explained in our papers. I simply cannot repeat them here. Good luck!

  95. gbaikie says:

    –oldmanK says:
    January 20, 2019 at 3:23 pm:

    One point: please do note that the Sahara twice flipped from desert to grass land in the last 10kyrs. It did so in 3550bce quite abruptly, in a century or so.–

    Yeah, I think we should change back into grassland.
    Though btw, I think doing this would increase global temperature a fair amount- probably more than rising CO2 has done in terms raising global average temperature. But personally, I want a warmer world and not a huge fan of vast deserts.

    –Second point: Plate Tectonics. My understanding here is that plate tectonics is being hotly contested. The following excerpt from A Nur 2016 is clear “Many more crustal deformation investigators have simply paid little attention to rotations (–). This is especially perplexing because, as a research community, we seem to have adhered to the totally arbitrary assumption of irrotational crustal deformation. However, there is absolutely no a priori reason to make such a limiting assumption. There is no logical reason, and as this study shows, no factual reason to exclude rotations in crustal deformation. Fortunately a few (–) have already come to recognize how important kinematic mechanical rotations are for a fuller understanding of crustal deformation. McKenzie “Rotations make nonsense of the two-dimensional reconstructions that are still so popular among structural geologists” best said this. (McKenzie, 1990) are caused by material rotations. That is work for future research.”

    I point this out because abrupt tectonic rotations in the Med are evident, and linked to the abrupt climatic changes of the Sahara. None of this is the result of secular orbital changes. (ie ergo, where’s the elephant?)–

    Plate tectonic theory is new, and I expect much disagreement and new things discovered about it.
    Related to this, the idea of Earth having impactors occurring up to modern times, also new- newer than Plate tectonic theory.
    I would guess Plate tectonic and understanding of how impactor have effected earth will be further understood in terms of their relationship.

    –To dare add something from the heretical arena. Tectonic micro-plate rotations are evident in the Maltese islands prehistoric, and (as from last week) in Lampedusa too, and do record such rotations. See oldmanK says: January 20, 2019 at 2:50 pm in “Solar Climate Connection and Cosmic Rays” thread. But the evidence shows not only rotations but also abrupt obliquity change (the elephant??). The graph linked in my first post above shows obliquity -secular obl – on rt scale; a deceptive scale. Reduce scale by a factor of ten or more and one can perceive that secular obliquity leaves a signature on Temp anomaly but does not dictate over the whole glacial cycle. A change in ‘Mean’ position is far more determining than the small secular oscillation.–

    Well it reminds of whole grand solar max and grand solar min thing- and the Milankovitch cycles.
    A bit older ideas which are probably going to get more refined, soon. Or I think we could in the middle of experiment and we have the capacity to see it.
    And roughly related, I hope the Parker Probe goes well [and with some unexpected results].

  96. A great and “coincidental” moment to reconnect.

    I haven’t even read Climate Science blogs for years now. I had long concluded that not only was AGW a mass of unspeakably bad science, but also that even the once-wonderful WUWT was rudely dissing the good science that was showing the keys were insolation and atmospheric pressure. I saw also the mocking, unscientific dismissals of the Electric Universe material and a lot more, pushed aside, without due diligence or true scientific enquiry, as “pseudoscience”.

    So for years I’ve looked for the spiritual roots of this corruption of Science – which, frankly, I had never dreamed could happen – and the spiritual keys to its healing and transformation. In the coming year I shall be putting my material online – but for the moment I am just refreshing my contacts, and absolutely delighted to see that Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller are ploughing on, still supported by Rog Tallbloke, with the excellent backing of the NASA data.

    Comment: It would be really useful, Ned, if you could put the x-axis scale logarithmically, or whatever is needed to show a straight-line graph. This would show correlation more precisely – and be more immediately convincing – a pic being worth 1000 words.

    Comment: I’d like to know your thoughts as to why Titan is an outlier.

    I’m also delighted to see that two of my posts still rate in the most-commented posts – on the experiments that the German ethical engineer Graeff ran (I think he has died) that provide keen and exact experimental and theoretical backup for Loschmidt’s Gravito-Thermal effect. This is what’s at work behind the adiabatic lapse rates, which can be seen at work from Clark Maxwell’s bedroom windows, as the snowline on the Pentland hills – which is why it’s so surprising that this great scientist made such an elementary and unscientific mistake in doubting Loschmidt, that then allowed Arrhenius’ monster to be born.

  97. ptolemy2 says:

    Ned Nikolov
    This is a new insight made only possible thanks to analyzing Earth’s temperature in the larger context of other planetary bodies in our Solar System. One cannot deduce this easily by looking at Earth alone, which explains why most scientists think that oceans control Earth’s global temperature. They don’t!

    So earth’s temperature is not due to water.
    Water being liquid on earth is due to earth’s temperature.

  98. gbaikie says:

    –Stephen Wilde says:
    January 20, 2019 at 9:46 am
    Ned is correct that our oceans have no effect on the ATE.
    As I’ve explained elsewhere, the amount of solar energy that the oceans can retain is determined by the weight of atmosphere bearing down on the surface which sets the energy cost of evaporation.
    Thus the mass of the atmosphere sets both the ATE and the temperature of the oceans.
    However, as per my Hot Water Bottle Effect the thermal inertia of the oceans is so large that the oceans are responsible for virtually all climate related phenomena in our water world.
    That inertia creates temporary divergences from the underlying ATE over time and we see those divergences as climate variation.
    The primary source of those divergences is internal ocean cycles and associated effects on global albedo via cloudiness changes.
    Changes in albedo mimic changes in TSI and thus can affect the ATE but all such changes are fully reversible over time.
    No possible changes in atmospheric composition can have any measurable effect against oceanic variations unless atmospheric mass also changes.–

    Say you double the mass of Mars atmosphere.
    Does that increase it’s average air temperature?

    With a doubled mass of of Mars atmosphere, water boils at higher temperature, and there can have lakes of liquid water on Mars.
    Now, add a tropical ocean in mars or series lakes and basically the water depth is not lot- say about 100 meter depth or less. And this is trillions of tonnes of water.
    Does the tropical ocean increase average temperature of Mars?

    I believe there is enough sunlight to cause the water to liquid, but one can also consider that water has few inches of ice on top of them [and ice is transparent].
    And also if there enough surface area of water, it prevents more evaporation as compare to one small pond of water.

  99. E.M.Smith says:

    @Lucy Skywalker:

    Nice to see you back…. Yeah, I found some of the blinkered view at WUWT a bit tedious too…

  100. Jan Braam says:

    This question needs to be answered.
    In the 2017 paper there are nothing but platitudes on this subject.
    No doubt the overall outcome and the math in the paper are correct, but it weakens a satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon.

  101. Lucy, I understand the data on Titan is limited and not precise. No craft has entered Titan’s atmosphere so the pressure at the surface is not exactly known nor is the composition of the atmosphere. I understand methane (CH4) there acts somewhat like water vapour on Earth. It rains methane and there are lakes of hydocarbons. What is needed is a probe that goes into orbit around Titan and the lands and takes off to come back to Earth. That makes more sense than going out to Pluto or Mercury. There could be life on Titan but not on Pluto or Mercury.

  102. oldbrew says:

    The graphic below is from a 2013 paper: Oceanography on Saturn’s Moon, Titan
    Ralph D. Lorenz
    https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/Oceans2013.pdf

    Taking the 4th root of the solar irradiance difference between Earth and Saturn:
    4th root of (14.82 / 1361) = 0.323033
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    Data source:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20180529214002/https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturnfact.html

    Temp at 1 bar on Earth = 288K
    Temp at 1 bar on Titan = ~85K [see graphic]
    288K * 0.323033 = 93.033K

    So this rough calc. is only ~10% off the observation.

    The paper says Titan’s temperature is 94K at the surface (at 1.5 bar).


    = = =

  103. Steve Richards says:

    Ned,

    I am happy that you have derived a formula that fits the real world, leaving opportunities to see if it predicts the remaining bodies. Good science.

    My only area of concern is from your paper:

    “adding a force such as gas pressure to a physical system inevitably boosts the internal kinetic energy and raises its temperature, a process known in thermodynamics as compression heating. The direct effect of pressure on a system’s temperature is thermodynamically described by adiabatic processes. The pressure-induced thermal enhancement at a planetary level portrayed in Figure 4 and accurately quantified by Eq. (10a or 11) is analogous to a compression heating, but not fully identical to an adiabatic process. The latter is usually characterized by a limited duration and oftentimes only applies to finite-size parcels of air moving vertically through the atmosphere. Equation (11), on the other hand, describes a surface thermal effect that is global in scope and
    permanent in nature as long as an atmospheric mass is present within the planet’s gravitational field. ….. could be understood as a net result of countless simultaneous adiabatic processes continuously operating in the free atmosphere.”.

    Where you mentioned ‘compression heating’ and, luckily, ‘not fully identical to…’

    Are you sure you wish to retain the reference to transitory ‘compression heating’?

    Would it be more consistent to say that higher pressures create higher gas densities which are impacted more by the photon pressure of direct sun light, leading to the effect you document in your formula?

  104. Brett Keane says:

    Lucy Skywalker: yes, welcome back. I would appreciate learning more about Maxwell’s apparent change in outlook, as you say, to what we now call GTE/ATE etc.. In “Theory of Heat”, pp330-350, he leans the other way. I have been trying to learn more about Maxwell’s work on Atmospheric gas physics since Hockeyschtick brought this up….. Seems like you are in Scotland now? Brett Keane, NZ

  105. Hi, Lucy.
    Since we last exchanged views I have created a narrative that supports the views of Ned and others as follows:

    i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.

    Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.

    On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere and, since surface heating is uneven, gas density differentials arise in the horizontal plane so that warmer, less dense, Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath and convective overturning of the atmosphere has begun.

    After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.

    The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.

    There will be a lapse rate slope whereby the air becomes cooler with height due to expansion (via the Gas Laws) as it rises along the line of decreasing density with height. That density gradient is created by the pull of gravity on the individual molecules of the Nitrogen atmosphere.

    At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.

    During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.

    Thus we have a very simplified climate system without radiative gases consisting of one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.

    ii) The thermal consequences of convective overturning.

    On the illuminated side, conduction is absorbing energy from the surface the temperature of which as observed from space initially appears to drop below the figure predicted by the S-B equation. Instead of being radiated straight out to space a portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is being diverted into conduction and convection. Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction. The surface temperature drops to to 222K when observed from space. Those figures are illustrative only since there is dispute about the actual numbers for the scale of the so called greenhouse effect.

    On the dark side the descending Nitrogen warms as it falls to the surface and when it reaches the surface the cold surface will rapidly pull some of that initially conducted energy (obtained from the illuminated side) out of the descending Nitrogen so that the surface and the Nitrogen in contact with it will become warmer than it otherwise would have been, namely by 33K.

    One can see how effectively a cold, solid surface will draw heat from the atmospheric gases by noting the development of radiation fog above cold surfaces on Earth. The cold surface quickly reduces the ground level atmospheric temperature to a point below the dew point.

    That less cold Nitrogen then flows via advection across the surface back to the illuminated side which is then being supplied with Nitrogen at the surface which is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been.

    That describes the first convective overturning cycle only.

    The key point at that stage is that, as soon as the first cycle completes, the second convective cycle does not need to take any further energy from incoming solar radiation because the necessary energy is being advected in by winds from the unlit side. The full effect of continuing insolation can then be experienced once more.

    ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K

    Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would still show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.

    In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.”

    As yet I have not been given a serious rebuttal of that narrative.

  106. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ Steve Richards: January 21, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    Hi Steve,

    In planetary atmospheres, air density is a function of pressure and temperature. It’s NOT a predictor or diver of temperature. This can be seen in the fact that air density varies with temperature across latitudes while sea-level pressure remains almost constant. Air density at the Equator is lower compared to that at the Poles because Solar heating is much stronger at the Equator… The surface temperature is controlled by solar radiation and total pressure.

    The pressure of EM radiation is different from air pressure. It’s not at all that radiation pressure somehow translates into air pressure. These 2 pressures are controlled by entirely different mechanisms and should not be confused with each other…

  107. gbaikie says:

    “…Where you mentioned ‘compression heating’ and, luckily, ‘not fully identical to…’

    Are you sure you wish to retain the reference to transitory ‘compression heating’?

    Would it be more consistent to say that higher pressures create higher gas densities which are impacted more by the photon pressure of direct sun light,
    leading to the effect you document in your formula?”

    I would agree that is better way to say it.

    Thermosphere of Earth has fast moving air molecules but they lack air density. And solar wind is much faster and lacks far less density.

    I would think a super dense body with a strong gravity field could more effectively capture solar wind and make the solar wind more dense and have a hot thermosphere with enough density that unlike thermosphere could transfer heat via convection.

    Or the thermosphere of Earth doesn’t heat atmosphere much because Earth gravity not strong enough- if Earth had 10 times it’s mass, it would allow the thermosphere to significantly increase it’s heating of earth’s atmosphere.

  108. Ned and Steve.

    Air density is a function of pressure and temperature

    BUT

    density determines the effectiveness of conduction relative to radiation.

    It is the relationship between conduction and radiation that determines surface temperature and in particular how far the surface temperature will deviate from the prediction derived from the S-B equation.

    So, the more conduction you have relative to the amount of radiation that is potentially available from the ambient temperature then the higher the surface temperature will rise above that predicted from the S-B equation. Conduction occurs at the expense of radiation but the radiative theorists do not accept that.

    Since density determines the efficiency of conduction then it is a predictor of the extent to which surface temperature will rise above the S-B prediction.

    Radiation pressure and air pressure are driven by separate mechanisms in that air pressure is driven by the non radiative processes of conduction and convection via the Gas Laws whereas the radiation pressure ignores non radiative processes.

    You have to combine both mechanisms (Gas Laws and radiation) to ascertain the extent to which the actual surface temperature will deviate from the S-B prediction and my post at January 21st 6.30 pm duly describes the relevant non radiative mechanism that results in that divergence.

  109. Hello Brett, nice to hear you too.

    I don’t see Maxwell as changing his opinions; I drew on the Loschmidt story https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/resolving-misconceptions-about-the-nikolov-and-zeller-universal-theory-of-climate/#comment-136170 which refreshed my memory. IIUC, this disbelief of Maxwell actually contradicts the very Second Law of Thermodynamics that he was so much responsible for developing – and to me, it should have been obvious to him.

    I do not live in Scotland: I went on pilgrimage to visit the places he and Lord Kelvin frequented, to come as close to them in spirit as I could; it was thus that I did visit a family estate where he would have stayed, that has just the view I described. To me, the snowline on mountains – but actually all horizontal cloud lines – are in-your-face proofs of pressure driving temperature.

    It is Roderich Graeff alone, AFAIK, who set up sufficiently rigorous experiments, excluding convection, that, with modern electrical devices to measure tiny changes, has demonstrated this with such elegance and simplicity that it ought to be in all the textbooks. I’m drawing on six years’ memory when I say that the Second Law (in its generally accepted but slightly faulty formulation that goes back to Maxwell’s error) is starting to get carefully designed experimental challenges, (I forget the US professor’s name, he was in contact with Graeff), but I think Graeff’s work beats all else I’ve seen hands down.

    And of course it supports Nikolov and Zeller, and works to undo the GHG thesis.

  110. E.M.Smith says:

    The one issue I have with the “pressure determines temperature” thesis is that the Earth global pressure is nearly constant, yet the S.Pole runs way below 0 C while the Sahara can be close to 50 C.

    Clearly some other factors apply too…

  111. EMS, pressure drives – ie directly affects – temperature: it does not determine it absolutely. Poles-to-equator shows insolation as another driver. Subtle difference in words, great difference in meaning.

  112. okulaer says:

    Ned Nikolov says, January 20, 2019 at 7:06 pm:

    You have misunderstood what I’ve said.

    Ned. Are you saying that a planet’s T_s is determined simply by its atmospheric pressure at the surface and its distance from the Sun, its albedo irrelevant, or aren’t you.

    You do understand that your “findings” will never be taken seriously until you address the fact that albedo crucially matters, by thermodynamic necessity. Reflected SW does not contribute to a planet’s T_s. And the SW that is reflected is taken from the incoming SW, the TSI. So in what capacity does TSI contribute to a planet’s T_s. As one of two parts making up the NET SW, the solar heat, the ASR.

    Please, read our 2014 paper to learn about the proper way to apply the S-B radiation law to a sphere. Learn about Holder’s inequality and why it makes the effective emission temperature physically meaningless!

    Yeah, condescension helps your argument.

    All your arguments are addressed and explained in our papers.

    No, they’re not. You’re evading.

  113. okulaer says:

    Ben Wouters says, January 20, 2019 at 6:24 pm:

    I don’t know what you said, but do know what you wrote:

    Yes. You, however, apparently didn’t catch it.

    “The presence of our atmosphere on top of the global surface makes the SURFACE warmer on average than if the atmosphere weren’t there. With the ocean SURFACE much warmer than the ocean layers further down, any heat from below trying to escape the ocean will have a HARDER time than if the surface were as cold as space (or the Moon).”

    Yes, and what does that mean, Ben? The surface insulates the layers underneath.

    All of a sudden you agree with me.

    No, not “all of a sudden”. I told you before you told me.

  114. gbaikie says:

    –i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.

    Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.–

    Have rocky planet same size as Earth.
    Have basin centered on Sun’s zenith. Have sun same as our sun and same distance, 1 AU.
    Basin is 4 km deep and 5550 km in radius. Have “rim wall” 1 km high. Or basin floor is 5 km lower than rim wall top.
    Earth’s atmosphere mass is about 5.1 x 10^18 kg. Dump at floor of basin 5.1 x 10^18 kg of nitrogen at -40 C.
    At some point after sun has warmed the nitrogen, some of nitrogen gas will leave the basin above the rim wall.
    Or alternatively, one could pour liquid nitrogen instead and make lake of liquid nitrogen which some where around 100 meter deep.
    Let’s do math.
    Liquid nitrogen have density of 0.807 g/ml or 804 kg per cubic meter or or per cubic km of 8.07 x 10^8 kg
    And area of 5550 km radius circle is 96.768826 million square km or less than 1/5th of the 510 million square km of Earth.
    Since a degree of latitude is about 111 km, this circle extends to 50 degree North, South, East and West from the point of the Sun’s zenith.

    5.1 x 10^18 / 510 million square km or 510 million million square meters is 1 x10^4 per square meter or 1 x 10^10 per square km
    5.1 x 10^18 / 96.768826 million square km is 5.27 x10^4 per square meter and 5.27 x 10^10 per square km. or about 52,700 kg per square meter.
    52,700 / 804 kg per cubic meter.
    Or as liquid nitrogen , a 65.55 meter deep lake.

    But anyhow it seems if using simply cold nitrogen gas [-40 C], the gas would mostly stay in basin until it warmed up.
    And one could ask, would it warm up?
    And I assume it does.

    Now, one ask some other questions.
    Would the nitrogen gas warm the most where it’s nearest the zenith point.
    Would, before the air go over the rim wall, create large dome of air- higher near zenith point and lower near the rim walls.
    So standing 49 degrees latitude or longitude from point of zenith on basin floor.
    90 – 49 = 41. So the Sun is 41 degree above the horizon..
    And you have about 52,000 kg of air over each square meter. And on Earth you have 10,000 kg of air over each square meter. Or you have 5 times more atmosphere above you.
    Other than more atmosphere, it’s like being at 41 degree latitude at noon and clear skies and it’s at spring or fall equinox. Though the sun stay always at noon. And solar panels would work great.
    You get less energy as compare to noon, no clouds, and it’s a constant power supply.
    Other questions:
    Before air goes over rim, it does not seem like there would be much wind?
    Yes? No?
    After air goes over rim, it seems one get some wind, but still not much.
    After air goes over rim, and there less air in basin, it seems to me, the basin would be warmer.
    Yes? No?

  115. Thanks Stephen for all that effort. However, I still prefer to work with Nikolov and Zeller’s material direct because it works in a rigorous and essentially simple albeit mind-stretching mathematical way from the whole to the parts:

    first the CORRECTED application of S-B calculus to a rotating spherical airless grey body;

    then the effect of pressure is added;

    then the NASA data can be seen to closely fit the calculations for each planet or satellite, and thus strongly verify the causative effect of INSOLATION, atmospheric PRESSURE, and ALBEDO on surface temperature

    and only when this basic framework is in place, can the other major factors be considered that give us weather as we experience it with all its complex, beautiful and subtle variations. This is the wonder: such phenomenal variety within a tight overall framework. It reminds me of the String Figures we used to play with as children, weaving ever-more-complex patterns but always from a single loop.

    N&Z have the fundamental loop.

  116. Ben Wouters says:

    okulaer says: January 22, 2019 at 10:50 am
    I’ll assume you are now okulaer iso Kristian.

    “The presence of our atmosphere on top of the global surface makes the SURFACE warmer on average than if the atmosphere weren’t there.

    Yes, but this does NOT imply that the atmosphere increases the surface temperature.
    The oceans have been much warmer in the distant past.
    They have been and will continue to cool down until the the input of solar energy equals the energy loss at TOA.

    Simple question:
    Do you accept that solar energy is sufficient to warm the mixed surface layer and explains the small temperature increase during spring/summer as eg in the profile below?

  117. Ben Wouters says:

    Lucy Skywalker says: January 22, 2019 at 12:25 am

    To me, the snowline on mountains – but actually all horizontal cloud lines – are in-your-face proofs of pressure driving temperature.

    Since almost every cloud we see is the result of RISING air reaching 100% relative humidity and the air continuing to rise and condensate forming the cloud, how does eg a nice flat cloud-base show that pressure drives temperature?

  118. David A says:

    Just trying to get a handle on the mechanism of pressure heating. Clearly, sans insolation, a heavy dense earth size atmosphere would have very little to no T. (I suppose at some point adequate mass creates a star)

    So is not the mechanism by which pressure determines T the combination of insolation and mass or thermal capacity?

    ” There are only two things that can change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, a change of input, or a change of the residence time of energy within the system.”
    (David’s Law (-;

    So increasing an atmosphere is increasing the residence time of thermalized energy in the atmosphere. Constant input plus increased residence time equals increased energy which can be thermalized.

    Is not the mechanism of greater atmospheric pressure an increased residence time of incoming solar radiation?

  119. Ben, the snowline is a more unequivocal pic than the horizontal cloud lines. But there too, dewpoint is reached through falling temperature through falling pressure. See my articles on Graeff for rigorous proof of these phenomena which are merely suggestive pictures at this stage. See also N&Z 2011 section 3.3 re.the evidence of exactitude of fit, and other evidence, suggestive of link between pressure and temperature.

  120. wildeco2014 says:

    Yes
    In particular, the time taken by convective overturning to convert surface KE to atmospheric PE within rising columns and the reverse in descending columns.
    Since it works for a non radiative atmosphere it cannot be anything to do with ghgs. You cannot prevent convection so as to produce an isothermal atmosphere as proposed by Willis Eschenbach and Roy Spencer
    It is just a product of atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field and insolation combined with conduction and convection.

  121. I decided I needed to refresh my memory to be sure of my ground. It was a fruitful exercise: below is my summary of N&Z’s essential contribution to Science, for which they surely deserve the Nobel Prize.

    Their problem is that people balk on their mathematical essentials and meander into timewasting inessential details, both scientific and emotional. I cannot follow the maths proof through with complete rigour myself, but I can see enough to see that N&Z have indeed located the prime scientific-mathematical key to getting the scientific foundations right for Climate Science. But the key issues need to be easily accessible and understandable by anyone remotely scientifically literate.

    This is what I want to keep on coming back to.

    Alongside the fundamental scientific issues, we have, of course, all the ethical, moral, spiritual, emotional issues involved in the systematic corruption of one department of Science. Sure, we need to address issues that people will actually listen to, and we need to address the greatest issues of corruption and confusion. But we also need the bedrock of mathematically and experimentally verifiable Science – and we need to improve transparency and comprehensibility of key issues.

    I’ve just received “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrighthouse, which is exemplary in many ways. Yet even so, I would like to see distilled from his book a website to mirror Skeptical Science; and a presentation that can be taken around and discussed. Monckton has done a great Foreword. But even here, the scientific fundamentals that N&Z have taken to heart, are not questioned – and they need to be.

    With all this in mind, I have highlighted, in the following summary, the central issues connected with difficulty in following the key maths – issues that, of course, many here suspect that those like Tricks, Roy Spencer, Willis Eschenbach, and even the otherwise-spot-on-and-mathematically-savvy Lord Monckton have not grasped.

    It would be good for all Science if we could have, essentially, a lay-reader-friendly, simple, picture-rich account of N&Z’s basic work. I’ve drawn largely on N&Z’s original (2011) UTC paper.

    And it would be good to add to this the work of Graeff, which backs up the pressure thesis with simple but rigorous experiments and brilliant theory.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    UNIFIED THEORY OF CLIMATE 2011
    https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/unified_theory_of_climate.pdf

    Three key problems are identified with the current “greenhouse gas” theory. (2a) is the essential part.

    (2a) The average gray-body temperature has been calculated incorrectly, by the whole of official science!! It has used the Stefan-Bolzman equation without properly, mathematically, allowing for the effect of the grey-body Earth being a sphere. This effect cannot be added or multiplied in linear fashion because the S-B law invokes a relationship to the fourth power; and respecting Hölder’s Inequality, the whole equation needs to be redeveloped from first principles, integrating the radiative effects at every point on the sphere (or rather, hemisphere, since insolation only reaches one side). We end up with a double integration.

    The mathematics here may be hard for laymen to verify – but this correction is absolutely essential – it cannot be emphasised strongly enough that this is foundational for the whole of Climate Science. And although those who are mathematically literate are in a minority, there are still enough in that minority able to verify that the equations currently used in official Climate Science are seriously wrong. Go check N&Z’s original at this point. Go check Hölder’s Inequality there.

    (2b) is about the model simulations’ predictions only really using conduction, and omitting convection. I haven’t checked fully: it is not essential at this point.

    (2c) According to measured observations (not theory), the Earth-Atmosphere System absorbs on average a net solar flux of 239 W m-2, while the lower troposphere alone emits 343 W m-2 thermal radiation toward the surface. This is 44% more radiation toward the surface than the total solar flux absorbed by the entire Earth-Atmosphere System. Radiative transfer alone cannot explain this effect, given the negligible heat storage capacity of air.

    This third problem (2c) gives the clue as to what is amiss in current Climate Science. Simply put, it is missing the warming effect of the weight of the atmosphere – the pressure – as is clearly demonstrated by snowlines on mountains, and – partially but far more frequently – by flat undersides and flat layering of clouds. This is governed very simply by the Ideal Gas Law PV = nRT [P is pressure, V is volume, n is the gas amount (mole), R is the universal gas constant, and T is the temperature K]. It does not need to invoke Hölder’s Inequality.

    The so-called Greenhouse Effect depends solely on atmospheric volume and pressure, not on any “greenhouse gas” effect – at all!

    (from 3.3) Our analysis of interplanetary data in Table 1 found no meaningful relationships between Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) and variables such as total absorbed solar radiation by planets or the amount of greenhouse gases in their atmospheres. However, we discovered that ATE was strongly related to total surface pressure through a nearly perfect regression fit. The tight relationship signals a causal effect of pressure on ATE, which is theoretically supported by the Ideal Gas Law.

    This then is the energy responsible for keeping the Earth’s surface 133K warmer than it would be in the absence of atmosphere; it is the SOURCE for the observed 44% extra down-welling LW (long wave) flux in the lower troposphere. Similarly, the kinetic energy of pressure is the reason that Venus, with its 93 times more massive atmosphere than Earth, has a 450K warmer surface despite absorbing 32% less solar radiation than our Planet. What keeps the surface of Venus so immensely hot is not a ‘runaway greenhouse effect, but the sheer magnitude of its atmospheric pressure. The atmosphere does not act as a ‘blanket’ reducing the surface infrared cooling to space as maintained by the current greenhouse theory, but is in itself a source of extra energy through pressure.

  122. Ben Wouters says:

    Lucy Skywalker says: January 22, 2019 at 1:50 pm

    Ben, the snowline is a more unequivocal pic than the horizontal cloud lines.

    Are you familiar with the Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity our atmosphere is in?
    (as is any atmosphere or any sun for that matter))
    This is where the relationship between temperature / pressure / density plays out. This is the diabatic part of the atmospheric system, energy flowing from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to space.
    The adiabatic part is rising/ sinking volumes (parcels) of air within this Hydrostaic Equilibrium.

  123. Ben Wouters says:

    Lucy Skywalker says: January 22, 2019 at 2:08 pm
    Their mathematics are complex, but a very much simplified approach gives the same result.
    The 255K Te is nonsense, ~165K is much closer to the truth.
    see
    https://www.sciencetalks.nl/heating-the-natural-greenhouse/#comment-49
    and my subsequent comments.

  124. Ben, you are surely mistaken. Re-read N&Z 2011 section 2.1.A. and my comment on it. I went to your link but your comments lack the necessary rigour. They don’t mention the question of mistaken formula and how to correct it. You cannot simplify it at this point beyond what N&Z do.

    The Hydrostatic Equilibrium you mention is an irrelevant detail. You don’t need to worry about it, to prove the part pressure plays. My concern is with the core issues. I gave pics that suggest the truth, but do not of themselves prove it. N&Z’s exactitude of fit, from planetary data, is even more highly suggestive. But you need to go to Graeff’s work for the rigorous experimental proof and lucid theoretical explanation.

  125. Ben, I do want to say, thank you for commenting. It does make me think and I am grateful for that.

  126. Ben Wouters says:

    Lucy Skywalker says: January 22, 2019 at 3:31 pm

    The Hydrostatic Equilibrium you mention is an irrelevant detail.

    Actually HE is the most important mechanism in our atmosphere.
    – it explains why we even have an atmosphere
    – it explains how temperature differences on the surface drive the Hadley circulation, jet streams etc
    – it explains how convection works.
    – is a basic assumption in calculating the dry adiabatic lapse rate
    – ??

    So no, not an irrelevant detail. Suggest to read up on HE.

  127. oldbrew says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    It would be good for all Science if we could have, essentially, a lay-reader-friendly, simple, picture-rich account of N&Z’s basic work. I’ve drawn largely on N&Z’s original (2011) UTC paper.

    Ned N’s Twitter account could help with that: NikolovScience

  128. Ben Wouters says:

    Lucy Skywalker says: January 22, 2019 at 3:31 pm

    Ben, you are surely mistaken.

    Mistaken about what exactly?

    From https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

    The difference between the nominal global
    mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the
    global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K)
    is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS – TE = 33 K).

    They DID use the “back of the envelope” calculation resulting in Te.

  129. Pablo says:

    Both the Moon and Earth have very hot cores with a thermal gradient to the surface.
    At a certain depth this provides the perfect insulator for any heat loss downwards from the solar warmed surface.
    On the moon, from Apollo readings, this appears to be in the region of 1m down at a steady minus 21ºC .
    On Earth this temperature stable depth, away from diurnal and annual variation, is in the region of 15m down at 15ºC.
    This temperature is fixed to the average temperature of the air.
    As there is no air to measure the temperature of on the Moon, all we have is this indication of the difference an atmosphere can make to the solid surface storage of solar energy. A difference of 36ºC…pretty close to the “greenhouse effect” of 33ºC.

  130. Ben W: Actually HE is the most important mechanism in our atmosphere.
    – it explains why we even have an atmosphere
    – it explains how temperature differences on the surface drive the Hadley circulation, jet streams etc
    – it explains how convection works.
    – is a basic assumption in calculating the dry adiabatic lapse rate

    I’m not denying this. Of course it’s key to weather. I’m saying it’s irrelevant to the basic climate determinants which I will again list: insolation, albedo and atmospheric pressure, which is what N&Z are about. I need to keep to the core issue. I will also repeat: it is within these basic determinants that the amazing variations happen. Dependent on water – of course.

    I followed your NASA link, it led to this page overseen by Gavin Schmidt: “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere . . .”

    Thanks but no thanks. What you are mistaken about is (as I said once and will say again) ignoring the official and corrected formulas, thinking you can bypass them. I say again, you cannot. And if Schmidt also bypassed even the official formula, so much more bad science. I know this leopard of old.

  131. Ned Nikolov says:

    Pablo,

    The 33 C “Greenhouse effect” is the result of a mathematically wrong calculation. It’s a physically meaningless estimate! The thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is about 90 C. We have a whole paper devoted to this issue. Please see:

    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

  132. Pablo says:

    Ned
    I love your paper..and I’m sure your maths is correct.
    I just thought I would would throw that out there as a more intuitive view.

  133. Oldbrew says:
    Ned N’s Twitter account could help with that: NikolovScience

    Thanks a lot, Oldbrew. It’s great! Certainly here, Twitter is working wonderfully.

    [reply] 🙂

  134. Ben Wouters says:

    Lucy Skywalker says: January 22, 2019 at 4:42 pm

    I’m saying it’s irrelevant to the basic climate determinants which I will again list: insolation, albedo and atmospheric pressure

    Those determinants are exactly what the first point is all about:
    – it explains why we even have an atmosphere

    Gravity pulls every molecule in the atmosphere towards the surface.
    The reason the atmosphere does not collapse is its internal pressure.
    At every altitude this pressure must be just enough to carry the weight of the remaining atmosphere above that level. If not, rising / sinking of the parcel involved will correct the situation.

    Using averages: Earth loses ~240 W/m^2 to space, of which ~40 W/m^2 comes directly from the surface (Atmospheric window) So the atmosphere radiates ~200 W/m^2 to space.
    This loss has to be compensated, mostly from the surface.
    So we have ~200 W/m^2 energy flow from surface through the atmosphere to space.
    This energy has to be distributed in such a way that the temperature (~pressure) at every altitude is correct to carry the weight of the rest of the atmosphere above.

    This is what HE is about.

    This atmosphere is capable of reducing the energy flow from the surface to space, but no, the atmosphere does not heat the surface. And this is not necessary either.

  135. tom0mason says:

    I have little argument with Nikolov & Zeller ideas, I do however have a lot to ask about the the 2013 IPCC AR5 energy-budget diagram, aka Trenberth et al. silly cartoon.
    To me the lack of energy allowed for all the life on earth to use is outstanding!
    Has it taken zero (solar) energy for the human population to grow from half a billion in 1600 to today’s 7.25 billion? Has all the plants and animals that we consume and have also take zero energy from the incoming solar quantity?
    And what about ALL the rest of life on this planet? Life that continuously sequesters away solar energy in the form of chemical bonds, only to release it later — hours or less, days, years, centurys, 1000s of years later. From peat bogs to the build-up of deep ocean sludges it all started from solar energy. Some of this solar energy may not be fully released until life on this planet has long ceased to be.

  136. I’m sorry Ben, I cannot keep answering you. I prefer N&Z.

  137. gbaikie says:

    –okulaer says:
    January 22, 2019 at 10:45 am
    Ned Nikolov says, January 20, 2019 at 7:06 pm:

    You have misunderstood what I’ve said.

    Ned. Are you saying that a planet’s T_s is determined simply by its atmospheric pressure at the surface and its distance from the Sun, its albedo irrelevant, or aren’t you.

    You do understand that your “findings” will never be taken seriously until you address the fact that albedo crucially matters, by thermodynamic necessity. Reflected SW does not contribute to a planet’s T_s. And the SW that is reflected is taken from the incoming SW, the TSI. So in what capacity does TSI contribute to a planet’s T_s. As one of two parts making up the NET SW, the solar heat, the ASR.–

    I don’t think albedo has much to do with temperature, rather it’s more about the amount sunlight absorbed.
    And there greater factors related to how much is absorbed as compared to what albedo does control in terms of how much is absorbed.

    An atmosphere can increase the amount sunlight which is absorbed, yet the atmosphere reflects sunlight.
    Earth’s atmosphere is significant part of what causes earth to absorb as much sunlight as it does.
    Earth atmosphere absorbs as much sunlight [or more] than Venus which closer to the Sun and has about twice as much sunlight- or about 2600 watts per square meter.

    Earth at Venus distance would absorb more energy than Earth currently does.
    If Earth were placed at Venus distance, the most significant thing is the Earth ocean would steadily increase in temperature, but ocean would boil, and warming the earth oceans would take centuries.

    So earth ocean average temperature of less than 5 C would eventually become about +30 C.
    Earth ocean surface temperature would increase in temperature a lot quicker as compared to entire ocean, but still the average surface temperature would require years to decades. To warm up.
    So ocean surface of Earth is about 17 C and at Venus distance from Sun the ocean surface temperature would require years to warm to +30 C. Whereas land surface temperature is a more immediate effect. Though land surface air temperature is related to ocean surface temperature and would be delayed to some extent by the delay to warm the ocean surface temperature.

    So, deserts would immediately get hotter sand temperature, which in turn cause higher local air surface temperature to increase [by a lot and pretty much immediately] but over time [years] these desert ground and surface air temperatures would get even hotter.

    Earth on average emits about 240 watts- Venus emits less and our Moon emits less.
    What is remarkable about Earth is the amount sunlight it absorbs and emits.
    And one could argue [mainly due to semantics] whether Earth absorbs more and emits more than Mercury. But one could say Earth warms up slower than Mercury warmer up.
    Or put Earth at Mercury distance and like at Venus distance, Earth would require a lot time to warm up.
    And of course in terms of slowly, I not really accounting for cloud formation and the increase planetary albedo, which would further slow down how quickly Earth warms up.

    Or clouds on Earth are largely related to how fast Earth heats up. Global clear skies, heats up more quickly [and also radiates more quickly]. Or more precisely clear skies over tropical ocean heats up more quickly as compared to more clouds over tropical ocean.
    Or it’s complicated to say, but if Earth is at Venus distance, as result be could a near complete cloud cover over the tropical ocean [and tropics in general].
    If that was the case, Earth warm more slowly than I said.
    But in any case, Earth at Venus distance would not be as hot as Venus, ever, or perhaps safer to say, within a million years.

  138. gbaikie says:

    “but ocean would boil,”
    Meant: but ocean would not boil,

  139. gbaikie says:

    –Ned Nikolov says:
    January 22, 2019 at 4:42 pm
    Pablo,

    The 33 C “Greenhouse effect” is the result of a mathematically wrong calculation. It’s a physically meaningless estimate! The thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is about 90 C. We have a whole paper devoted to this issue. —

    That an ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1 AU is about 5 C is not meaningless.
    That minus 23 K from from it, is wrong. And don’t see any improvement with removing more from it.

    Or what you doing in a sense with minus 23 K, is effectively making Earth further from the sun.
    Or is sort of like if Earth was at 1.2 AU.
    And likewise you seem to be putting Earth somewhere beyond Mars.

    The average temperature of Earth does say not much. Roughly it say Earth average of 15 C means Earth seems quite cold. Or you probably don’t want to live at a constant temperature of 15 C if you are a tropical creature, and the human being is a tropical creature.
    Though since we have things like houses and clothes, 15 C is OK. Or the homeless have a rough time with 15 C.
    One also say 15 C is OK because a large portion of Earth are at sea level. And humans don’t live in the sky or under or in the ocean.

    One thing the greenhouse effect theory and it’s global budgets, should prove is that solar energy harvesting at the surface human live at, is that, it is a very bad idea. But even worst if you living in area higher than 50 degree latitude- like the Germans or some place like Seattle or some god forsaken cloudy place.

    What is important in terms of global climate and living in a icebox climate at present time, is the average temperature of the entire Ocean.
    Though if interested only in near term future, it would be the average surface temperature of the ocean, which is about 17 C. Or if Humans were whales, they probably would consider ocean surface temperature as somewhat important. Or if Humans lived only in elevation, we would have lower average temperature. And since Human mostly live on Land, then they might be interested in average land surface temperature, which is about 10 C. So lowland people about 10 C and highland people about 0 C.
    So average surface atmosphere is about 15 C, and it’s the surface not entire atmosphere or the entire troposphere.

    But as said what important in terms of average temperature is average ocean temperature because it’s determines whether we are living in glacial period or an interglacial period. And most of last million years was during a glacial period. And nature will return us, to glacial period.

    Anyhow as chance would have it, our ocean average temperature is less than 5 C. And ideal thermally conductive blackbody indicate our planet should be about 5 C.
    Gravity affects your surface a temperature. Warmest waters at the top, and warmest air at the bottom. And so if living at bottom of atmosphere and near the ocean elevation it’s around 15 C on average.
    Now, if we had twice as much atmosphere or 1/2 as much atmosphere, I assume your theory would predict different average global temperature at the surface where we live.
    I am not sure that twice as much atm would make Earth warmer, or that 1/2 atm would make it cooler.
    I start with question does it make the entire ocean warmer or cooler.
    1/2 as much atmosphere would mean atmosphere absorbs less energy and seems important in terms having a more uniform land air temperature. But it’s seems more sunlight reaches the surface, and so surface can absorb more energy. And obviously twice as much does about the opposite- less sunlight warming the surface, and more capacity of atmosphere to absorb energy.
    It also mean cold air, is even colder- one has more convectional heat loss. Or if air is 15 C, it’s colder air [feels colder and is colder]. With 1/2 the atmosphere cold or warm air feels less cold or warm. Runners are going to overheat, as will cars.

    Now air temperature doesn’t warm surface of ocean or it’s depth and seems to me more atmosphere cools ocean as prevents more sunlight from reaching it..

  140. David A says:

    Lucy says, “Simply put, it is missing the warming effect of the weight of the atmosphere – the pressure – as is clearly demonstrated by snow-lines on mountains, and –…”

    Lucy could you ( or anyone ) explain the mechanism of this pressure T correlation?

    I took a stab at it at 1:40 a few comments back.

  141. gbaikie says:

    –tom0mason says:
    January 22, 2019 at 10:53 pm
    I have little argument with Nikolov & Zeller ideas, I do however have a lot to ask about the the 2013 IPCC AR5 energy-budget diagram, aka Trenberth et al. silly cartoon.–

    A problem with energy-budget diagram is it divides amount sunlight and amount of reflected sunlight by 4 [to represent entire sphere of Earth]. Of course sunlight and reflected sunlight only occurs on sun lit side of the hemisphere.
    This could make people think there is less sunlight and less reflected sunlight.

    A useful thing to keep in mind is the term “peak solar hours” these are hours near noon. Or about 3 hours before and after noon, and roughly speaking, or on average, receive most of power of sunlight. And, not mentioned often, the least amount of reflected sunlight.
    So when sun is low in horizon- early in day and late in day and/or not summer, one has not less sunlight reaching the ground and more of the sunlight being reflected.
    And this is also related to why the tropics [40% of earth surface] receives more than 50% of all sunlight. Or said differently 60% if Earth surface receives less than 50% of all sunlight. Or the temperate zones of both north and south receive less sunlight. And having plants begin to grow in spring and dying by fall. And of course if living above 40 degrees latitude one receives less as compared to more 23.5 to 40 degree latitude. Or about 1/2 of temperate zone gets much less than other half, and of course very little in the small polar regions. Of course in in terms simple illumination every where on year receives 1/2 daytime and 1/2 night. It’s just, unequal sunlight.

  142. gallopingcamel says:

    The calculation of temperature at the surface of rocky bodies is complex. If it were not, someone would have put forward a theory that could explain what is observed at all altitudes and on all bodies in our solar system. As it is nobody has done that but we should respect the efforts of people like Roy Spencer, Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller who are making progress.

    Are they RIGHT? No they are not but in my humble opinion they are nearer the truth than the “Climate Scientist” tribe that fixates on the false hypothesis that Carbon dioxide dominates global temperatures.

    While I disagree with Dr. Roy and “N&Z” on several issues they have done more than most to debunk the pseudo science of the Climate Tribe so we should applaud their efforts.

    There are other scientists worthy of our respect such as Robinson & Catling.

  143. gallopingcamel says:

    @Lucy Skywalker,
    Welcome back!

    I don’t see Titan as an outlier. The temperatures observed by the HASI probe agree with the Robinson & Catling model with uncanny accuracy:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    Currently I am working on a spreadsheet that reproduces the Robinson & Catling model for all seven bodies in our solar system with a significant atmosphere. My reason for doing this is to make their model easily available to anyone who can use Microsoft Excel.

  144. gallopingcamel says:

    @Steven Wilde,
    It distresses me that you are still quoting that 255 Kelvin estimate for the temperature of an airless Earth. Nobody takes that seriously any more…….least of all Nikolov & Zeller.

  145. gallopingcamel says:

    @tom0mason,
    “Has it taken zero (solar) energy for the human population to grow from half a billion in 1600 to today’s 7.25 billion?”

    The rise in human population results from the “Industrial Revolution” that started around 1740 in England. The revolution depends on using fossil fuels to improve our living conditions and productivity.

    Here is a link to a debate featuring Michael Mann, Admiral Titley, Judith Curry and Patrick Moore:

    The star of the show is Patrick Moore. You don’t need to waste time watching the other speakers because you have heard it all many times before. Start watching the video at the 42nd minute.

    Patrick Moore points to the striking correlation between [CO2] and life expectancy. This relationship is a consequence of the Industrial Revolution that improved living standards for the poor so that they lived healthier and longer lives. Longevity for the “Little People” begets population explosion and rapidly increasing consumption of fossil fuels that generate CO2……….hence the Keeling curve that rises monotonically.

    Greenies want us to stop using fossil fuels even though this would reverse the Industrial Revolution and return humanity to where it was in 1740 with a population of less than one billion. Famine, pestilence and war will follow until the current population is reduced by 85%. Do you know any Greenies who care about that?

  146. gallopingcamel says:

    @Pablo,
    “I love your paper..and I’m sure your maths is correct.”

    The maths is correct. However it takes more that correct maths to get the right answer. You also need a model that includes realistic values for Albedo, IR emissivity, thermal conduction, period etc.

    While my calculations agree closely with Ned’s for the Moon “As Is” we disagree on the effect of the rotation rate:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/

  147. wildeco2014 says:

    I made it clear that the 255 figure was for illustrative purposes only since there is a dispute concerning the actual figure.

  148. wildeco2014 says:

    Lucy

    N & Z describe what happens in mathematical terms but many others have also pointed out the basic observation.
    I provide the ‘why’ and ‘ how’ which I have not seen anyone else do.

  149. Lucy says, “Simply put, it is missing the warming effect of the weight of the atmosphere – the pressure – as is clearly demonstrated by snow-lines on mountains, and –…”

    Lucy could you ( or anyone ) explain the mechanism of this pressure T correlation?

    Delighted to. Give me a few hours, It’s so beautiful, simple and obvious in the end.

  150. David A says:

    Thank you Lucy, looking forward to it!

  151. Petter Tuvnes says:

    wildeco2014 says:
    January 23, 2019 at 6:26 am
    “Lucy
    N & Z describe what happens in mathematical terms but many others have also pointed out the basic observation.
    I provide the ‘why’ and ‘ how’ which I have not seen anyone else do.”

    Ned refrains from discussing the importance of albedo with Kristian/Okulaer.
    Maybe you can “provide the ‘why’ and ‘ how’” it is TSI that fits in the N&Z GMAT equation and not ASR (=TSI – albedo)?
    I.e. Why should albedo be insignificant (N&Z “unothodox conclusion”)?

  152. wildeco2014 says:

    Petter
    I’m not sure what Ned would say but my answer would be that as long as the surface temperature is sufficient to keep the mass of an atmosphere in gaseous form then the amount of energy required to keep those gases suspended off the surface is fixed and independent of albedo.
    It is only the energy required to hold the atmosphere off the surface that is relevant to the ATE because that is the energy being recycled within convective overturning so as to delay the release to space.
    However, where you have a huge separate reservoir for solar energy such as water oceans then that will introduce variations about the mean but circulatory adjustments will always bring the system back to the surface temperature set by atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field and top of atmosphere TSI.
    Any failure to do so would destroy hydrostatic equilibrium and lead to the loss of the atmosphere.

  153. Ned has stated, as I recall, that albedo is an “emergent phenomena” arising from the ATE, which means that it is not a separate determinate of surface temperature. But it seems to me that the quantity of water (ocean) present must also be taken into consideration. In other words, insolation and pressure being equal, more ocean yields higher albedo. Pressure and temperature control evaporation and water content, but isn’t the quantity of H2O also a variable?

  154. oldbrew says:

    Albedo can’t cause itself.

  155. @ Ned Nikolov January 21, 2019 at 7:33 pm

    Thank you for replying Ned.

    You say “air density varies with temperature across latitudes while sea-level pressure remains almost constant”.

    Did you mean latitudes or altitudes?

    The only paper, which explicitly discusses latitude/altitude/air density, I could find using my uni library was:

    “T. von Clarmann and U. Grabowski: Circulation and mixing from tracer measurements” page 14577

    On page 14577, the upper two charts clearly show that between 0 altitude to 10km, air density is almost constant between latitudes of -90 and +90.

    I have not explored their data.

    Thanks

    SR

  156. Hello, David A. Thank you for asking. This was for me such a wonderful question. I feel like the Sleeping Beauty awakening, slowly remembering and, hey, rediscovering with great joy what I did eight years ago – which I’d laid aside and all but forgotten.

    The key is with the work of Roderich Graeff. I studied his work and joined his seminar in 2011, because I was convinced back then that he had an essential key that Climate Science needs, and I still believe this is true. It is clear to me that his work holds the proofs of evidence backed by sound theory, for the link between pressure and temperature. These are the proofs needed to convince the world, the key needed to validate Nikolov and Zeller in terms the world can appreciate. With Graeff’s proof backing Nikolov and Zeller, the evidence is overwhelming and I think it will be like the Berlin Wall finally coming down. We will finally be able to put Climate Science on a sure footing with insolation and pressure, and close the door on the centennial bad dream of greenhouse gases. The proofs are tighter and neater than even N & Z’s NASA evidence – and the theory is there too, matching the evidence perfectly.

    Prof Dan Sheehan at Ohio State University has been looking at challenges to the Second Law of Thermodynamics – which Graeff meets with such grace – but Sheehan’s area is not Climate Science, and he has not done the rigorous experimental work Graeff has done, and so it’s possible he has not seen how important Graeff’s work is, in potential, for Nikolov and Zeller, for Climate Science, and for the whole of Science, once again bringing alive the importance of “Nullius In Verba”.

    Graeff’s experimental work is brilliant, and the theory is breathtaking. I wrote it all up in 2012, in four parts:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-second-law-seminar/

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-experiments-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/graeffs-development-of-theory-to-account-for-his-experimental-data/

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/graeffs-experiments-and-2lod-replication-and-implications/

    At this point, to answer your exact question, I would encourage you to start with Part Three which deals with the theory. It explains how – only after he’d already done a considerable number of experiments – Graeff was suddenly given an “aha!” moment (or two), giving him the theoretical molecular understanding of why his experiments worked exactly as they did. The theory is so simple and so obvious, when one actually stops to think. Or rather, it took Graeff’s engineering skills to develop sufficiently rigorous tests, and his persistent curiosity and sufficient basic savvy of physics, for the “simple, beautiful and obvious” solutions to drop into his mind.

    I realize now that I suffered burnout after that work. I was discouraged and needed to recharge spiritually and pick up other strands of my life. And now Graeff is probably not with us any more. But the record of my four articles, plus Graeff’s book, plus links with Prof Dan Sheehan of the UIniversity of San Diego, is more than enough to pick up his work again.

    And picked up again it really should be.

    I am as convinced as ever that this is the key experimental proof and theoretical backup that Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller need, to show the world that the temperature-pressure link is totally real and actually totally straightforward. So even Prof Roy Spencer would be able to say “yes, this works, this fits, this feels right finally, it seems you were right all along and I was mistaken”.

    Think molecular, think gravity, think potential energy falling to become kinetic energy. Imagine yourself as an air molecule. And now go read the fine print in my third article.

  157. okulaer says:

    minarchist (@3GHtweets) says, January 23, 2019 at 3:38 pm:

    Ned has stated, as I recall, that albedo is an “emergent phenomena” arising from the ATE, which means that it is not a separate determinate of surface temperature.

    Well, if anything, that’s nothing but a bunch of mumbo jumbo concocted specifically to be perceived as some kind of an explanation, when in fact it doesn’t explain anything of relevance.

    OF COURSE albedo is a “separate determinate of surface temperature” !!! It is crucial in determining the amount of SOLAR HEAT that is absorbed by the planetary system! You can’t just look at TSI and know that amount.

    HEAT is what heats a thermodynamic system, not electromagnetic radiation in itself, short or long-wave.

    And it makes no difference whatsoever HOW a planet came to have the global albedo that it has, what ultimately caused it. The functional albedo is STILL essential to how much of the incoming solar energy the planet actually ends up absorbing. As heat.

    oldbrew says, January 23, 2019 at 3:51 pm:

    Albedo can’t cause itself.

    So what!? No one claims it does. It, however, remains integral to a planet’s heat budget. You can’t just ignore the amount of incoming energy being reflected when assessing the heat balance, and thus the steady-state temperature, of a thermodynamic system.

  158. Lucy,

    Graeff’s proposition seems pretty convoluted to me and leads him to require a modification to the second law.

    My narrative description is clear and simple and requires no modification to the second law.

    Please could you explain why you prefer Graeff’s proposition ?

  159. In connection with Graeff’s modification of the second law Lucy said this:

    “But in essence, the Second Law applies to closed systems where there is no external force at work. However, since gravity IS an external force to all systems on this planet, we must now remember to take the molecular gravity factor into account where appropriate.”

    I would submit that although gravity is an external force it still neither adds or subtracts energy to or from the atmosphere. Graeff seems to think that somehow gravity does need to add energy hence his modification to the second law.

    What really happens is that movement of air via convection upwards converts surface KE to atmospheric PE for a cooling effect and then movement of air downwards converts atmospheric PE to KE for a warming effect.
    The net thermal consequence, within the mass of the atmosphere, of that process is zero

    BUT

    the time taken for the process of uplift and descent introduces a delay in the transmission of solar energy through the system and it is that delay which causes surface temperature to rise and not gravity.

    Furthermore, once the atmosphere reaches hydrostatic equilibrium there is then no further change in the length of that delay unless one changes atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field or TSI.

    So, the most elegant explanation for the observed phenomenon of planetary surface temperatures being higher beneath an atmosphere is simply convective overturning.

    Roy Spencer and others propose an isothermal atmosphere with no convection in which case one has to treat the atmospheric gases as a solid and in that case, yes, conduction up through a static atmosphere would indeed give an isothermal atmosphere but gases are not solids and convection cannot be suppressed so their proposition is physically impossible.

    Convective overturning, all on its own, is the essential and unavoidable cause of an ATE beneath a gaseous atmosphere due to the delay in energy transmission that it introduces between solar shortwave energy in and surface longwave radiation out.

  160. gallopingcamel says: January 23, 2019 at 5:03 am
    @Lucy Skywalker, Welcome back!

    me – Thanks!

    gc – I don’t see Titan as an outlier. The temperatures observed by the HASI probe agree with the Robinson & Catling model with uncanny accuracy:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    me – Can you then produce a straight-line graph, by setting-up logarithmic scaling of axes as appropriate? It would really help one see the degree of “fit” that way. Or can it only be just a fit-to-curve ? Monckton is right to have reservations if this is the case.

  161. Stephen Wilde says: January 23, 2019 at 7:02 pm
    Lucy, Graeff’s proposition seems pretty convoluted to me and leads him to require a modification to the second law. My narrative description is clear and simple and requires no modification to the second law. Please could you explain why you prefer Graeff’s proposition ?

    I’ll try. Stephen. I don’t “prefer” Graeff’s “proposition”, I am simply working with the powerful EVIDENCE he provides – as per standard Scientific Method – as per “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. It’s crystal clear to me : the challenge is, can I show you the same crystal clarity that I see? You see, I had already hoped to have done so.

    It would probably help if you were to read my first three articles again, meditatively, letting what I say flow through you and sink in until you start to feel what I felt writing them, why it set me on fire, and how it all works together. I work on the living power of the words to help them sing together a complete hymn to the readers – in this case, using the language and disciplines of science to create something that not only carries scientifically legitimate proof, but also “feels” true. I try to make the experience a contemplative one which will lead to a perception of scientific integrity and wholeness, not one that is “convoluted”. This may also depend on your mood, your scientific acumen and training, the speed at which you read, and your ability to reflect as you read. Savour the text, give it time to speak. My own mind works very slowly but it sings with the stars.

    I think we’ll agree that good science requires that theory fits measurements and experiments; and that if measurements and experiments don’t fit the theory, it is the theory that has to be abandoned or modified.

    Graeff started with measurements and experiments. They may look complex but they are as simple as one could make them in practice, if one has no laboratory with unlimited funds. One has to use imagination, intelligence, cunning. One has to find new uses for scrap. Graeff was a highly successful engineer who ran his own company, so he understands very precisely about getting things to work as perfectly as is possible in an imperfect physical world. All experiments are designed with such constraints. Keeping neutrality and objectivity is simple in theory but can be complex in practice. The challenge is to design something that looks simple but does exactly what is required, as precisely as is needed, for the length of time needed, with the cleaning, repair, interruptions, changes, mistakes that are all likely, etc etc. It is always a challenge.

    That’s the practical side from which Graeff started.

    He then realized – as I tried to explain in many different ways in my articles – that he was getting extremely consistent results that were counter-intuitive. For at the top of his convection-impeded columns of air, water, etc, the temperature was NOT higher as one would expect in “normal” situations where convection rules – the temperature was LOWER.

    Only then did he start to wonder what the explanation could be. I spelled out carefully how the insights came to him in several “aha” moments – this “aha” experience is reported again and again by people over the ages. Pascal worded it thus “Chance favours the prepared mind”. The benzene ring was dreamed or came in a vision ; so did the double helix DNA formulaic structure. And don’t let me start on Kary Mulliss, Nobel prizewinner and climate skeptic. All this suggests another common experience at breakthrough moments : synchronicities. As I explained, the formulae that came to Graeff were already familiar to him as an engineer and physicist, and therefore were not experienced as “convoluted” but rather as liberating and beautiful.

    The bottom line is, his results UNAVOIDABLY suggest something not expected from the ordinary interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT). Graeff spells out very precisely, for those attuned to a mathematical engineering mindset, how although they look superficially like violations or mistakes, in fact they adhere very exactly to the Second Law by the formula he develops. In this way the Second Law is not violated, it is deepened, made more precise – like Einstein’s laws do not violate Newton’s mechanics, they deepen them, make them more precise.

    I think it is this order of genius we are seeing, and I can only stand in awe.

    But the most important thing for Nikolov and Zeller is that here is an independent confirmation of their thesis that pressure and insolation are key to surface temperatures. I’ll leave albedo aside for the moment. I hope that it will be possible to modify and develop Graeff’s formula, to be able to calculate planetary surface temperatures. But even if the formula of Nikolov and Zeller still has to remain empirically fitted to results (please understand that this means the science is only half-complete and therefore far less acceptable to other scientists), Graeff’s work by providing the molecular rationale and formula that matches his experimental results, provides the up-till-now missing proof, that pressure IS linked to temperature.

    Graeff’s proofs are undeniable, therefore they can provide crucial support for Nikolov and Zeller. It challenges 2LoT, and you must simply come to terms with the fact that Graeff’s evidence makes this challenge to 2LoT unavoidable. But although it is like an aside to the 2LoT that interested Graeff, it nevertheless gives the evidence needed by Science that will – gradually or like the Berlin Wall – force Science to let go the greenhouse gas theory in favour of a now robust, proven pressure – temperature effect. Graeff’s experimental evidence complements the NASA data, but with the theory and formula matching the experiments, it is far, far stronger. It is Nikolov and Zeller’s Golden Egg, could they but grasp this. And I know they have the capacity to do so.

  162. Brett Keane says:

    Okulaer: But you can, as I try to do, look for those specific internal processes, often endothermic/exothermic chemical reactions. Eg Venusian Sulphate/H2O associatve/disassociative reactions; or Terran cloud physics. Once you have seen how little albedo has gross effects over the solar system atmospheric energy transfer systems. Venus data led the way, here, for me….Brett

  163. oldbrew says:

    okulaer – Albedo can’t cause itself.

    So what!? No one claims it does.

    Maybe not intentionally.

  164. Stephen W – Ned Nikolov, in the article on which this thread hangs, said – with emphasis –

    “The “Greenhouse” concept is an example of a “contrived theory” based on conjectures that requires proof (i.e. empirical verification), while ours is an empirical fact that begs for a theoretical interpretation. Dismissing an observed pattern such as our highly accurate cross-planetary P-T relationship using “theoretical” arguments [what Roy Spencer did] is backward to the Standard Scientific Method.”

    But working from data to theory – in line with Scientific Method – is exactly what Graeff has done.

  165. Mike Flynn says:

    Pressure has no effect on temperature. Given the same ambient temperature, a cylinder containing gas at 100 bar is indistinguishable by temperature from one at 1 bar. Try it.

    I believe someone has already pointed out that at 1 bar surface pressure, temperatures can range from about -90 C to +90C.

    No new science. No free energy. No perpetual motion.

    No GHE. CO2 provides no extra energy, Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician, and Michael Mann is not a Nobel Laureate (even for the Peace Prize, let alone anything scientific).

    Graeff has actually applied for a patent for a perpetual motion device. From his patent application –

    “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
    [0012]
    In accordance with the invention, it was found that it is possible within the right apparatus to create temperature differences in a closed system without introducing work and thereby to decrease the entropy. The temperature differences so produced can be used to perform work outside the closed system.”

    Extract infinite energy from a closed system – ah, the wonders of gravity through the gravity thermal effect. All believers should mortgage themselves to the hilt – what could go wrong? Wealth beyond the realms of avarice? I don’t think so, but I’ll be content if you prove me wrong.

    I presume you will make all this free energy available at minimal cost. When can I get some?

    Pardon the derisive sniggering.

    Cheers,

  166. okulaer says:

    oldbrew says, January 23, 2019 at 10:38 pm:

    “okulaer – Albedo can’t cause itself.

    So what!? No one claims it does.”

    Maybe not intentionally.

    Really? How so?

    Do you even understand the albedo objection?

  167. oldbrew says:

    The average albedo of the Earth from the upper atmosphere, its planetary albedo, is 30–35% because of cloud cover

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

    Cloud cover doesn’t cause itself.

  168. Mike Flynn says: January 24, 2019 at 7:15 am
    Pressure has no effect on temperature. Given the same ambient temperature, a cylinder containing gas at 100 bar is indistinguishable by temperature from one at 1 bar. Try it. . . .
    Graeff has actually applied for a patent for a perpetual motion device . . . “The temperature differences so produced can be used to perform work outside the closed system.” Pardon the derisive sniggering.

    “Pressure has no effect on temperature” Only true in the exceptional instances you mention, when it’s in an enclosed space able to normalise with external temperatures. Not true in the general case of atmospheres on planets – it’s clearly seen in the adiabatic lapse rate, which only fails to show the full effect because of the counter-forces of convection and, to a lesser extent, conduction. Your statement is not true in the general case for the reasons spelled out in my articles, I won’t repeat here.

    “The temperature differences so produced can be used to perform work outside the closed system.” Iceland uses geothermal energy – which heat, like hot deep mines, and hot Jericho, could be explained in terms of pressure. Again, read my articles for Graeff’s proof by experiment and by theory.

    I’m doubtful about the feasibility of the kind of energy extraction Graeff implies. And as he would be the first to admit, there is always a gap between idea and practicality. But this hope was what drove him – and he had been a highly successful engineer. He’d seen the fire-bombing of World War Two kill 40,000 in one night and hoped such would never repeat. It was his search for peaceful energy solutions that drove him – together with his fascination for the Second Law.

    I think this attitude deserves respect rather than sniggering. And Graeff’s science itself I cannot fault. Why don’t you look again? New truths always have to clear the brambles of habitual thinking and other opposing forces.

  169. Mike Flynn says: January 24, 2019 at 7:15 am

    Mike, Nikolov wrote a long paragraph for this post, answering Dr Roy Spencer, dealing with the issue of temperature and pressure. It starts:

    “2. Dr. Spencer did not consider the role of adiabatic processes in atmospheric dynamics that are complimentary [sic] to the well-understood diabatic heating by solar radiation. . . .”

  170. Lucy

    I can see how Graeff focused on gravity leading to conversion of KE to PE with height so that there is a declining temperature with height but as per his patent application and his proposed ‘modification’ of the second law he seems to think that gravity is in some way adding energy to the system to create that conversion of energy type..
    The trouble is that, like everyone else, he fails to account for the reconversion back to KE in descending air which fully negates his proposition because then one has a net zero energy exchange between surface and atmosphere and gravity supplies no energy at all.
    Gravity only sets the scene by creating the density gradient with height. That also leads to declining pressure with height which inevitably leads to convection up and down.
    The real cause of the surface temperature enhancement beneath an atmosphere is the delay in the transmission of solar shortwave energy through the system induced by the time taken for the process of convection up and down.
    It is just like an electrical resistor which introduces a time delay by distorting the path of the electron flow.
    Convection introduces a time delay by moving surface KE into the atmospheric PE reservoir and out again.
    In both cases heat will be released but in the case of convection that heat is then recycled over and over by conduction instead of being radiated to the surroundings.
    The same unit of kinetic energy cannot be in two places at once and so cannot be both conducted and radiated simultaneously.
    That is all there is to it and I am astonished at the continuing avoidance of that simple irrefutable proposition.

  171. Ben Wouters says:

    Lucy Skywalker says: January 24, 2019 at 9:27 am

    it’s clearly seen in the adiabatic lapse rate, which only fails to show the full effect because of the counter-forces of convection and, to a lesser extent, conduction.

    Actually the adiabatic lapse rates (dry and moist) describe the temperature change of air that rises or sinks within an atmosphere that is considered to be in Hydrostatic Equilibrium.
    Conduction is specifically excluded since convection is considered to be an adiabatic proces.

  172. Ben, conduction is only excluded because it nets out to zero. It still goes on.
    All the time that convection is operating there is conduction from surface to air beneath regions of uplift and equal conduction from air to ground beneath regions of descent.
    The fact that air is a poor conductor does not restrain a colder solid surface from pulling heat out of the air above it very rapidly. You can see that where inversion layers occur at the surface when the wind drops. Where the wind continues the conductive energy transfer from air to ground is just as rapid as any conductive energy transfer from ground to air.

  173. Ben Wouters says:

    Stephen Wilde says: January 24, 2019 at 10:48 am

    Ben, conduction is only excluded because it nets out to zero.

    No, conduction is excluded given the short life time of eg a thermal, the large volumes involved (and thus a small contact area with surrounding air relative to the volume) and the small temperature differences.
    Actually it is an adiabatic assumption, since a little energy will be exchanged, but this can be neglected.

  174. Petter Tuvnes says:

    wildeco2014 says:
    January 23, 2019 at 1:11 pm

    Stephen; thanks a lot for your quick response:
    “…as long as the surface temperature is sufficient to keep the mass of an atmosphere in gaseous form then the amount of energy required to keep those gases suspended off the surface is fixed and independent of albedo.”

    I interpret your reply in the following way:
    Required energy comes from TSI minus Albedo, and any Surplus energy will be radiated out of the planet/atmosphere system. So if the Albedo is high, the Surplus will be low, and vice versa. Then Albedo will be of less significance (“independant of albedo”).
    TSI = Req.E + Albedo + Surpl.E (?)
    Albedo + Surpl.E will be fixed for the system, and thus Req.E will relate to TSI only (?)

  175. Ben Wouters says:

    Petter Tuvnes says: January 24, 2019 at 11:39 am

    Required energy comes from TSI minus Albedo, and any Surplus energy will be radiated out of the planet/atmosphere system.

    Can’t be correct since a lot of the incoming solar energy after albedo is stored in the surface (down to ~15m) and in the oceans (several hundreds of meters down)

  176. Petter,

    Required energy for holding the atmosphere off the surface comes from conduction which presupposes absorption by the surface in the first place. That energy appears to be fixed regardless of albedo.Provided the surface is warm enough to prevent a phase change of the atmospheric gases to a solid it seems that an infinite range of albedo values will result in the same outcome so it is adequate to use TSI only.
    However, due to thermal inertias within the system albedo changes can be relevanty to variations about the mean but only once the atmosphere is in place

    Ben

    We are considering the entire vertical circulation for the whole globe, not just thermals.

  177. Pablo says:

    Whatever the true thermal effect of an atmosphere on Earth, the issue is to determine whether water vapour has the power to raise Earth’s temperature by 33ºC.
    If that can be proven to be false then the other strongly radiative trace gas CO2 can be shown to be irrelevant.

    I wonder if the confusion arises over the increase in potential temperature (PT) of 3.3ºc/km that water vapour provides.

    At an average 10km high tropopause that increase in potential temperature provides warming of 33ºC at that altitude.
    An increase in PT with height means that at every km of height above sea level the temperature is warmer than it should be for its height by 3.3ºC.
    It is commonly assumed that it is evaporative cooling of the surface with its latent heat that causes this,
    without consideration of a radiative shrinkage of the temperature extremes at either end of the thermal gradient.

    Either way an increase in potential temperature is via an enhanced cooling of the the lower surface or air leading to an enhanced warming higher up.

    If it were possible to thoroughly mix a column of air up to 10km altitude with that PT increase of 3.3ºC/km with its accompanying reduced lapse rate of 6.7ºC/km
    it would return to the gravitational/dry lapse rate of 10ºC/km. thus warming the surface air by 16.5ºC and cooling the tropopause air by 16.5ºC.
    At this point the atmosphere would have a constant PT and in one sense be isothermal, in that kinetic energy is the same throughout the pressure variable with height,
    although the temperature changes at 10ºC/km.

    It must be that this happens only at a planetary level but it does happen every day within the 2km high boundary layer at sunrise when turbulent and frictional mixing alone warms
    the surface air by a few degrees simply by bringing air that is too warm for its height at 2km down to to ground level and as it does so, cools the air at 2km alt. back to the colder
    temperature it should be for its height.

    So it seems to me, that water vapour does not warm the planet by 33ºC, and instead of a greenhouse gas should be called a “Robin Hood” gas, that takes from the rich and gives to the poor!

  178. Ben Wouters says:

    Stephen Wilde says: January 24, 2019 at 12:19 pm

    We are considering the entire vertical circulation for the whole globe, not just thermals.

    Fine, but thermals are the simplest phenomenon where the adiabatic lapse rates can be seen at work.
    In eg the Hadley circulation the rise and sink rates are so low that radiation makes that the process is not adiabatic anymore.
    Most of the atmosphere is neither rising or sinking anyway so this point is rather irrelevant.

  179. Ben

    At any given moment half the atmosphere is rising and half is descending.
    There is leakage via radiation but the adiabatic component remains intact because PE is not heat and cannot be radiated away.

  180. gallopingcamel says:

    @Lucy Skywalker,
    Q1. “Can you then produce a straight-line graph, by setting-up logarithmic scaling of axes as appropriate?”

    Q2. “It would really help one see the degree of “fit” that way. Or can it only be just a fit-to-curve ? Monckton is right to have reservations if this is the case.”

    Thanks for those links on de Graeff…….I promise to read them all. It seems that Stephen Wilde has read them but I get the impression that they may be hard for even the wise men (and women) here at Tallbloke to understand.

    While de Graeff impressed you, Robinson & Catling’s 39 page “letter” that was published in NatGeo in 2014 impressed me. In an attempt to make the R&C model more accessible to the general public I wrote that post on Titan thinking it would encourage others to use IDL or the freeware version (GDL). That did not happen so I am attempting to capture the R&C model in an EXCEL spreadsheet in the hope that more people will be encouraged to play with it.

    There are several other papers related to R&C (2014) including this one:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5820795/

    The answer to Q1 is…….Yes, I can. I am putting the finishing touches to a spreadsheet that compares the R&C model to probe and radio occultation data for seven bodies in our solar system namely Venus, Earth, Saturn, Titan, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune.

    With regard to Q2, the R&C model has ten parameters…….enough to “Fit” an elephant and its wiggling trunk. However, nine of the parameters are derived from first principles (e.g. “gamma” is the ratio of Cp/Cv). The one fiddle factor is “alpha” which is only used for Earth and Titan. It can be thought of as the ratio between the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (DALR) and the moist adiabat.

    My R&C spreadsheet is already available as a draft. Would you be prepared to review it before I offer it to Tallbloke? How about Oldbrew or Stephen Wilde? Anyone at all? We can communicate “off line” via my info(at)gallopingcamel.info email address. At times like this I really miss Tim Channon.

  181. I would like someone wiser than me here to explain whether the ATE produces any net gain in the system energy / temperature or not. Is it accurate to say that the effect is really a redistribution by gravity of the solar energy in the atmosphere which concentrates heat at lower altitudes but at the expense of being cooler aloft? I am not an engineer or physicist, just a very interested layperson. I have asked this question before but never received an answer. Thanks to anyone who care to explain to this old physician.

  182. oldbrew says:

    minarchist – are you aware of the lapse rate?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

  183. oldbrew,

    Yes, of course. That is part of the reason for my asking the question.

  184. Trick says:

    minarchist 6:27pm asks a great question: ”…explain whether the ATE produces any net gain in the system energy / temperature or not.”

    Does not. The simplest reason that the ATE does not produce any net gain in the system energy / temperature is the process burns no fuel. The sun has a fuel source.

    ”Is it accurate to say that the effect is really a redistribution by gravity of the solar energy in the atmosphere which concentrates heat at lower altitudes but at the expense of being cooler aloft?”

    Not exactly but somewhat.

    Added well mixed CO2, or any IR active gas, cannot increase total system thermodynamic internal energy as they also burn no fuel. However, by increasing atm. IR opacity in the lower regions with higher total atm. pressure and equally decreasing atm. IR opacity in the upper regions with thinner atm., the added IR active gas can increase planetary global near surface temperature (~slightly, meaning for earth about 0.7 degree K due added CO2 ppm alone over the 75 years from 1938) at near surface altitudes (~2m) but at the expense of global atm. being cooler far aloft conserving total energy in the relevant system.

    This is consistent with green dots plotted for each solar system object in N&Z 2017 Fig. 4 as the green dots are placed with what NASA has measured with thermometers and satellite/probe radiometers.

  185. Stephen Wilde says: January 24, 2019 at 10:01 am

    SW: Lucy, I can see how Graeff focused on gravity leading to conversion of KE to PE with height so that there is a declining temperature with height but as per his patent application and his proposed ‘modification’ of the second law he seems to think that gravity is in some way adding energy to the system to create that conversion of energy type..

    LS: He doesn’t actually think what you say he “seem to think”. He is too much of an engineer and scientist to make such an elementary mistake. Look again carefully at what he actually says, and what I wrote, as I encouraged you to do.

    SW: The trouble is that, like everyone else, he fails to account for the reconversion back to KE in descending air which fully negates his proposition because then one has a net zero energy exchange between surface and atmosphere and gravity supplies no energy at all.

    LS: Graeff does not “fail to account” – there is nothing missing. Look again, more rigorously, at what Graeff says, and what I say. I went to Germany to gain rigour myself, to clear up this kind of misunderstanding. I had doubts too but sensed I might be misunderstanding Graeff – I felt he was a genius, but I wanted to be sure I understood everything, and so I asked questions, and got answers, until I knew I understood every single key detail, and knew that the underlying science was sound and straightforward. Then that was it. Case closed.

    I mentioned Icelandic geothermal energy because here is a totally practical instance of harvesting an energy that could well be purely pressure-caused.

    SW: Gravity only sets the scene by creating the density gradient with height. That also leads to declining pressure with height which inevitably leads to convection up and down.

    LS: Obviously. That is precisely why Graeff’s experiments can only measure “convection-impeded” air and water. Very fine glass was used for this purpose. You might not think it would work, but it did.

    SW: The real cause of the surface temperature enhancement beneath an atmosphere is the delay in the transmission of solar shortwave energy through the system induced by the time taken for the process of convection up and down. It is just like an electrical resistor which introduces a time delay by distorting the path of the electron flow. Convection introduces a time delay by moving surface KE into the atmospheric PE reservoir and out again. In both cases heat will be released but in the case of convection that heat is then recycled over and over by conduction instead of being radiated to the surroundings.

    LS: eh?? This is a pure thought experiment of yours. No objective evidential backup whatsoever. Moreover, the effects of pressure explain everything without any need for more. Nikolov and Zeller talk about downwelling IR radiation being created by the effect of pressure. It’s point no. 3 in Nikolov’s response above to Roy Spencer.

    SW: The same unit of kinetic energy cannot be in two places at once and so cannot be both conducted and radiated simultaneously. That is all there is to it and I am astonished at the continuing avoidance of that simple irrefutable proposition.

    LS: For Graeff as an engineer, working with the First Law of Thermodynamics ie Conservation of Energy which is what you are referring to, is second nature. If you would only study carefully his development of his formulae, you might see this for yourself. There is no “avoidance” on his part, let alone a “continuing avoidance”.

    Could it be, OTOH, that you yourself are avoiding the formulae that are so important to grasp? Now if you could study them, grasp their significance, you would be doing Climate Science a real service. It needs scientists who are willing to hang on in there with Graeff’s formula development, and with Nikolov and Zeller’s correction of the Stefan-Bolzman equation, and their curve-fitting work, who will be able to know, without a shadow of doubt, that here are the real scientists, working from data and producing formulae that, transparently and provably to others, have the required tightness of fit.

    You really really really need to do what I asked before, and that is: reread my articles, slowly and meditatively.

    I went to the article you did for Tallbloke, and I saw that Ned Nikolov was saying similar things to you that I am saying.

    It’s not Graeff who has not grasped issues. It’s you who have not grasped what Graeff is saying. Sadly, you do need to be able to take hold of the mathematics here. It’s not impossible. I spelled it out for slow people. In addition, try to imagine that you yourself are a gas molecule. Imagine to yourself all the variety of things that are possible, under the twin influences of sunlight and gravity. Compare them to what you know at the human scale, things you have actually been describing. Keep on practising. Then return to the formulae. See them as encapsulating the sum total of all those imaginations, in the correct balance.

    Most importantly, as I said before, Graeff is working FROM data TO theory, ALWAYS, in every single minute detail. THAT is true science. It involves numbers and measurements and mathematics, and understanding of the basic laws of thermodynamics, etc, that come naturally to engineers.

  186. Thanks, Trick! Confirms my intuition.

  187. Thanks “gallopingcamel” for that thumbs-up.

    I’d love to see your straight-line graph etc. I don’t know if I’m up to reviewing it – my criterion is, is it a VITAL part of “reclaiming Climate Science”.

    I followed your link to “The Habitability of Proxima Centauri b” and felt dazed. It’s very long and I doubt I can even begin to grasp it. The subject-matter itself does not interest me. Only if there is something you can extract from it that would be really helpful to N&Z would I be interested. I did notice, in section 3.5. VPL Climate model, the authors refer to the “degrees of freedom” that Graeff [note his name – don’t confuse it with van de Graff ! ] – Graeff found was essential, and on reflection, perfectly logical, to his thesis matching results. But I cannot even begin to understand even that section. I want to be very sure it’s essential before I spend too long with it.

    I shall probably be offline now for a few days.

  188. minarchist: I would like someone wiser than me here to explain whether the ATE produces any net gain in the system energy / temperature or not.

    LS: Don’t know if I am wiser than you but I’d like to share what I now understand of ATE (Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement). Tallbloke doesn’t like N&Z using the word “enhancement” at all at all and I think I can see why. “Enhancement” suggest adding like to like, whereas we have two completely different sources of warmth: the radiative flux of sunlight, and the overall static but locally dynamic situation of the atmosphere: molecules of air pulled by gravity, falling and gaining kinetic energy, but also bouncing into and repelling each other, thus creating the sensations / measurable quantities of pressure / temperature increase.

  189. gbaikie says:

    –minarchist (@3GHtweets) says:
    January 24, 2019 at 6:27 pm
    I would like someone wiser than me here to explain whether the ATE produces any net gain in the system energy / temperature or not. —

    Well, first, our sun is variable star.
    And Earth’s orbit varies, so our distance from it changes.

    Second, Earth has internal heat due to it’s formation via impact, radioactivity, and tidal heat. We live on thin crust of molten planet which has fair amount of volcanic activity and which varies- and continues to be impacted by other bodies in the solar system.
    Earth also has a lot oxygen in it’s atmosphere, which was created life, and allows stuff to burn.

    –Is it accurate to say that the effect is really a redistribution by gravity of the solar energy in the atmosphere which concentrates heat at lower altitudes but at the expense of being cooler aloft? —

    That roughly explains our atmosphere. Earth also has ocean. And currently has polar ice caps.
    And our ocean, currently, is cold. It’s roughly could be the coldest the ocean Earth has ever had.
    And gets the coldest during glacial periods, but even in interglacial period when the ocean warms, it’s still cold. Or it’s been cold for more than a million years, and the recent 2.6 million period is called an Ice Age.
    Our average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.

    And I would say that such a cold ocean affects the average ocean surface waters temperature.
    Our current average surface ocean temperature is about 17 C and the ocean average surface temperature is major component of our global average temperature of about 15 C.
    The smaller component is the global average land temperature, which is about 10 C.
    And land are is about 30% of entire surface area of Earth.

    It is said in the beginning of study of Earth’s climate, that the tropical ocean is the heat engine of our planet. So despite having average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C and warmer ocean surface waters, warm the land areas. And warmest ocean surface waters are the Tropical warms which have average temperature of about 25 to 26 C. And these waters have warmed by about 1/2 of a degree of C in the last hundreds or so. And Earth is currently recovering from cold period call the Little Ice age which is typically said to have ended in 1850 AD.

    It is said the Little Ice Age, LIA, was probably the coldest period in thousands of years.

  190. LS: Thanks for that. And I guess it is that enhancement part which has thrown me also. According to NZ for the Earth vs. Moon (same solar input) the effect of the atmosphere is 90k, which is as I conceive it more of a concentration of energy due to mass and gravity AT THE SURFACE, almost like a lens which concentrates available light into a focus. That is why in my question I said, “at the expense of being colder aloft”. Ned refers to the the effect as relative– maybe that is what he means. Anyway, it is a simple elegant and revolutionary discovery and makes a whole lot more sense to me that “back radiation” yada yada cooking the planet.

  191. gbaikie says:

    –Ben Wouters says:
    January 24, 2019 at 12:44 pm
    Stephen Wilde says: January 24, 2019 at 12:19 pm

    We are considering the entire vertical circulation for the whole globe, not just thermals.

    Fine, but thermals are the simplest phenomenon where the adiabatic lapse rates can be seen at work.–

    But tropical ocean evaporation is the major element and is global.

  192. Lucy

    Please explain why Graeff made that patent application and why he needs a modification to the first law.
    Note also that my description does accord with the data and the Laws of Thermodynamics without needing to modify them.

  193. gbaikie says:

    –Pablo says:
    January 24, 2019 at 12:36 pm
    Whatever the true thermal effect of an atmosphere on Earth, the issue is to determine whether water vapour has the power to raise Earth’s temperature by 33ºC.
    If that can be proven to be false then the other strongly radiative trace gas CO2 can be shown to be irrelevant.–

    I am lukewarmer, which means I think it’s possible that CO2 could have a warming effect.
    And I think doubling of CO2 causes 0 to .5 C increase global temperature within a period of decades- though less certain in terms of centuries and/or thousands of years. Or not more than .5 C in time periods which are a possible concern to us or in terms public policy.

    I don’t think CO2 has much effect upon water vapor and the “warming” is mostly related to regions outside of the tropics. Or I think all warming or cooling in terms of global temperature is mostly related to outside of the tropics.

    And since I think CO2 could have a warming effect, then water vapor would have an even greater radiant effect. Water vapor is more abundant and is major element of tropics.

    Water has another effect other than involving it’s radiant effects- such as it’s latent heat and etc.
    I think major aspect of water is it’s heating effect upon the atmosphere which different than dry land.
    Dry land can warmed to 70 C and air above it can reach at most about 50 C. And dry land can typically reach about 60 C and air 20 degree or colder above the warmer land.
    Water or wet land is different, they don’t get nearly as hot, but there less difference between wet land or ocean surface and the air above it. Or if ocean water is 30 C, the air above it is 30 C- and land has to wet to be similar.

    Anyhow I look at from opposite direction, since CO2 could have slight warming effect, water vapor should a much more potential of having radiant warming effect.
    I think all greenhouse gases cause less 15 K, or radiant effect of water vapor is less than about 10 C and 400 ppm of CO2 less than 2 C. And I am interested in how much less.

  194. gbaikie says:

    “I think all greenhouse gases cause less 15 K, or radiant effect of water vapor is less than about 10 C and 400 ppm of CO2 less than 2 C. And I am interested in how much less.”

    It should be noted at I am using the pseudo science “model”. I do this because of the lack of better model. Or tend to think Earth should be around 5 C without considering the radiant effects of “greenhouse gases and clouds.
    I would rather have a model based upon Earth [or any planet] which completely covered with an ocean, instead of model which seems to ignore that we live on a water planet.
    And from such water planet, one the focuses would be to resolve the cooling effects of land areas, and it seems that sine we are in a Ice Age, we should be interested in the various cooling effects.

  195. A C Osborn says:

    Lucy, I remember reading yor original posts.
    Has anybody managed to repeat or improve on the experimets?
    Has anybody confirmed his results?

  196. Dear dear Stephen, I know you mean well, but your wording makes it sound as if you really have either not paid attention to, or not understood, or ignored what I said; certainly not revisited Graeff’s equations like I begged you to do. I took a lot of time to try to put myself in your shoes so I could lead you from your experience to mine. But I’m not sure if any of it has worked, as yet. Perhaps I have not yet hit the right buttons for you. It would be really nice if you can show me that you have understood and appreciated the significance of Graeff’s equations.

    I have already answered you about why a modification to the Second (not the First) Law of Thermodynamics is needed. It is because of the evidence of Graeff’s experiments. Graeff doesn’t need it, Science needs it. Evidence trumps theory every time. If the evidence disagrees with the theory, the theory has to be rewritten. This is basic Scientific Method. And the importance of this particular set of experiments, which necessitate the modification to 2LoT, is to help Nikolov and Zeller with the rigour of proof they need for the reality of pressure-temperature, to make holding on to the GHG theory scientifically indefensible.

    I cannot presume to say with certainty why Graeff made the patent application. But as I said, I met in Graeff a man who cared passionately about trying to find peaceful sources of energy. And certainly that is a noble goal. What I know about patents suggests to me that it may on occasion be important to establish some kind of patent ownership even if details are not developed. But surely none of this is relevant to his work that could help Climate Science.

  197. Mike Flynn says:

    Lucy Skywalker,

    Thank you for agreeing that Graeff’s patent application is nonsensical, on its face.

    Thank you for also agreeing that pressure does not create heat. Pretending that it it does in the atmosphere, but nowhere else, is just silly.

    The observed atmospheric lapse rate is merely acknowledgment of the fact that the atmosphere lies along the thermal gradient between the core at 5500 K or so, and outer space, at 4K or so.

    Hotter closer to the core, cooler at the 4K end. Pressure has nothing to do with it. The gravito thermal effect does not exist, and the Nikolov and Zeller attempt to support an impossibility by renaming it, is just silly!

    As to experimental reproducibility, you will find it conspicuously absent. Of course temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than at altitude (all else being equal). Pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere will likewise be higher. One is due to gravity, the other is due to heat. Gravity does not produce heat, nor does heat produce gravity.

    A giant boulder on the ground is subject to the force of gravity. Is a grain of sand colder than the giant boulder because it is much smaller? Nope. No gravitic heating.

    The laws of thermodynamics seem intact.

    Cheers.

  198. Hi Mike,

    “…pressure does not create heat.”

    Thanks for explaining why my diesel engine doesn’t work. I thought it was just out of petrol!

    PS: LS said nothing of the kind.

    Cheers

  199. Mike Flynn says:

    minarchist,

    Maybe you should get a diesel engine that works on the compression ignition principle. That is one where the work used to compress a gas causes a temporary rise in temperature. Another reason for your engine not working might be that some fool filled the tank with petrol.

    You are confused. A compressor can charge a gas cylinder to a pressure in excess of 2500 psi. It will cool to ambient. It will still be at 2500 psi. The pressure creates no heat. In this case, heat produces the pressure, through the medium of work.

    Try another silly comment – you might do better. Or learn some physics – even better?

    Cheers.

  200. gallopingcamel says:

    Lucy Skywalker,

    You have stirred this blog up like Doug Cotton but you are less dogmatic and more reasonable!

    It will take me a while to absorb that de Graeff information so please be patient.

  201. wildeco2014 says:

    Lucy
    Can you refer me to any term in Graeff’s equations that represents PE converting to KE in columns of descending air ?
    If he includes that then his observations do not need a modification to the second law.
    A patent application is intended to protect a potentially profitable device. Graeff clearly thought he could construct an apparatus that would export useable energy from the ability of gravity to create a temperature differential up the vertical column.
    That cannot happen if one recognises that the work done in ascending columns is offset by equal and opposite work done in descending columns so he must have failed to account for the descent aspect.

  202. wildeco2014 says:

    Mike
    You overlook the compressibility of gases moving up and down within a gravitational field.
    The boulder analogy is not comparable.
    The effect of gravity / pressure is real but gravity only sets the scene.
    It is the energy conversion between KE and PE and back again which provides resistance to the free flow of solar shortwave and thus allows an accumulation of surface heat.
    No convection, no ATE.

  203. wildeco2014 says:

    Minarchist
    A mere redistribution of kinetic and potential energy up the vertical column does not create an ATE.
    You have to also have a continuing up and down circulation which provides a resistance to the free flow of solar shortwave through the surface / atmosphere interface which then allows an accumulation of surface kinetic energy.
    No convection, no ATE.

  204. gallopingcamel says:

    @Lucy Skywalker,
    “I followed your link to “The Habitability of Proxima Centauri b” and felt dazed. It’s very long and I doubt I can even begin to grasp it. The subject-matter itself does not interest me.”

    That paper is way above my pay grade but I keep re-reading it because the destiny of every species on Earth is extinction. Homo Sapiens was reduced to less than 20,000 breeding pairs during the last glaciation. The next glaciation may kill us all mankind in spite of our “Technology”. We can avoid that dismal fate by learning how to reach planets like Kepler 62c that orbit distant stars.

    The trouble with Kepler 62c is its location, 1,200 light years from here. Imagine traveling there only to find it to be uninhabitable. Now there is a planet only four light years away that may have oceans. If such oceans exist we will find them using telescopes that can detect “Ocean Glint”.

    John F. Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the Moon. If Proxima B has oceans you can be sure there will be serious efforts to set foot on it. We will need nuclear rockets to power huge space ships that can support viable communities just as Freeman Dyson imagined.
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/

  205. Mike Flynn says:

    wildeco2014,

    I overlooked nothing. For gas or anything else to overcome the force of gravity requires an energy input. Without the input of external energy, there is no convection. Otherwise, you would be able to achieve Graeff’s claimed miracle of extracting infinite work from a closed system.

    No free lunches. No perpetual motion machine based on continuously falling gas or anything else. You have to lift the mass first, and this involves energy. You can’t even recover all that input energy. There are inevitable losses.

    You may have forgotten basic physics.

    No ATE. No GHE.

    Cheers.

  206. wildeco2014 says:

    Mike
    A closed adiabatic loop has no losses.
    Simple recycling of energy originally conducted from the surface creates the ATE/GHE.
    Radiative leakage from within the atmosphere prior to conversion of KE to PE simply serves to reduce the rate of convective overturning needed to retain hydrostatic equilibrium.

  207. gbaikie says:

    –Radiative leakage from within the atmosphere prior to conversion of KE to PE simply serves to reduce the rate of convective overturning needed to retain hydrostatic equilibrium.–

    How much is the “Radiative leakage from within the atmosphere”?
    Or what would the effect be, if Radiative leakage from within the atmosphere was zero?

  208. Ben Wouters says:

    gbaikie says: January 24, 2019 at 9:26 pm
    And our ocean, currently, is cold.
    Depends on your reference, compared to our bodytemperature, yes.
    But the deep oceans are just above freezing, let’s say 275K.
    This is already 20K above the nonsensical Te of 255K and ~78K above the average surface temperature of the moon.
    Whether by the GHE or the ATE, one does not heat 3-4 km deep oceans with cold air at the surface.
    The oceans are hot for the same reason the crust below our feet is hot:
    the enormous amounts of geothermal heat stored in the molten stone and metal inside the Earth.

    So the reason for the high surface temperatures on Earth: hot oceans.

  209. gallopingcamel says:
    January 23, 2019 at 4:56 am
    “The calculation of temperature at the surface of rocky bodies is complex. If it were not, someone would have put forward a theory that could explain what is observed at all altitudes and on all bodies in our solar system. As it is nobody has done that but we should respect the efforts of people like Roy Spencer, Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller who are making progress.”

    It might be complex, it might not be.

    This equation gives σT^4 at one bar pressure for the three rocky planets:

    1/2(TSI/(4/3)^2

    I understand that this looks too simplistic to many, but it doesn´t matter, because it does the job.
    It should fit right in with Nikolovs&Zellers calculations.

  210. Mike Flynn says:

    wildeco,

    Nope. You cannot get an increase in temperature of a fixed mass by magically redistributing heat. You have just spouted a mass of sciencey sounding pseudo scientific nonsense. No energy input – no convection.

    No GHE. No ATE. A closed adiabatic loop has no increase in energy. You cannot magically redistribute the heat at your command. Adiabatic expansion and compression doesn’t occur by magic. The gas has to have a reason to move. Are you going to talk nicely to it? Maybe demand it goes here or there?

    Nope. No increased surface temperatures due to anything except additional energy – generally in the form of heat.

    Try again.

    Cheers.

  211. oldbrew says:

    GC – We can avoid that dismal fate by learning how to reach planets like Kepler 62c that orbit distant stars.

    They’re still worried about the radiation effects of going to ‘local’ planet Mars.
    https://www.universetoday.com/14979/mars-radiation1/

    Going anywhere that takes longer than a human lifetime to get to, is another problem 😐

  212. wildeco2014 says:

    Mike
    Conduction from the surface is the energy input.
    Density variations in the horizontal plane inevitably lead to convective overturning.
    I think you are wasting my time and yours.

  213. Mike Flynn says:

    wildeco2014,

    You wrote –

    “Simple recycling of energy originally conducted from the surface creates the ATE/GHE.”

    Complete nonsense. Try recycling some energy, and getting more than you put in. The surface temperature is what it is, not what you think it should be.

    More waffle about convective overturning? Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not increase the temperature of the thermometer.

    Gravity does not create heat.

    Pseudoscientific climatological nonsense does not change the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.

    Temperatures are measured with thermometers. If the most arcane computer models or intricate mathematical calculations say that the temperature is wrong, I believe the thermometer.

    What do you do?

    Try and define the GHE. Then formulate a testable GHE hypothesis. Of course you can’t, so you blather about convective overturning or suchlike, hoping that someone will believe you know what you are talking about.

    You don’t. Others may judge for themselves.

    Cheers.

  214. gbaikie says:

    –Ben Wouters on January 25, 2019 at 9:12 am
    gbaikie says: January 24, 2019 at 9:26 pm
    And our ocean, currently, is cold.
    Depends on your reference, compared to our bodytemperature, yes.–

    Or cold enough for your fridge.
    I find 20 C water too cold to swim in, and 15 C water will kill you.

    –But the deep oceans are just above freezing, let’s say 275K.–

    Some are saying 90% of entire ocean is 0 to 3 C.

    And some small parts are colder than 0 C:

    “As the freezing point of sea water is lowered with increasing pressure (−0.07°C per 100 m of depth), the shelf water in contact with the base of the ice shelves often at a depth of many hundreds of meters, attains temperatures well below −2.0°C. ”
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/antarctic-bottom-water

  215. oldbrew says:

    Compression and warming – example.

    A Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) of the atmosphere refers to a swift jump in temperatures in the stratosphere that is sometimes linked to the onset of cold weather in winter.

    What is an SSW? The term SSW refers to what we observe – rapid warming (up to about 50 ­°C in just a couple of days) in the stratosphere, between 10 km and 50 km up.
    . . .
    …air in the stratosphere starts to collapse in to the polar cap and compress. As it compresses it warms, hence the stratospheric warming.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/wind/sudden-stratospheric-warming

  216. Ben Wouters says:

    minarchist (@3GHtweets) says: January 24, 2019 at 9:30 pm

    Anyway, it is a simple elegant and revolutionary discovery and makes a whole lot more sense to me that “back radiation” yada yada cooking the planet.

    Actually N&Z exclude the oceans in their “enhancement”. If static pressure can increase temperature, look at the oceans. Every enormous pressure if you go deeper and deeper. Yet the temperature goes down……. Simple, elegant, revolutionary and completely wrong.

  217. oldbrew says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    January 25, 2019 at 11:49 am

    Oceans aren’t analogous to gases.

  218. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: January 25, 2019 at 11:17 am

    Compression and warming – example.

    A Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) of the atmosphere refers to a swift jump in temperatures in the stratosphere that is sometimes linked to the onset of cold weather in winter.

    Another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind
    Temperature rise of ~57C in 24 hours.

    Sinking, dry air warms with the DALR: 9,8 K/km.
    To understand this one must first understand the Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity our atmosphere is in.
    Those unable/unwilling to understand this better find something else to babble about, stay away from serious climate discussions.

  219. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: January 25, 2019 at 12:14 pm

    Oceans aren’t analogous to gases.

    Well, oceans have convection, oceans have an adiabatic lapse rate, oceans have rising/sinking water masses. So not identical, but why not analogous?

  220. ben,

    “Actually N&Z exclude the oceans in their “enhancement”. If static pressure can increase temperature, look at the oceans.”

    The gas law applies to gases. Seawater is not compressible, hence no internal energy is added with depth. pV=nRT= N/m2 x m3 = Nm = Joules!

  221. Brett Keane says:

    Ben you are just another Trick, or MF. Full of pseudo knowledge. Boring. Until you understand deep in your soul, the vast differences in the Physics of the gaseous phase/state, please leave us alone. The Gas Laws are not suggestions, as we jest seriously, They do not pertain to any solid, even fluid, condition of matter. On this hinges the making of Stars and much else including our Climate. But you cannot listen ever…………. Brett

  222. oldbrew says:

    BW- So not identical, but why not analogous?

    Water isn’t compressible. Gases are.

  223. Mike Flynn says:

    Oldbrew,

    And of course, the uplift required before subsequent descent and compression, requires an energy input. The subsequent compressive heating involves energy losses, and the air heated by compression cools by radiating its energy to space, eventually.

    Take a parcel of air at the surface, do some work to lift it, and let it cool as it expands. Let gravity return it to the surface, warming as it compresses. Now convince yourself that gravity has somehow added more energy than it took to move the parcel aloft against the force of gravity.

    No gravity powered perpetual motion machines. The fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, might give you cause to rethink.

    No ATE, no GHE. Just pseudoscientific delusion of the climatological variety.

    Cheers.

  224. Ben,

    “Actually N&Z exclude the oceans in their “enhancement”. If static pressure can increase temperature, look at the oceans.”

    The gas law applies to gases. Seawater is not compressible, hence no internal energy is added with depth. pV=nRT= N/m2 x m3 = Nm = Joules!

  225. Macha says:

    Great to see Erl Happ making a contribution a few days ago (19th). He is too modest and should have provided a link for Ned ( and otgers) to read. https://reality348.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/how-do-we-know-things/

    Where is Ren?.

  226. Brett Keane says:

    And you, MF, merely repeat the tired old ridiculae of pretending that the sun is not involved as the basic energy source, even for the gases to exist. What an insult to the intelligence. Put simply, solar distance like gravity is part of the equations and is the Prime Motive Force so spare us the idiotic childishness please.
    Brett

  227. Lucy Skywalker says:

    Mike Flynn says: January 25, 2019 at 12:36 am
    Lucy Skywalker, Thank you for agreeing . . .

    LS: . . . that you’ve done an amazing job of cherrypicking my words to almost invert their intention. Hats off to you!

  228. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: January 25, 2019 at 1:20 pm

    Water isn’t compressible. Gases are.

    Well, gasses are way more compressible than water, but even water is compressible.
    So we have a (very small) adiabatic lapse rate for a volume water moving up or down the pressure gradient in our oceans, exact same mechanism as in the atmosphere.

    https://nptel.ac.in/courses/119102007/downloads/module7.pdf

  229. Ben Wouters says:

    Brett Keane says: January 25, 2019 at 1:15 pm

    The Gas Laws are not suggestions, as we jest seriously, They do not pertain to any solid, even fluid, condition of matter.

    Obviously, where did I state something like that?

    I get tired of people who spoil discussions with nonsense like this:

    “Pressure has no effect on temperature” Only true in the exceptional instances you mention, when it’s in an enclosed space able to normalise with external temperatures. Not true in the general case of atmospheres on planets – it’s clearly seen in the adiabatic lapse rate, which only fails to show the full effect because of the counter-forces of convection and, to a lesser extent, conduction.

    Shows a total lack of understanding of what the DALR actually is.
    The DALR IS about convection etc. it is not countered by convection……

  230. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ Ben Wouters: January 25, 2019 at 11:49 am

    Ben, you have apparently not read our papers, which would explain the confusion in your statements above:

    1. Water in oceans in not compressible as gases are. In fact, liquid water is hardly compressible at all.

    2. The effect of pressure on temperature is relative, not absolute. We have a whole section devoted to this in our 2017 paper. This means that a higher pressure could be (and oftentimes is) associated with a lower temperature. A classic example of this are Earth and Titan (discussed in our paper). Titan’s surface atmospheric pressure is about 50% higher than Earth’s, yet Titan is about 194 K colder than Earth… Pressure by itself only defines the Relative Atmospheric Thermal Effect (RATE) as shown in Fig. 4 of our 2017 paper. For Earth, RATE = 1.456, which implies that Earth’s atmosphere enhances (boosts) the average absolute surface temperature 45.6% above the value determined by solar radiation. Thus, the absolute Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) depends on both pressure (RATE) and solar heating.

    3. It is ATE that enables the existence of water oceans on Earth. Water is ubiquitous throughout the solar system (i.e. it is available in large amounts on all rocky planets & moons except perhaps on Venus). Yet, liquid water in large quantities in only found on Earth, because our ATE creates the necessary pressure & temperature environment for liquid water to exist. Thus, Earth’s oceans are a consequence of ATE … This is also discusses in our 2017 paper.

  231. Trick says:

    Ned, you have apparently not read your own 2017 paper, which would explain the confusion in your statements above. The 2017 paper states: “The absolute thermal effect of an atmosphere depends on both pressure and the TOA solar irradiance”.

    ATE is actually not an abbreviation defined in your 2017 paper (that I could find). Apparently ATE really is your abbreviation for “Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement” which in your 2014 paper is “known as a natural Greenhouse Effect (GE), this near-surface Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) as named herein…”

    So, to be consistent with your 2014, 2017 papers, you will want to actually read them and reword your comment consistently to eliminate your confusion at 9:02pm.

  232. Trick says:

    For your 2014 paper consistent example: 3. Known as a natural Greenhouse Effect (GE), it is this near-surface Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) that enables the existence of liquid water oceans on Earth surface.

  233. oldbrew says:

    7.2 Adiabatic lapse rate

    What causes lapse rate in the sea? The adiabatic lapse rate is generally said to be
    proportional to the work done on a fluid parcel as its volume changes due to a pressure
    change (increase/ decrease). According to this definition, the adiabatic lapse rate Γ in the
    ocean would increase both with pressure and the fluid compressibility, but this is not the
    case. Indeed, Γ is proportional to thermal expansion coefficient and is independent of the
    compressibility of seawater

    https://nptel.ac.in/courses/119102007/downloads/module7.pdf

  234. Lucy Skywalker says:

    wildeco2014 says: January 25, 2019 at 5:13 am
    Lucy, Can you refer me to any term in Graeff’s equations that represents PE converting to KE in columns of descending air ? If he includes that then his observations do not need a modification to the second law.

    A patent application is intended to protect a potentially profitable device. Graeff clearly thought he could construct an apparatus that would export useable energy from the ability of gravity to create a temperature differential up the vertical column. That cannot happen if one recognises that the work done in ascending columns is offset by equal and opposite work done in descending columns so he must have failed to account for the descent aspect.

    LS – hi again! Two points in response.

    FIRSTLY, please, er, please, re-read my articles most carefully – as I said. The answers to what you ask are all there, put as simply, clearly, invitingly as possible, and nothing I can say here can spare you the painful challenge of wrestling with the mathematics for yourself. I have spelled out pretty well as much as is possible to spell out. Now you have to work on it yourself, mathematically and scientifically, until you reach the point where you can understand it for yourself. And if you reach that understanding, you will see that it is correct – and that it cannot be ignored or simplified or fitted into current official paradigms – that it necessitates a modification, not a rewriting, of 2LoT.

    The motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius In Verba” which means “on the word of nobody”. When we were tackling new key concepts at school in maths, the teacher would always ensure that nobody was absent that day because it was so important that each of us grasp the basic concept for ourselves, so that we could go on to do the proof, see the proof, experience the proof as real, true, scientifically undeniable truth – for ourselves. This is what it means to put into practice “Nullius In Verba”.

    This is why Ned and Karl are real scientists. They saw that the Stefan-Boltzman equation officially used by Climate Science simply is mathematically incorrect when applied to a sphere. They saw that this equation that uses integral calculus has to be redeveloped from first principles, mathematically. It simply cannot be fudged or simplified, any more than one can fudge the meaning of, say, “TWO”. If you would study the mathematical reality, Stephen, you would realize that it is what it is and has to be as it is.

    I am mighty glad that I did A-level Pure Maths and Applied Maths (with good grades). Though I did it a long time ago and have forgotten almost all of the actual formulae, methods and proofs, I have never lost – once grasped, one can never lose – the understanding of the reality and key importance, to all the other sciences, of mathematical proof.

    It can be hard work, to go through the maths. Everyone including myself tries to avoid it as far as possible. It certainly feels much more comfortable if one can point to someone else and say, “they’ve done it, there’s the proof”. But in this lie the horrible pitfalls that have completely enshrouded Climate Science and turned it from True Science into Superstition – “building up” – by implication, on quicksand foundations.

    Find someone who is competent in maths and has basic knowledge of molecular physics, and work through Graeff’s experiments and proof with them. Slow them down where you don’t understand, until you do. Nothing less will equip you to help put Climate Science right.

    SECONDLY, please please THINK about what I said about Iceland harvesting thermal power – as I requested. Think how a refrigerator heat pump works – or look it up if you do not know. This has to work as a closed system. And just because the whole system has to comply with the First Law of Thermodynamics ie no net gain or loss of heat, does NOT mean that heat (or cold) cannot be harvested. In a fridge, the cooling phase is put into a very limited space, while the warming phase is released into the ventilated air of the room where it can “normalize” and cool off enough to extract more cold before it passes once again through the heat pump.

    Don’t forget, Graeff was a top engineer, able to grasp such things. Because you and I have difficulty envisaging such heat harvesting as practical, does not mean it is not possible. Think about that.

  235. Mike Flynn says:

    Lucy Skywalker,

    Graeff may well be a top engineer. I see no evidence of independent experimental results. You have none, neither does anyone else. His device cannot work.Wishful thinking.

    As far as I know, Graeff’s patent application did not result in a patent being granted. Perpetual motion machine patents in the US require that a working prototype be supplied if the invention purports to output more energy than it consumes. To date, nobody has managed to satisfy this condition.

    Quite apart from the legalities, nobody has yet managed to produce a device that produces more energy than it consumes. And, of course, the ATE and the gravito-thermal effect imply this situation.

    Press on. As I said before, I will join the queue to buy a device that produces free energy. Who wouldn’t?

    Talking about harvesting cold is just silly. Try harvesting a billion watts from ice emitting 300 W/m2, and heat a teaspoon of water. Nope, can’t be done.

    Nikolov and Zeller are deluded. End of story, and I wish them well. No new science, no great leap forward – at least not without at least a hypothesis which can be tested by reproducible experiment.

    Cheers.

  236. Mike Flynn says:

    oldbrew,

    May I point out that the lapse rate is merely a way of expressing the existing thermal gradient.

    Here is a commendably brief description –

    “The Lapse Rate is the rate at temperature changes with height in the Atmosphere.”

    Fairly obviously, if the temperature at the base of an atmospheric column is 300 K, and the notional temperature at the top of the column is 4 K, and the height of the column is greater than zero, the temperature will fall with altitude.

    Even a slightly wordier description of the lapse rate –

    “The lapse rate of nonrising air—commonly referred to as the normal, or environmental, lapse rate—is highly variable, being affected by radiation, convection, and condensation; it averages about 6.5 °C per kilometre (18.8 °F per mile) in the lower atmosphere (troposphere).”

    – does not mention gravity. It is not necessary. It is a measurement. No mention of work being done, either, although the gases of the atmosphere exist because a ball of molten iron and rock has a surface temperature, and there is a big, bright, hot thing called the Sun close enough to keep the gas gaseous (in general). Neither gravity nor CO2 provide any additional energy – quite the opposite actually.

    No GHE. No ATE. No testable hypothesis to be found! You call this science?

    Cheers.

  237. tallbloke says:

    Just took 20 mins off from my political work to skim the thread. Lot’s of great contributions and well conducted discussion – well done everyone.

    Lucy: Welcome back.

    Oldbrew and Ned: Thanks for holding the fort.

    Stephen W: Keep going with the development of conceptual explanations.

    Everyone: try to find the time to re-read Ned and Karl’s papers. Good science is like fine wine: It’s to be savoured and appreciated as a stimulus to good conversation and further scientific progress.

  238. gallopingcamel says:

    @lifeisthermal,

    I respect the work of folks like Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Lord Monckton, Patrick Michaels, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Ned Nikolov, Karl Zeller, David Catling and Tyler Robinson because they all challenge the nonsense promoted by the “Climate Science” tribe.

    However I have strong disagreements with Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer who talk of “Climate Sensitivity” in terms of degrees Kelvin per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration even though the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis is demonstrably false.

    I have disagreements with Ned Nikolov on airless bodies. He says that the rate of rotation has little effect on average temperature while I find a significant effect. Even so I think N&Z are onto something given how well TSI and pressure explain the temperature at the surface of rocky bodies.

    When it comes to bodies with significant atmospheres, my problem with N&Z is that their pressure based equations should work at all altitudes even if there is no rocky surface:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/unified-theory-of-climate-revisited/

  239. gallopingcamel says:

    @oldbrew,
    I served on the Duke university radiation safety committee for many years. My duties included personnel protection systems for the world’s brightest gamma ray source. One of our accelerators could deliver a lethal dose of gamma rays in less than ten minutes if you were dumb enough to stand inside the concrete shielding.

    The LD50 (50% of affected individuals will die within 30 days) for gamma rays is an acute dose of 4 Sieverts. According to the link you provided the average radiation dose on Mars is 8 Rads/year (for gamma radiation that is 8 Sieverts/year).

    That link you provided suggests that anyone living on Mars would absorb the LD50 dose of ionizing radiation in 5/8*365 = 228 days. Radiation safety around the world is based on the LNT (Linear No Threshold). If that theory was true nobody could survive on Mars

    Reality is a little different. The effect of ionizing radiation is NOT linear. To the contrary, moderate doses of X-rays and gamma rays can improve your health. For example there was a radiation accident in Taiwan that reduced the incidence of hard cancers and leukemia by a factor or 30:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

    Dr. Sakamoto in Fukushima, Japan gives his patients X-ray doses of 1.5 Sieverts which increases his patients life expectancy. While an acute dose of 1.5 Sieverts would reduce life expectancy, Dr. Sakamoto delivers the dose over five weeks. What does not kill you may make you stronger. Welcome to the highly controversial world of “Radiation Hormesis”.

  240. gallopingcamel says:

    @oldbrew,
    “Going anywhere that takes longer than a human lifetime to get to, is another problem 😐”

    Einstein’s revelation that nothing can travel faster that light “in vaquo” at first blush suggests that it would take at least 27,002 years to travel from here to the center of our galaxy.

    When you look more closely at Einstein’s equations you discover that you can go anywhere in the universe in zero time if you are traveling at the speed of light. OK, so nothing can travel at the speed of light but you can get pretty close.

    For example, I built a synchroton with a circumference of 108 meters that orbited electrons at 0.99999988273 of the speed of light. At that velocity electrons have a “gamma” of 2,065 which means that their mass is 2065 times their rest mass. If you were riding on that electron time would be running 2,065 times more slowly than in the static world of Duke university.

    You and I could achieve a “gamma” of 2,065 if we were able to accelerate at one “g” for eight years. In those eight years our space ship would travel 2,000 light years. Thanks to Einstein we can go thousands of light years in a human lifetime simply by accelerating at one “g” which is what we need to remain healthy.

  241. oldbrew says:

    GC – if we were able to accelerate at one “g” for eight years

    Bad luck if you need to visit the bathroom 🙂

    https://www.medicaldaily.com/breaking-point-whats-strongest-g-force-humans-can-tolerate-369246

  242. oldbrew says:

    Mike Flynn says: No testable hypothesis to be found! You call this science?

    Empirical data must come first. See N&Z papers and my earlier comments re Venus and Titan.

    Huffmann’s Venus data:
    Here is a table more precisely comparing the temperatures at various pressures in Earth’s atmosphere (the standard atmosphere) with the corresponding temperatures in Venus’s atmosphere:

    https://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    In graph form:

  243. wildeco2014 says:

    Sadly, the energy required to maintain an acceleration of 1g for eight years would be completely impractical. Even fusion power couldn’t do it.

  244. gbaike

    It would vary from planet to planet. Best to focus on the two extremes of no radiative leakage and 100% radiative leakage.

    If zero than all energy to space has to go to from the surface and convection has to work fast enough to get kinetic energy back to the surface fast enough for radiation out to match radiation in.

    If 100% then radiation from the atmosphere alone matches energy out with energy in and no convection is required at all.

    The reality is always between the two extremes.

  245. Mike Flynn says:

    oldbrew,

    What in heck is all this to do with some proposed heating mechanism which supposedly makes thermometers hotter either due to pressure or CO2 or who knows what.

    What reproducibly observable phenomena are you claiming is inexplicable by known physics?

    Where may the definition of this effect be found?

    Nowhere, that’s where!

    What is that you cannot understand?

    Air temperatures at 1000 mb on Earth vary between about 50 C and – 80 C. What has Venus got to do with anything? Gravity doesn’t seem to be involved in the variation, nor does CO2 concentration.

    Do you really think the higher temperatures are due to excessive amounts of gravity or CO2?

    I don’t, and neither do you. If you don’t agree, maybe you can explain why.

    Cheers.

  246. Trick says:

    oldbrew 9:17am, Huffman cites the provenance of Venus’ density(z) he uses in his IGL computations P=density*R*T is from NASA measurements which, as in N&Z Fig. 4, include the full Venus GHE/ATE. Thus, Huffman’s chart you post includes a full natural Venus GHE/ATE as does N&Z 2017 Fig. 4.

  247. gallopingcamel says:

    @oldbrew,
    Nice one! Weightlessness or high “g” forces are both bad for the human body. So how many sustained “g”s can we stand?

    @wildeco2014,
    “Sadly, the energy required to maintain an acceleration of 1g for eight years would be completely impractical. Even fusion power couldn’t do it.”

    What matters most in rockets is the “Specific Energy” of the fuel. A hydrogen-oxygen rocket has a specific energy of ~16 MJ/kg. We know that even multi-stage chemical rockets can sustain one “g” for about one hour.

    The Orion project was based on nuclear fission with a specific energy six orders of magnitude greater. With nuclear fusion one would expect up to 10 million times (seven orders of magnitude) greater specific energy than the best chemical rockets. While that sounds impressive it is easy to show that even a fusion rocket could not sustain 1g for 8 years……….so you are right.

    There are a couple of things you may have overlooked. What is the specific energy of matter/anti-matter reactions? Answer….~9 10^10 MJ/kg or almost ten orders of magnitude greater than chemical rockets. Darn it! That is still not enough.

    Yet it will be enough if one can defeat the rocket equation by gathering fuel from inter-stellar space as Robert Bussard proposed in 1960:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/

    @Tallbloke,
    My apologies for going so far “Off Topic”.

  248. gallopingcamel says:

    @oldbrew,
    Getting back On Topic! Thanks for that Harry Dale Huffman link which supports the N&Z claim that pressure and TSI are the main variables.

    Just to drive your point home, the TSI for Venus is 2,613.9 W/m^2 while the corresponding figure for Earth is 1,361.7. Divide one into the other and you get 1.9196.

    The temperature ratio in the HDH plot is 1.176 so raise that to the fourth power and you have 1.9126. Thus the temperatures on Earth and Venus at any given pressure are proportional to the fourth root of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) ratio.

    It is stunning to find such close agreement until you realize that nitrogen, the dominant gas in Eath’s atmosphere has a specific heat at constant pressure (Cp) that is roughly equal to the Cp of CO2, the dominant gas on Venus. Put another way, gas composition is not an important factor in determining a planet’s temperature just as N&Z keep telling us.

  249. gallopingcamel says:

    @Mike Flynn.
    “Gravity doesn’t seem to be involved in the variation, nor does CO2 concentration.”

    The effect of gravity would be obvious if Huffman’s chart was plotted with altitude as the “Y” axis. To make the plots for Earth and Venus overlap you would need two “Y’ axes. Think of “g” as being a scaling constant in this situation because in planetary tropospheres DALR approximates to -g/Cp.

    According to the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis even traces of CO2 have a significant effect on planetary temperatures. This hypothesis is false yet the “Climate Scientist” tribe clings to it. N&Z have pointed out that gas composition has little effect on planetary temperatures. Pressure and TSI dominate.

  250. gbaikie says:

    –Stephen Wilde says:
    January 26, 2019 at 12:38 pm
    gbaike

    It would vary from planet to planet. Best to focus on the two extremes of no radiative leakage and 100% radiative leakage.

    If zero than all energy to space has to go to from the surface and convection has to work fast enough to get kinetic energy back to the surface fast enough for radiation out to match radiation in.

    If 100% then radiation from the atmosphere alone matches energy out with energy in and no convection is required at all.

    The reality is always between the two extremes.–

    I think Earth has very little leakage. Though if you count clouds radiating energy into space as leakage, then Earth has some leakage. And Venus has a lot of leakage.

    Though if count clouds not as “atmosphere” but rather as a type of “surface” then basically Earth and Venus has little leakage.
    And since I do tend to think of clouds as a surface, no atmospheres have much leakage.

    Though the greenhouse effect theory counts clouds as the atmosphere and counts clouds as ‘greenhouse gases”.

  251. oldbrew says:

    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink 🙂

  252. Trick says:

    gc comments: ”N&Z have pointed out that gas composition has little effect on planetary temperatures.”

    N&Z don’t use the term “little effect”. Here’s what N&Z 2017 p.14 actually write: “the physical nature of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ is a pressure-induced thermal enhancement (PTE) independent of atmospheric composition.”

    This means N&Z disagree with the Robinson & Catling 2013 letter where atm. optical depth is shown to depend on atm. composition (grey absorbers extinction coefficient, mixing ratios). You can’t rely on both.

    Btw, both R&C Fig. 1 and N&Z Fig. 4 plots include the full natural composition of each object’s atmosphere.

  253. gbaikie says:

    Or in the cargo cult of Greenhouse effect theory, the cultist are all certain that upper atmosphere radiates a lot energy. Or is where nearly all cooling occurs. And that, is foolish.

  254. gbaikie says:

    If theories need a model. I don’t have theory about global climate.
    But my ideas about Earth climate would apply to other planets, and tend to more interested in other planets [and our Moon]. I think it pretty important that humans become space-faring, and I am bit embarrassed as a human, that we have failed to do this.
    I don’t think Earth will become inhabitable in the next billion years. And I think Earth is most habitable planet for humans in this universe. Or idea of looking to find a more habitable planet than Earth OR even a planet close to being as habitable as Earth, is a waste of time and effort.
    For humans to live on another planet, does not require the ;planet to be habitable- we can live on Mercury or Venus which most people would regard as inhabitable. Humans currently are living in inhabitable regions of Earth- because humans have technology.
    I think we get space-faring fairly quickly, and yesterday would have been better than tomorrow. But my ideas about Earth climate is:
    The tropical ocean is heat engine of the world.
    Atmospheres increase the average temperature of a planet- and an atmosphere is essential in terms a planets’s temperature if temperature of a planet is air temperature or surface air temperature.
    Or if air temperature is the temperature of a planet, no atmosphere means no temperature.- unless one is talking about room temperature and you have room on a airless planet.
    Which reminds me, Elon Musk would not building rockets, if he didn’t want a greenhouse on Mars- he wanted a room on Mars. And probably would been happy with a small room.
    And would could say I got involved with the climate cargo cult, due to a slight interest in topic of terra forming Mars [which btw, I have generally come the conclusion, roughly speaking, that would be a bad idea].
    And another reason is that I would “get” climate wack jobs, who would argue that climate change was more important than humans becoming spacefaring.
    Anyhow, Earth is warm [if you can could call an Ice Age, warm] because it’s has global ocean.
    That should be the end of the discussion- but we have the mad climate cultists. Their main problem seem to be, that they lack a reasonable religion. I tend not to be much of a fan of religions, but the cultists seem to point to essential need of reasonable religions.

  255. gbaikie says:

    “However I have strong disagreements with Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer who talk of “Climate Sensitivity” in terms of degrees Kelvin per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration even though the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis is demonstrably false.”

    I think Lindzen and Spencer are say a doubling of CO2 would only increase average global temperature by about 1.5 C and perhaps Lindzen thinks it’s less than this. And unclear the amount of time required, but tends to be about before 2100 AD.
    Both think natural variable has been caused about 1/2 of measured warming over last +100 years.

    I have tended to think a doubling of CO2 would cause less than 2 C, then came to view it would be 1 C or less, and currently I think in near term of decades of time, the warming effect of doubling would in range of 0 to .5 C. And in terms global warming before 2100 AD, global temperature will not warm more than 1 C. And over last century global warming has been about 1 C. And tend to think we will get less increase in global temperature in next 100 years that we had in last 100 years.

    It seems there is a fair amount uncertainty related to how warming which has occurred in last 100 years, and this due to incompetence, and corruption and mostly related to governmental incompetence and corruption. And the UN has been excessive in this regard. It seems the UN has had immeasurable improvement upon climate science and seems to caused it to be worst as compared to any improvement. And this could also be said to be case with all things that the UN is suppose to do.
    So I have doubt about the measuring of global temperature over last 100 years, and have doubt regarding measuring over next 100 years. But proving it has not warmed by about 1 C over last 100 years is difficult for me to do, and in meantime, I roughly accept it has warmed by 1 C.
    And it seems no one is seriously claiming that rising CO2 has caused .4 C or more of warming over last +100 years.
    Arrhenius idea that doubling of C02 could cause 5 C of warming is wrong, And the basic idea of hypothesis that CO2 level cause glacial and interglacial periods is also wrong.

    I believe it’s possible that CO2 causes warming on Mars, but not as greenhouse gas, rather the CO2 increases global temperature by keeping polar region warmer, due to latent heat of CO2. Earth doesn’t appear to this similar process with CO2 at the present time.

  256. gbaikie says:

    What I think is somewhat interesting regarding global average temperature, is the apparent difference between north and south hemisphere.
    Also find it interesting that we have uncertainly regarding global temperature during last glaciation:
    “According to Blue Marble 3000 (a video by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences), the average global temperature around 19,000 BC (about 21,000 years ago) was 9.0 °C (48.2 °F). This is about 6.0 °C (10.8°F) colder than the 2013-2017 average.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

    In terms different average temperature of hemisphere:

    NH winter: 8.1C (46.6F) summer: 22.4C average: 15.2C
    SH winter: 9.7C (49.5F) summer: 17.0C average: 13.3C
    http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_spatial_scales.html

    That reference seems quite certain of itself in terms why this the case, but it’s known for a long time [+100 years] that there was such a difference and with many reason given for it.

    Perhaps, Ned Nikolov will offer reason as it related to his model.

    Why hemispheres have difference average temperature AND
    why. And how much glacial periods were colder as compared to present average temperature of Earth being “about” 15 C.

    I am going to tiny the last link:
    https://tinyurl.com/yb7f26ss

  257. okulaer says:

    oldbrew says, January 26, 2019 at 9:17 am:

    Empirical data must come first.

    Indeed. Try the same “formula” for Titan. Doesn’t work at all. Temp at 1 bar = ~85K, multiply by ~3.1 to get [85×3.1=] 263.5K. Compare that to 289K on Earth at 1 bar. It misses the mark by [289-263.5=] 25.5K …!

    Huffmann’s Venus data: (…)

    Harry Dale Huffman writes:

    Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it.

    That’s the whole point, it DOESN’T “get” more power from the Sun. It WOULD if it had the same global albedo as Earth, but it doesn’t. So it ends up actually absorbing much LESS “power” from the Sun than Earth:

    He continues:

    Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth.

    NO!!!!!!!! The “radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the” HEAT FLUX it absorbs …! That’s not the TSI. That’s the ASR, TSI minus reflected SW (“albedo”).

    In Earth’s case that heat flux is [340-100=] 240 W/m^2 => T_e = 255K. In Venus’s case the equivalent heat flux is [652-489=] 163 W/m^2 => T_e = 231.5K.

  258. Mike Flynn says:

    GC,

    I believe that the purpose of the exercise was to support some implied notion that the force of gravity creates heat, making thermometers hotter. This is rubbish on the face of it.

    I have just pointed out that the force of gravity on the Earth’s surface is relatively constant, but extreme temperatures show some 130 K variation, and in the arid tropical deserts, daily excursions may exceed 50 K.

    Additionally, ocean depths of some kilometers do not result in raised temporaries due to the force of gravity.

    At this point, people generally start waffling about Venus or Saturn, or Loschmidt or any number of diversions, in order to avoid actually stating in clear terms what the supposed effect is actually supposed to do, and then propose a testable hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena.

    Temperatures on Earth generally fall at night, during solar eclipses, when it it is cloudy and so on. Gravity doesn’t seem to change much. The claim that gravity or CO2 makes it “hotter than it otherwise would be” is just so much bollocks. Where? By how much? How did you measure it?

    In the final analysis it’s all a colossal waste of other people’s money, eh?

    Your beliefs are your own. Unfortunately, I have found from time to time that I am expected to pay for the negative effects when other people’s beliefs turn out to be wrong.

    Wind farms, wood chips, solar power subsidies, feed in tariffs, diesels now good, then bad, and so it goes. And for what? To prevent the climate from changing? Good luck with that.

    If N & Z want to spend their own money publishing their speculations – fine. In most cases, researchers want the Government to pay for their hobby. Somehow, journal publishers make multi-billion dollar profits! Your tax money hard at work – doing science, supposedly.

    I’ll leave it alone.

    Cheers

  259. gbaikie says:

    –gallopingcamel says:
    January 26, 2019 at 6:10 pm
    @oldbrew,
    Getting back On Topic! Thanks for that Harry Dale Huffman link which supports the N&Z claim that pressure and TSI are the main variables.

    Just to drive your point home, the TSI for Venus is 2,613.9 W/m^2 while the corresponding figure for Earth is 1,361.7. Divide one into the other and you get 1.9196.

    The temperature ratio in the HDH plot is 1.176 so raise that to the fourth power and you have 1.9126. Thus the temperatures on Earth and Venus at any given pressure are proportional to the fourth root of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) ratio.

    It is stunning to find such close agreement until you realize that nitrogen, the dominant gas in Eath’s atmosphere has a specific heat at constant pressure (Cp) that is roughly equal to the Cp of CO2, the dominant gas on Venus. Put another way, gas composition is not an important factor in determining a planet’s temperature just as N&Z keep telling us.–

    Well, it not clear to me, how exactly CO2 or water vapor warms- and I willing to accept the possibilities of more than one way. And willing to entertain idea it causes no warming [my focus has been what is most they could warm].
    Anyhow there has been an experiment about possible warming effect of CO2 [don’t have link and if bookmarked it was in long dead computer] at low level [about 500 feet above ground].
    And tend to think warming effect is below 2000 meters from surface.
    This of course would be not work in terms of rocky Venus surface, though could work in regards with Venus clouds.
    And with both Earth and Venus, I think radiant effects are tiny and present error in measurements could be a greater factor.

    But generally the problem with Earth or Venus is not temperature. Earth is icebox climate, Venus one would live in the sky [and might even need heating units in sky cities].

  260. gallopingcamel says:

    @Mike Flynn,
    “Unfortunately, I have found from time to time that I am expected to pay for the negative effects when other people’s beliefs turn out to be wrong. ”

    I hope this means that you object to wasting money on the absurd notion that the human race can control climate. We are spending trillions to “mitigate carbon dioxide” while ignoring real problems such as the billions of people who lack modern sanitation or access to cheap electricity.

  261. gallopingcamel says:

    @Trick,
    Isaac Newton in 1675 remarked “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

    Think about that……..making progress in science is about building on the insights of others.

    We don’t need to choose between R&C (Robinson & Catling) or N&K (Nikolov & Zeller). We need to stand on their shoulders.

  262. gallopingcamel says:

    @okulaer,
    “NO!!!!!!!! The “radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the” HEAT FLUX it absorbs …! That’s not the TSI. That’s the ASR, TSI minus reflected SW (“albedo”).

    In Earth’s case that heat flux is [340-100=] 240 W/m^2 => T_e = 255K. In Venus’s case the equivalent heat flux is [652-489=] 163 W/m^2 => T_e = 231.5K.”

    For Venus the TSI is 2,613.9 W/m^2. The planet has 100% cloud cover so the Albedo is high (~0.76) and it varies very little with time. Note that I am using the “Bond Albedo” rather than the “Geometric Albedo”.
    Thus the absorbed radiation is 627.3 W/m^2.

    For Earth the TSI is 1,361.7 W/m^2. Given the highly variable cloud cover on Earth, the Albedo varies over a wide range but for the sake of argument let us assume that it averages 0.306. The absorbed radiation is therefore 945.0 W/m^2.

    Dividing 627.3 by 945.0 yields a ratio of 0.6638. The fourth root of that ratio is 0.9026. By this logic one would expect temperatures on Venus at a given pressure to be lower than on Earth which is contrary to what is observed. When a hypothesis does not match observations I go with Richard Feynman:
    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

    Nikolov & Zeller do not claim that their equations work at all altitudes or on all worlds. Their claims apply to the surface temperatures of rocky bodies. Specifically, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa Titan and Triton. They make no claims about gas giants even though their equations work pretty well for such bodies:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/unified-theory-of-climate/

    Robinson & Catling predict the temperatures at all altitudes up to the top of the stratosphere on worlds that have significant atmospheres. Specifically, Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Uranus and Neptune.

  263. Ben Wouters says:

    gbaikie says: January 25, 2019 at 11:05 am

    I find 20 C water too cold to swim in, and 15 C water will kill you.

    –But the deep oceans are just above freezing, let’s say 275K.–

    Some are saying 90% of entire ocean is 0 to 3 C.

    And some small parts are colder than 0 C:

    You obviously miss my whole point.
    If the deep oceans are ~275K (~78K above the average lunar temperature), how did they get so hot??
    If you accept either GHE or ATE increases the surface temperature, and Geothermal Energy (GE) plays no role, how did the atmosphere heat the oceans some 78K above what the sun is able to do?

    If, on the other hand you accept that the heat content of the deep oceans is supplied by GE, the sun only has to increase the temperature of the mixed surface layer a few degrees to reach the observed temperatures. Atmosphere merely reduces the energy loss to space.
    So yes, remove the atmosphere and Earth will cool down, but no, the atmosphere does NOT increase the surface temperature plus the temperature of the deep oceans.

  264. Ben Wouters says:

    minarchist (@3GHtweets) says: January 25, 2019 at 1:37 pm
    see https://nptel.ac.in/courses/119102007/downloads/module7.pdf
    page 6:

    This can be further illustrated with an example: Consider a water parcel moving
    downwards in the ocean to deeper layers from surface at a level where pressure is 500 bar
    (i.e. about to a depth of 5000 m). Thus δ p = 500 ×105
    Pa ; if the initial temperature of the
    water parcel is T = 288 K , then adiabatically moving parcel will have a change in
    temperature by δT given by
    δT = ∂T
    ∂ p


    ⎜ ⎞


    ηS
    δ p = Γδ p = TαT
    ρCp
    δ p
    = T ⋅αT
    Cp
    g δ Z = 288 × 2.2 ×10−4
    4200
    × 9.81× 5000 = 0.74K

  265. Ben Wouters says:

    Ned Nikolov says: January 25, 2019 at 9:02 pm
    Ned, I do agree with your work on the lunar temperatures, but i just don’t buy that our atmosphere increases the surface temperature, since this implies that the atmosphere also must increase the temperature of the deep oceans, assuming you dismiss the enormous amount of heat available inside Earth.

  266. tallbloke says:

    Mike Flynn: I believe that the purpose of the exercise was to support some implied notion that the force of gravity creates heat, making thermometers hotter.

    Well, you believe wrongly. Pay closer attention. And stop being rude.

    Air temperatures at 1000 mb on Earth vary between about 50 C and – 80 C.

    Yes. Insolation varies a lot across the latitudes where those temperatures are found too. FYI Ned and Karl’s extended model accounts for latitudinal temperature variation and ‘polar amplification’.

  267. gbaikie says:

    –You obviously miss my whole point.
    If the deep oceans are ~275K (~78K above the average lunar temperature), how did they get so hot??–
    Earth is similar to an ideal thermally conductive blackbody. But nothing is same as ideal thermally conductive blackbody, as it a model or it is ideal (or if you like, imaginary). And roughly that model indicates that at Earth distance from sun, such ideal thermally conductive sphere would have an uniform temperature in a vacuum of about 5 C.
    Likewise, a flat surface with insulated backside which had a blackbody surface facing the sun would have a temperature of about 120 C, in a vacuum and at Earth distance from the sun.

    And a small bare rock asteroid with fast rotation at 1AU will also have an average surface temperature of about 5 C.
    And a small rock is closer to ideal thermally conductive body than a big rock.

    The moon is not bare rock, instead it covered by a fine dust which is highly insulated.
    But about 1 meter below the lunar surface the temperature has higher average temperature as compared to surface.
    Or average temperature a meter below surface is about 50 K cooler than Earth”s ocean.

    –If you accept either GHE or ATE increases the surface temperature, and Geothermal Energy (GE) plays no role, how did the atmosphere heat the oceans some 78K above what the sun is able to do?–
    I believe geothermal energy does play some role. And I believe in the past geothermal energy for short time periods (thousands of years) played far more significant role heating the entire ocean as compared to what it does at the moment.
    Or during past hothouse global climates when the average temperature of entire oceans was over 15 C, it seems this was or could be due largely, to volcanic heat.
    Or say, when island of Iceland was created, such large volcanic activity may have warmed the ocean, more, as compared to present global volcanic activity.

  268. okulaer says:

    gallopingcamel says, January 27, 2019 at 5:40 am:

    (…) one would expect temperatures on Venus at a given pressure to be lower than on Earth which is contrary to what is observed. When a hypothesis does not match observations I go with Richard Feynman:
    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

    Indeed. And, as I pointed out, the correspondence is even worse in the case of Titan.

    Nikolov & Zeller do not claim that their equations work at all altitudes or on all worlds.

    I responded to oldbrew, his “empirical data” statement, and his link to H.D. Huffman’s basic misunderstandings in “The End of the Mystery”.

    Robinson & Catling predict the temperatures at all altitudes up to the top of the stratosphere on worlds that have significant atmospheres. Specifically, Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Uranus and Neptune.

    Yes, Robinson & Catling have identified a relevant relationship. Nikolov & Zeller haven’t.

  269. okulaer says:

    Ben Wouters says, January 27, 2019 at 8:32 am:

    If you accept either GHE or ATE increases the surface temperature, and Geothermal Energy (GE) plays no role, how did the atmosphere heat the oceans some 78K above what the sun is able to do?

    What is it with this black-and-white approach of yours to this topic, Ben? Who claims that it has to be one OR the other? It’s BOTH!

    The atmosphere forces the average surface temperature of the Earth to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there. That’s a no-brainer. It’s called insulation. At the same time, the constant input, albeit small, of energy/heat from Earth’s interior to the ocean from below helps keeping it warm/unfrozen. There is no conflict here, Ben. Only in your head.

  270. Ben Wouters says:

    okulaer says: January 27, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    There is no conflict here, Ben. Only in your head.

    The conflict is between those who claim the atmosphere heats (GHE or ATE) the surface and reality.
    Good to see you now also accept that the atmosphere merely INSULATES the surface.
    Exactly what I’ve been saying for the last 5 years or so.
    see
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/

    Under Conclusions:

    Since their creation the temperature of the deep oceans has been set by the balance between geothermal heat on one side and cooling at high latitudes on the other.
    The sun only warms a shallow surface layer to create the observed surface temperatures.

    The role of the atmosphere now simply is the slowing of the heat loss to space. No warming of the surface required by backradiation or other constructs.

  271. Pablo says:

    At an altitude of about 10km altitude temperature is about the same from pole to equator at minus 60ºC. This is after winds, turbulence and latent heat have equalised the equator to pole temperature gradient. This is real temperature of planet Earth.

  272. Gbaikie,

    Huffman’s approach also works in comparing Earth to Mars (95% CO2).

    Earth distance 93
    Mars distance 141.6
    .65677^2= .431
    .43135^. 25= .8104

    Mars surface pressure .685kPa
    Temp at .685 kPa Earth atmosphere is 234k

    Calculated Mars Surface Temp

    234k*.8104=189.6

    Actual 190.6k !

  273. Ben Wouters says:

    Pablo says: January 27, 2019 at 2:08

    This is real temperature of planet Earth.

    Same can be said over the oceaan floor water temperature. Is ~273K almost every where on planet Earth.

  274. Pablo says:

    Ben
    good point… the flywheel of it all .. and has the property of only being able to freeze from the top down under a blazing sun.

  275. Trick says:

    minarchist 2:30pm – you are using N&Z App. B for Mars GMAT which they adjust down with brightness data from ~50yr.s ago & is different than mean Ts generally accepted in the literature to better fit their unique Fig. 4 curve: “The most frequently cited temperatures fall between 210 K and 220 K. However, a close examination of the available thermal observations reveals a high improbability for any of the above estimates to represent Mars’ true GMAT.”

    N&Z write their 190.56K brightness GMAT for Mars: “agrees quite well with spherically integrated brightness temperatures…from late 1960s and early 1970s” thus N&Z completely ignore the in situ thermometer temperatures which ARE used in generally accepted recent Mars Ts papers.

    And, as Huffman does, you are using Earth and Mars WITH their full natural GHE in effect. Mars GHE is about 5K clear atm. and about 5.6K dusty atm. with clouds.

    —–

    gallopingcamel: ”We don’t need to choose between R&C (Robinson & Catling) or N&K (Nikolov & Zeller).”

    For GMAT Ts, you do need to choose.

    N&Z 2017 : “the physical nature of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ is a pressure-induced thermal enhancement (PTE) independent of atmospheric composition.”

    R&C 2013: “Below middle stratospheres, radiative transfer is dominated by pressure-broadening and collision-induced absorption…a ∼0.1bar tropopause is an emergent rule that will apply to thick atmospheres on numerous exoplanets and exomoons that have compositions that are not markedly dissimilar to those in the Solar System…”

  276. gallopingcamel says:

    @okulaer.
    “Indeed. And, as I pointed out, the correspondence is even worse in the case of Titan.”

    I can’t argue with that. Here is my take on the Titan situation:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    Also I support your idea that Albedo should have a big impact; it baffles me that observations don’t seem to support it. This tells me that we still have much to learn about the factors that control climate.

  277. gallopingcamel says:

    @Trick,
    My point is that we need to keep the fighting among friends under control.

    The real enemy are the people who falsely claim that CO2 is the “Control
    Knob” for climate. These people are mis-informing public policy
    around the world so effectively that they are diverting trillions to
    solve a non-problem while real problems are ignored.

  278. tallbloke says: January 26, 2019 at 12:02 am
    Everyone: try to find the time to re-read Ned and Karl’s papers. Good science is like fine wine: It’s to be savoured and appreciated as a stimulus to good conversation and further scientific progress.

    Hi Rog, thanks for these words which put the matter exactly as I experience it. I wish I could inspire people to do this! I keep on going back to N&Z, and to Graeff, to dip in, and each time I glean more understanding, and it tastes soooo good!

    I now realize that when I posted first, I’d only just grasped enough of Nikolov and Zeller’s work to be sure that Graeff’s work was important for them to take on. But for the ability to explain, which I’ve been challenged with here, I have needed to go back again and again, to both N&Z and Graeff, to really grasp the details. And going back to their papers, their own work, I see more and more that they all matter and the details all ring true.

    I am so grateful to everyone here, but especially you Rog for hosting so patiently and wisely. And when I’ve posted this, and one more, I’m going back to N&Z for more perusal. I need to do this to be sure of my ground regarding the place of albedo in their work. It is missing? covered? something to which I can contribute? I cannot be sure as yet.

  279. A C Osborn says: January 24, 2019 at 11:38 pm
    Lucy, I remember reading your original posts. Has anybody managed to repeat or improve on the experiments? Has anybody confirmed his results?

    LS: AFAIK, nobody has so far repeated the experiments. IIRC, Graeff went to Dan Sheehan’s conference involving people who had done research suggesting modifications to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT). But he was the only participant who had actually done experiments – something I find a bit shocking. So Mike Flynn is right that Graeff’s experiments have not been repeated – but wrong to say that they are rubbish. He gives no indication of even having looked at them. Methinks he doth protest too much.

    I was planning to do replication myself but it was too much at that point. But now, having surprised myself by rediscovering it all, I am more convinced than ever that this replication is really important – not just to verify Graeff’s modification to 2LoT, but for this reason for Climate Science:

    Graeff’s experiments provide the missing experimental data that clearly and unambiguously shows the effect of pressure / altitude / on temperature: that WHEN CONVECTION IS IMPEDED there is a significant drop in temperature with altitude, due to NOTHING ELSE BUT ALTITUDE. Graeff measured this with extreme precision. In addition, his theoretical work fits his data with an excellent level of fit; and his theory explains measured results, not just in terms of the standard Gas Laws, and basic Conservation of Energy, but also in terms of molecules and molecular behaviour and energy. The formulas he develops are nothing like as difficult to follow as those Nikolov and Zeller develop (though I fully appreciate that N&Z’s formulae are also essential to their work) But N&Z have no theory as to why pressure, whereas Graeff does, and he explains it with simplicity, clarity and exactitude. This is why I find Graeff’s work so compelling and clean.

    I believe that N&Z need to study it and take it on themselves, because it provides two essential missing factors that they need: experimental evidence; and clean, clear theory. In fact I find the theory so clean and clear that in hindsight it looks like common sense.

    It is good to imagine clearly the air molecules, and think through the effect on each molecule of gravity in increasing kinetic energy, the lower each molecule falls. This is the key: for gases, increased kinetic energy literally means increased temperature and/or pressure. In the total situation, of course, molecules hit each other as well as the planetary surface, therefore get bounced individually in all directions including up – and when they rise, their kinetic energy will fall and their temperature and pressure will drop. They will literally stop hitting everything so hard. That’s Temperature and Pressure.

    Graeff gives figures for the drop in temperature with altitude, for different convection-impeded substances. It should therefore be possible to calculate, from this, the total theoretical effect on Earth’s atmosphere – IF convection were impeded – which of course it is not. That’s where the Adiabatic Lapse Rate must come in.

  280. I wrote “So Mike Flynn is right that Graeff’s experiments have not been repeated – but wrong to say that they are rubbish.”

    I meant to say “Mike Flynn is probably – and unfortunately – right that Graeff’s experiments have not been repeated – but wrong to say that they are rubbish.”

    THESE EXPERIMENTS DO NEED REPEATING.

    For 2LoT is regarded as so sacrosanct as to be untouchable. But this should not be the case – this is not a scientific attitude, it converts science into scientism. And Graeff’s theory does not even go against the Laws of Thermodynamics, it UPGRADES them. But one needs to actually examine Graeff’s logic, to see this. It is not that difficult. It is spelled out in my third article.

  281. oldbrew says:

    gc says: I support your idea that Albedo should have a big impact; it baffles me that observations don’t seem to support it

    Once again – albedo can’t cause itself 🙂

  282. gbaikie says:

    I was wondering if you get a material which acts somewhat like a cloud.
    And one could get material that acts like different types of clouds.

    So the material is say 1 foot thick, few inches thick, maybe it”s required to be meter or more thick. But any case something much smaller than the thickness of clouds and something solid, which acts like the suspended droplets or particles of clouds.
    Plus it be much better if quite cheap to buy.

    And I wondered if transparent fiberglass insulation was for sale.
    So if had it, and put it as roof over a patio, and day was clear, it would work as if the day was cloudy. But more than just looking like clouds but actually worked similar to a cloud.
    Anyhow, google it, and got aerogel:
    https://www.kalwall.com/technology/panel-anatomy/translucent-insulation/
    Which I am familiar with, but I looking for typical fiberglass which was transparent, but aerogel might be better.

    So can you make aerogel or some other transparent insulation so that acts like the clouds of Earth and the clouds of Venus?

    Now I thought earth clouds can reflect about 90% of sunlight and Venus clouds reflect about 75% of sunlight. But I was reminded that earth clouds are largely about scattering light, and that visible light is scattered.

    Or I guess I can say, Earth clouds scatter/reflect about 90% of visible light and perhaps can say Venus clouds scatter / reflect about 75% of visible light.
    Or some Earth clouds do this and some Venus clouds do this and is about or roughly this amount.
    Now, more than 1/2 of sunlight is not visible light, or more than 1/2 of sunlight is within the IR spectrum, though the near IR is shortwave and similar to visible light. Or even more similar to the spectrum of red visible light.

  283. Mike Flynn says:

    Tallbloke,

    Here’s a quote –

    “Effect of pressure on temperature: Atmospheric pressure provides in and of itself only a relative thermal enhancement (RATE) to the surface quantified by Eq. (11). The absolute thermal effect of an atmosphere depends on both pressure and the TOA solar irradiance. For example, at a total air pressure of 98.55 kPa, Earth’s RATE is 1.459, which keeps our planet 90.4 K warmer in its present orbit than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere.”

    Air pressure exists because of gravity, or magic or . . .

    N & Z’s quote does not explain what causes atmospheric pressure at the surface. If they believe the force gravity is not involved, then they have indeed discovered new science.

    You wrote –

    “Mike Flynn: I believe that the purpose of the exercise was to support some implied notion that the force of gravity creates heat, making thermometers hotter.”

    Well, you believe wrongly. Pay closer attention. And stop being rude.”

    What would you have me believe? That pressure created by the force of gravity makes thermometers hotter, or that atmospheric pressure just happens all by itself?

    Your blog, your rules, obviously. Censor away, if you choose. I’ve obviously paid enough attention to quote directly from the reference given. Your unsupported assertion that I’m wrong may not convince others, and if you think quoting N&Z, or stating what appear to be facts, is being rude, then you must take action as you see fit.

    Here’s a quote from Wikipedia –

    “Atmospheric pressure is caused by the gravitational attraction of the planet on the atmospheric gases above the surface, and is a function of the mass of the planet, the radius of the surface, and the amount and composition of the gases and their vertical distribution in the atmosphere.”

    Am I rude for pointing out the blindingly obvious?

    Cheers.

  284. Mike Flynn says:

    Lucy Skywalker,,

    You wrote –

    “I meant to say “Mike Flynn is probably – and unfortunately – right that Graeff’s experiments have not been repeated – but wrong to say that they are rubbish.”

    What would you prefer – unconfirmed speculation? Are you just complaining that I am probably (almost certainly) right? Facts are facts – regardless of what you or I might think.

    As Feynman wrote –

    “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.”

    I’ll go a little further – if your experiment cannot be reproduced, it doesn’t count.

    You also wrote –

    “Graeff’s experiments provide the missing experimental data that clearly and unambiguously shows the effect of pressure / altitude / on temperature: that WHEN CONVECTION IS IMPEDED there is a significant drop in temperature with altitude, due to NOTHING ELSE BUT ALTITUDE.”

    Would you really expect air temperature to increase with altitude? Where the air starts, it is at surface temperature (being in contact with the surface). Where the air finishes, the notional temperature is around 4 K. What area of conventional physics is lacking in explaining this phenomenon?

    Graeff’s patent application claimed inexhaustible free energy. As far as I am concerned, such claims are rubbish, bollocks, nonsense, delusional . . ., until demonstrated otherwise by means of reproducible experiment – based on my experience and knowledge.

    I know some people are less concerned with what I say, than they are with the way I say it. Tough. Nature doesn’t care what you or I think or say.

    Cheers.

  285. gbaikie says:

    –minarchist (@3GHtweets) says:
    January 27, 2019 at 2:30 pm
    Gbaikie,

    Huffman’s approach also works in comparing Earth to Mars (95% CO2).

    Earth distance 93
    Mars distance 141.6
    .65677^2= .431
    .43135^. 25= .8104

    Mars surface pressure .685kPa
    Temp at .685 kPa Earth atmosphere is 234k

    Calculated Mars Surface Temp

    234k*.8104=189.6

    Actual 190.6k ! —

    So actual temperature of Mars is 190.6k.
    I am always getting different numbers.
    So to be clear, The air temperature at some distance from the surface, such as 1, 3, or 5 feet above the surface has an average global temperature of 190.6 K.
    I am aware that during day hours [maybe night] air temperature is suppose vary in amount whether it 1 foot or 5 feet above the ground surface of Mars. Or it’s warmer nearest the ground and quite a bit cooler 1.5 meter above the ground as measured by Mars rovers.
    Though I don’t anyone would say that Mars lander can actually measure global Mars temperature due to lack of them and lack of time measuring from this shortage temperature monitoring sites.

    It seems possible one could attempt to measure air temperature from Mars orbit, and maybe somehow calibrate it lander air temperature readings or use some other means of calibration.

    OR you might mean the temperature of the ground rather than surface air temperature.
    But I am fascinated by idea that mars robotic exploration can measure global temperature of 190.6 particularly since we can’t seem to measure Earth’s average temperature to such precision and billions of dollars have used. I for instance would like to know the average temperature of Earth entire surface ocean temperature, so I don’t have to say it’s about 17 C.
    Personally despite being excessive interested in the Mars and the Moon, I would still think knowing the ocean surface temperature is precision of 1/10th of degree, would more important than Mars average temperature. Though if going to measure Mars average temperature, it might important if measure over say a couple decades and determine if it’s warming or cooling.

    Do you have a reference for the actual temperature of Mars being 190.6 K [or -82.5 C]?

  286. gallopingcamel says:

    @Lucy Skywalker,
    “I need to do this to be sure of my ground regarding the place of albedo in their work. It is missing?”

    You won’t find Albedo in N&Z’s equations but it does not seem to matter. “okulaer” points out that TSI times (1-Albedo) should be the correct way to calculate incident energy from the sun. “Oldbrew” seems to know something about this given his cryptic comment: “Once again – albedo can’t cause itself 🙂”

    As I have said before, I am baffled by the fact that N&Z can ignore Albedo and still get the right answer. The clouds that reflect 76% of the solar radiation on Venus reduce the absorbed radiation by a factor 4.167 so (other things being equal) temperatures should be reduced by a factor of 1.4287.

    Here is my wild theory. While the clouds on Venus reflect 76% of the incident energy they also set the effective radiation temperature of the planet (Cloud Tops) to ~240 K. Thus the high Albedo is offset by the low temperature at the cloud tops and hence the energy loss via IR radiation.

    In the case of Earth, the Albedo is lower but the cloud top temperature is higher.

    IMHO it is dumb luck that the effect of Albedo cancels out IR emissivity when you compare Earth to Venus. I am embarrassed to be offering such “hand waving” arguments without supporting equations. I appeal to “Oldbrew” to help me out.

  287. oldbrew says:

    gc – what effect are the clouds having at night?

    16 references to albedo here: ‘Global Warming, Clouds, and Albedo: Feedback Loops’
    https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html

  288. oldbrew says:

    Another conundrum?

    The Moon has an exceptionally low albedo, giving it a reflectance that is slightly brighter than that of worn asphalt. Despite this, it is the brightest object in the sky after the Sun.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Appearance_from_Earth

    Still bright in Earth’s daytime.

  289. okulaer says:

    oldbrew says, January 28, 2019 at 9:03 am:

    gc – what effect are the clouds having at night?

    What effect does the TSI have at night?

  290. tallbloke says:

    Mike Flynn: Here’s a quote from Wikipedia –

    The (anonymous) Wiki author is being even more disingenuous than you. Surface pressure is a function of gravity, surface area and atmospheric mass. It has nothing to do with atmospheric composition.

    But at least you’ve progressed from the “notion that the force of gravity creates heat” to recognising that surface air pressure and insolation are involved.

    The next step for you to progress to is recognising that in multilayered thermodynamic systems which are not closed, and have energy flowing into and out of them, the temperatures the layer boundaries reach is a function of the temperature they have to be at in order to be in equilibrium with the layers they are adjacent to.

    That in turn depends on the materials, their emissivities, the possible modes of energy transfer etc. And as Ned and Karl discovered, allowing for the solar distance, the dominant variable for the surface temperature of rocky planets with similar surface albedo is the surface pressure of the overlying atmosphere.

    Remember that Ned and Karl are dealing with long term average surface temperatures of entire celestial bodies here, so we can leave aside day/night and equator/pole gradients for now.

  291. okulaer says:

    gbaikie says, January 28, 2019 at 3:02 am:

    Do you have a reference for the actual temperature of Mars being 190.6 K [or -82.5 C]?

    It surely isn’t 190.6K. More like 202-204K.

  292. Mike Flynn says:

    oldbrew,

    From your link –

    “Scientists are not entirely certain, and much of the research in climate modeling involves improvements designed to better predict the roles that water vapor and clouds will play in Earth’s future climate.”

    Not only that, but the IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states.

    Not a lot of certainty about the future.

    As to the past, over the longest possible period, from molten to not molten, the surface has indubitably cooled. No GHE, no ATE, just measured temperatures of the cooling skin of a large blob of molten rock and iron.

    Climate is just the average of weather – no more no less. Not much science there. Just a lot of time, effort and money wasted, which could have been used for something useful – like advancing science.

    Oh well.

  293. Mike Flynn says:

    tallbloke,

    You wrote –

    “The (anonymous) Wiki author is being even more disingenuous than you. Surface pressure is a function of gravity, surface area and atmospheric mass. It has nothing to do with atmospheric composition.”

    If you believe that all gases have the same density, creating the same mass per unit volume, this is indeed new science.

    Maybe you prefer the MetOffice –

    “In turn the atmospheric pressure depends on the weight of the air under gravity. The weight of a given thickness of atmosphere depends on its temperature, because warm air is less dense than cold air.” And gaseous H2O is less dense than dry air – about 0.62 compared to 1.0. CO2 about 1.62. So, denser – more pressure. Less dense – less pressure. All other things being equal. Composition makes a difference, it seems.

    You are trying to avoid the N&Z claim that pressure creates heat. Pressure depends on gravity, and gravity creates no heat whatever. Trying to create diversions by waffling about all sorts of extraneous matters won’t avoid eventually having to acknowledge that the gravito-thermal effect is a figment, no matter what name it is given.

    You are trying to defend the indefensible. Maybe you might do better convincing others if you could provide some facts to support your assertion that I am disingenuous.

    From the Oxford Dictionary –

    “Disingenuous

    Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.”

    Thank you for implying I am hiding my light under a bushel, so to speak.

    You claim your blog is about cutting edge science. Do you think you could quote my words, and supply facts to support any disagreement? Science should be about facts. It’s your choice, of course.

    Cheers.

  294. oldbrew says:

    Pressure depends on gravity, and gravity creates no heat whatever.

    Doesn’t gravity compress the volume of the atmosphere?
    https://earthsky.org/earth/what-keeps-earths-atmosphere-on-earth

  295. Trick says:

    gallopingcamel writes 4:57am: ”You won’t find Albedo in N&Z’s equations but it does not seem to matter”.

    Search the paper for albedo. Find for Tna plotted in Fig. 4: ”where αe is the effective shortwave albedo of the surface”

    Each object plotted in N&Z 2017 Fig. 4 is from measured NASA data so N&Z include the natural albedo of each object. I am baffled how gallopingcamel can be baffled “by the fact that N&Z can ignore Albedo” as they do not. In eqn. 10a, albedo ends up in many if not all of the fit constants.

    —–

    tallbloke writes 10:19am: “Surface pressure is a function of gravity, surface area and atmospheric mass. It has nothing to do with atmospheric composition.”

    Atmospheric mass has to be a function of composition so surface pressure IS a function of atm. composition.

    And 10:48am: ”have you read the extensive discussion of Mars’ surface T in appendix B of Ned and Karl’s second paper?”

    If you do read App. B, find N&Z 2017 App. B chose to use Mars mw brightness temperature data from the ‘60s/’70s before surface thermometers offered a way to improve accuracy of Mars Ts to 201K clear atm., 204K dusty atm. in modern day. N&Z 2017 App. B: “with spherically integrated brightness temperatures of the Red Planet derived from remote microwave measurements in the late 1960s and early 1970s [85-87].”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s