Tallbloke writes:
Ned Nikolov has produced a video explaining what’s wrong with the currently fashionable radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis and laying out his and Karl Zeller’s better alternative theory which is supported by empirical data from across the solar system, rather than relying on the conjectures of C19th scientists.
Everyone should make the time to watch the whole presentation right through, but knowing how hard it is to find 75 uninterrupted minutes in the frenetic world we live in, Ned has kindly provided these links to the sub-sections:
00:00 – Introduction
01:46 – The Greenhouse-Effect Hypothesis
06:28 – Critical Analysis of the Greenhouse Hypothesis
19:56 – The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
43:27 – Greenhouse-Effect-In-a-Bottle Experiment
52:11 – Summary of Greenhouse-Effect Issues
56:23 – Nikolov-Zeller Climate Discovery
01:04:13 – Implications of the Nikolov-Zeller Discovery
01:08:07 – Nikolov-Zeller Peer-Reviewed Paper
01:08:43 – Pressure Heating & Cooling in the Atmosphere
01:12:48 – Expansion of the Nikolov-Zeller Model
01:14:21 – Greenhouse Hypothesis vs. NZ Climate Concept
01:16:44 – Conclusion
This video is also available on Vimeo:
Please review and comment on the presentation. Ned will be around to provide answers to questions and argue his case, so have at it. Support, criticism, suggestions for improvement are all welcome in our open peer review here at the Talkshop.
– – –
Ned Nikolov comments:
This video convincingly demonstrates the physical insolvency of the current climate theory and the COP26 attendees need to pay attention. They should reconsider the present societal response to climate change, which needs to be based on a new understanding of how the Solar system’s climatic systems really work.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Thanks Ned – will try to watch when I can.
Interesting commentary by Mallen Baker on relative humidity going in the opposite direction to that predicted.
Miskolczi anyone?
Water is ubiquitous throughout the solar system. There isn’t a rocky planet or moon that does not contain water in the crust. Liquid water and water vapor on our Planet is simply a result of the Earth’s climate system set up by solar heating (i.e. distance to the Sun) and surface atmospheric pressure. Water distributes energy vertically & horizontally, but does not control the global climate on its own.
Because Earth is the only planet in the Solar System to have liquid water on the surface and vapor clouds in the sky, many think that Earth’s climate is somehow special and controlled by unique and different drivers…. However, this is not the case!
10 “DO!” grease-sea extrapolate[shh!]UN: point mass ample need not fool “redneck CO[II] love”
Ned, your video provides some really excellent insights. Who knew Ray Pierrehumbert was channeling Ekholm via numerous reiterations of the same conjecture embedded in old textbooks? But the ‘effective emission altitude’ is an unmeasurable quantity. It’s not credible to base energy policy on a quantity which cannot be measured. I don’t think our policy wonks have any idea how nebulous the theory is.
Your insight on the equator pole gradient of the Earth and Moon demonstrating the opposite trend to that predicted by the radiative theory is really important too. Actual data shows the supposed greenhouse effect is non-existent and even negative over Earth’s poles despite the equator to pole gradient being much lower than on the moon.
Too few young meteorologists and climatologists understand the thermodynamics of the gas laws and barometric formulae, and what the implication is for the understanding of what really supports the lapse rate. It’s laughable to think an increase in CO2 from 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.04 or 0.08% would make any measurable difference to the enormous forces which maintain the temperature equilibrium at Earth’s surface.
Paul V; please label the X axis on your lunar slip cycle plot. ON THAT THREAD.
Roger, well said and I fully agree with you… Now that we have the facts about the old “greenhouse” theory (which could not even get the name of the phenomenon correct!) and the new science showing the true physical nature of the Atmospheric Thermal Effect as a form of adiabatic compression heating that is independent of atmospheric composition, we can move forward and push for a societal overhaul of the current false “climate change” paradigm.
Einstein rejected greenhouse gas theory over a century ago.
Einstein’s original paper is here, for anyone who wants to interpret what it shows (or not) in relation to the radiative greenhouse theory:
inspirehep.net/files/9e9ac9d1e25878322fe8876fdc8aa08d
But I don’t think we should be going down that rabbit hole in this thread. Let’s focus on Ned’s arguments against the radiative hypothesis and for the pressure/insolation hypothesis.
Another key point in his presentation is that radiative theorists hold that the lapse rate comes about due to radiation and convection. Via his exposition of the derivation of the barometric formula, Ned demonstrates that convection is underpinned by the pressure gradient induced by the action of gravity on atmospheric mass, and solar radiation incident on the surface. Coupled with his demonstration of the dependence of temperature on pressure via the gas law, we can see why the pressure gradient is accompanied by a temperature gradient (the lapse rate).
Too involved, and comes at the truth (of the temperature-governing lapse rate structure, due to the weight of the atmosphere itself), that I have already explained, and demonstrated clearly with my Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures comparison, through a maze of bad thinking (“adiabatic” is unnecessary and meaningless, compared to the utterly simple physics of the Standard Atmosphere model; and there simply is no “radiation forcing” affecting atmospheric temperatures).
Nikolov still hangs onto the terms used in the entirely false consensus “climate science”…and you are lemmings to follow. I am the one who insists that the underlying, unchanging structure of tropospheric temperatures (the “lapse rate”) are maintained by CONDUCTION, not either radiation or convection, because it is just the innumerable jostlings of air molecules, in the hydrostatic condition of the lower atmosphere, that distributes, unwaveringly and precisely, both the pressure and thence the temperature (due, yes, to the “gas laws”, which you managed to get in there, without properly emphasizing how simple is “incident solar radiation + hydrostatic atmosphere + gas laws = atmospheric temperatures”, with the surface of the Earth only a base for the weighty atmosphere).
So there is no “adiabatic lapse rate”, and only the conduction, throughout the troposphere, of incident solar energy, directly absorbed by the massive, hydrostatic atmosphere. All my discoveries, and all from the definitive Venus/Earth comparison, which is universally ignored, yet which precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere.
Hi Harry, I’m glad you’ve joined this discussion, because between us we need to develop an Einsteinian ““Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler” narrative which is convincing. You’re conduction argument isn’t convincing, because if it were true, there would be a lot less energy transfer via buoyant convection.
So we need to take note of what Einstein actually said, rather than the above paraphrase formulated by Zukofsky, which was reported by Alice Calaprice in 1933 as:
“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.
From “On the Method of Theoretical Physics,” the Herbert Spencer Lecture, Oxford, June 10, 1933.
This is why Ned includes discussion of adiabatic processes and convection, as well as the other forms of energy transfer.
Your “definitive Venus/Earth comparison”, is “universally ignored” because it’s too simple.
Ned’s Adiabatic pressure/insolation hypothesis is ignored because people get sidetracked by its complex elements.
We need to formulate a brief, but sufficient hypothesis which can cut through and command attention. Let’s all make contributions to that, rather than sniping at each other.
Perhaps a short narrative which could get some traction would take the form of the script of a 5 minute animation-rich youtube video which might begin a something like this:
“The current theory of the Greenhouse effect relies on unprovable conjectures from C19th century meteorologists such as Arrhenius and Ekholm who speculated that the average height in the atmosphere Earth cools to space from would rise if there was more CO2 in it, and modern measurements of the levels of thermal radiation in Earth’s atmosphere. The theory claims that the downward re-radiation of energy emitted from Earth’s surface and absorbed in the atmosphere causes the planet’s surface to warm up from a ‘brightness temperature’ of around -18C to +15C on average.
“But the average height of emission can never be measured in reality, and we would still see the same radiation levels at the surface and above if something else was really responsible for Earth having much greater surface warmth than it’s moon. That’s because all matter radiates according to its temperature, regardless of why the matter is at that temperature.
“One of the strong indications that something else really is responsible, is that the radiative theory predicts an absent or even negative greenhouse effect over Antarctica. But Antarctica is much warmer in relation to the Earth’s equator than the airless Moon’s poles are to its equator. In addition to this paradox, data from the Lunar orbiter’s DIVINER experiment has determined that the Moon’s average surface temperature is much colder than it was calculated to be by the method used by climate scientists to calculate the size of Earth’s greenhouse effect. It’s not 33C as they claim, but 90C, which is much more than any radiative theory can account for.
“A better explanation for Earth’s surface warmth than the idea that it makes itself hotter with its own radiative cooling has been found. It is caused not by the composition of the atmosphere, but by it’s mass under gravity configuring the physical structure of the atmosphere in a way that efficiently turns the Sun’s energy into greater surface warmth…”
I agree about pressure. I have been down a number of deep mines The lapse rate applies below the surface as well. The pressure and temperature can be measured.
A reminder that Arrhenius and Ekholm weren’t the only people thinking about the climate system. Other ideas including the idea that pressure plays a part had already been around for a long time.
Translation of Fourier (1824) in Burgess (1837, p. 4)
“The interposition of the air very much modifies the effects of the heat upon the surface of the globe. The solar rays traversing the atmospheric strata which are condensed by their own weight, heat them very unequally: those which are rarest are likewise coldest, because they extinguish and absorb a smaller part of the rays. The heat of the sun, coming in the form of light, possesses the property of penetrating transparent solids or liquids, and loses this property entirely, when by communication with terrestrial bodies, it is turned into heat radiating without light [Infra Red longwave radiation].
“This distinction of luminous and non-luminous heat, explains the elevation of temperature caused by transparent bodies. The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the ice of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light [Fourier understood that long wave ‘back radiation’ doesn’t heat the oceans from outside, and can’t escape easily from their subsurface], which returns in a contrary direction to open space. The pressure of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same kind: but an effect, which, in the present state of the theory, and from want of observations compared with each other, cannot be exactly defined. Whatever it may be, we cannot doubt that the effect which should be attributed to the impression of the solar rays upon a solid body of very large dimensions, by far surpasses that which would be observed in exposing a common thermometer to the same rays.”
In the first paragraph, Fourier is saying that more of the 1/3 of solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere gets absorbed where the air is denser (near the surface) and heats it more.
In the second paragraph, he is proposing that the oceans and atmosphere are warm because they gain energy from the sun more easily than they lose energy from the Earth. This is the “Heat Trapping” which is a concept whose misapplications have bedevilled climate science ever since.
From a mechanical eng point of view, I tend to look at the system from the dynamics of the rotating heat exchanger.
The rotating heat exchanger builds up temperature from heat source to release it later. The thermal residence time (and therefore rotation rate) and heat capacity would dictate its stable temp.
See here/link: https://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/ See/compare ‘Temperatures on the Planets’ and ‘A Day on Each of the Planets’
Then the particulars: a point source of heat (sun) [and the possibility of changing orientation to give variable stable temp points from equator to pole. (Ned would remember this https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290/1957722401069222/ ) It is superimposed for Eocene and today by this – fig 5 here https://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/ecp/pdf/EC0301.PDF
Interesting to hear what Nikolov thinks would happen to surface temperatures if the earth had a fully transparent atmosphere with the same surface pressure.
If by “a fully transparent atmosphere“, you mean the absence of “greenhouse gases”, the answer is simple: The troposphere will be filled with dust picked up by winds from the bone-dry surface (just like on Mars). Dust particles have a much higher absorptivity/emissivity in regard to LW radiation than gases. So, convective currents will carry heat to the top of the atmosphere, and dust particles will radiate it to Space… A natural open system such as a planet will always find a way to radiate heat to Space! The notion that “greenhouse gases” are essential to cool a planet is simply unfounded.
Furthermore, there is no planet or moon in the solar system with a tangible atmosphere that does not contain radiatively active gases such as CO2, CH4, and water vapor. Also, don’t forget that pressure broadens the IR LW absorption lines of gases, and can turn any gas into a “greenhouse gas”.
Therefore, a completely transparent atmosphere to outgoing LW radiation does not and cannot exist in reality!
Another important point is that, if the down-welling IR radiation is reduced by decreasing the atmospheric thermal emissivity, this will weaken the convective cooling of the surface, which will have a compensating effect on surface temperature. As a result, changes in the IR back radiation due to variations in the overall atmospheric emissivity cannot affect the global surface temperature.
Thank you.
Ned, is that convection weakening effect quantifiable? What sort of model would be required to estimate it?
Yes, the effect is quantifiable, but requires a detailed convective-radiative model to show it.
If I understand correctly, that reduction in convection would steepen the lapse rate and reduce the emission altitude, thus nixing the enhanced greenhouse effect Ekholm hypothesized. Is that right?
Yes, conceptually that’s true. But, as you know, there is no empirical evidence that the LW emissivity of the atmosphere has changed over the past 40 years.
Ned gets much right about the failures of the climastrologist’s models, but then makes the huge mistake of claiming there is a net atmospheric greenhouse effect for earth.
This because Ned ignores the surface properties of planets. You can’t do this. Surface properties are critical in spacecraft thermal control and planets are just the same. For a spacecraft, consider the materials –
Back silvered quartz.
White titanium oxide paint.
Matt black paint.
Polished aluminum.
Matt black nickel.
– for equal solar exposure at 1AU, the first would run below freezing, while the last would reach an equilibrium temperature of several hundred degrees centigrade.
Surface properties cannot be ignored.
This is why Ned gets it so wrong. The sun alone would drive our oceans to 335 Kelvin (even assuming 0.3 albedo), were it not for the conductive and evaporative cooling our radiatively cooled atmosphere provides.
That’s right. There is no net atmospheric greenhouse effect (either radiative or pressure) for earth. Our atmosphere is actually cooling the surface of our planet, not warming it.
Note to Ned: No, you cannot substitute the average temperature of the lunar surface to determine earth’s surface temperature without atmospheric effects. The speed of rotation is not comparable, and Earth is 71% covered by deep oceans that are opaque to LWIR and translucent to SWIR, SW and UV radiation with a slow speed of internal conduction and convection. Compared to the list of spacecraft surface materials listed above, our oceans would place between matt black paint and polished aluminum.
Ned is trying to find a pressure explanation for an atmospheric greenhouse effect that doesn’t exist.
@konradwp1,
You are confusing theory (i.e. what you *think* you know) with reality. Our analysis based on measured NASA planetary data has clearly shown that the adiabatic (pressure-induced) atmospheric thermal effect is real and forms a continuum throughout the Solar System (from airless bodies to the massive atmosphere of Venus). Also, it’s a basic atmospheric physics that temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere because pressure drops with height. You statements are simply not supported by any observations or a validated physical theory. Also, it sounds to me that you have not read our papers or carefully watched the videos we posted:
Volokin & ReLlez (2014): https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Nikolov & Zeller (2017): https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
If you study our publications and the videos, you’ll realize, how out of touch with reality your presumptions are!
Konrad: Surface properties cannot be ignored.
If you read Ned’s work you’d find he has done excellent research on the Moon’s regolith properties in the course of determining the surface albedos of the rocky planets.
Our own research here at the talkshop confirms his finding that rotation rates do not affect the average surface temperatures of airless bodies.
Your estimate of ~0.6 for the ocean’s emmissivity is derived from your own experiments which, while I commend your efforts in empirical study, do not constitute the last word on the subject.
Konrad says: “Ned is trying to find a pressure explanation for an atmospheric greenhouse effect that doesn’t exist“.
This sentence reveals deep misunderstanding of our research results. We found and explicitly stated that the radiative “greenhouse effect” does NOT exist. However, the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) is very real and much bigger in terms of surface temperature boost caused by the presence of atmosphere than the surface warming attributed to the putative “greenhouse effect”. We also found using NASA planetary data and an objective theory-free method called “Dimensional Analysis” that total atmospheric pressure is the only parameter that explains ATE across a wide range of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System. We showed that the empirical function describing the ATE dependence on total pressure has all the features of a macro-level physical law, i.e. numerical accuracy, robustness, and a wide environmental range of validity.
This is far from subjectively “trying to find” something as implied by Konrad!
Just looked at my first youtube video ever! The NZ video linked to above. Very good.
At 1:15:00 he states in a table that:
“The atmosphere warms the earth surface adiabatically through the force of air pressure, which enhances the energy received from the sun in a way analogous to compression heating (Earths surface is under constant gas compression!).”
I would expect much less resistance to the theory is this constant compression ‘thing’ was replaced by density. Unless all of my basic thermo is wrong (you never know!) compression heating is a once only event which decays when the heat dissipates.
If the section was changes to be similar to:
“The atmosphere warms the earth surface adiabatically through the effect of air density, which enhances the energy received from the sun due to the greater sensitivity of the denser atmosphere to solar radiation.”
Then the concept of permanent compression heating is removed. As you state, there is a pressure and density profile on all planets driven by gravity. Is it the density (closeness of vibrating molecules) activated by solar radiation or ‘compression heating!!’.
I prefer density and solar radiation.
Steve,
There is a common misperception among the general public and even among PhD scientists that only the act of compression can change the temperature of a gas, and that a steady state of compression cannot maintain a higher temperature. That is NOT true for large system such as a planetary atmosphere. A steady-state compression does keep the steady-state temperature of a gas higher compared to a lower pressure. The proof is in the negative lapse rate found in the troposphere. Air temperature decreases steadily with altitude precisely because pressure drops with height. This is extensively discussed in the video! Also, the Poisson’s Relation quantifying the adiabatic dependence of temperature on pressure clearly shows that there is no need for a variable compression to change the temperature. This Relation refers to a steady-state condition, since it does not contain any time derivatives. See this segment of the video:
Temperature is affected by pressure, not gas density! That’s because temperature is a linear expression of the gas kinetic energy, and the energy is given by the product PV = Joule. Pressure affects temperature because it’s a FORCE, and energy cannot exist without a force. Density measured in kg m-3 is not a force, and because of that, it is a result (byproduct) of temperature and pressure. Thus, density does NOT drive temperature, since it’s a consequence of temperature.
Thanks for you reply Ned, I will ponder it!
Pressure and density follow very much the same curve according to the ‘standard atmosphere’, as used by (for example) commercial aviation.
https://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm
Steve; just to amplify Ned’s response, I want to comment on two aspects to this part of your post:
“compression heating is a once only event which decays when the heat dissipates.”
This is true when the container the gas is being compressed into is in an environment where the ambient temperature is lower than the temperature the container reaches during and after the compression takes place, e.g. a car tyre or aqualung being refilled. The surroundings tend to be at a lower temperature than that reached by the tyre or aqualung and simple conduction soon acts to equalise them with the environment. But when the whole atmosphere is compressed by gravity, we have to ask; which surroundings is it going to lose heat to?
Intuitively, the response to this might be “space”, and that would be right,,, but,,, the Sun is providing heat to the system all the time it’s losing heat to space, it’s not the closed experiment we see in textbooks on thermodynamics. Speaking of which, those textbooks on thermodynamics often contain idealised experiments where the imaginary container is ‘perfectly insulated’, and in those cases, the temperature DOES NOT FALL after the gas is compressed. The Poisson relation is what it is. Gases at a higher pressure have a higher temperature, period.
PS: When Ned’s theory was picked up by WattsUpWithThat.com after it was initially published here at the talkshop, it was soon followed up with a guest post by a PhD called Ira Glickstein, who was never heard of before and has never been heard from since. He made the “heat dissipates after compression” argument to attack Ned and Karl’s theory, with gleeful backing from Anthony Watts and Willis the wanker. Ten years wasted.
Thank you, Roger!
If I remember correctly, this fellow named Ira claimed that, in the atmosphere, temperature causes pressure rather than pressure controlling temperature. At that point, I realized that this person was not a physical scientist, and had no clue what he was talking about… In the video, I explain how the lapse rate is a result of a temperature dependence on pressure and the pressure decrease with altitude due to the hydrostatic equilibrium.
Ned, yes, I’d forgotten that part of his post. He made the simple error of thinking the atmosphere has a fixed volume, so that an increase in temperature would increase the pressure. Like most of the current climate science, the concepts were upside down and back to front…
Exactly! If one does not know the simple fact that the atmosphere is an isobaric (constant-pressure-at-the-surface) system and what this implies, one cannot claim to understand atmospheric thermodynamics… I remember a few years ago, Patrick Moore was arguing on Twitter that the tropopause acts like a lid “constraining” the volumetric expansion of the troposphere. When I expose the nonsense of that notion, he blocked me… There are people with a celerity-like status out there, who claim to understand thermodynamics & physics, but they really don’t! 🙂
The example of people around a campfire is perhaps not strictly true. An unburning log is often used as a reflector in a campfire. I expect you could also use a body in a similar fashion. However the effect drops off rapidly with distance so the contribution of those sitting around the fire is insignificant but not zero.
The lapse rate and back radiation is the strongest argument against the GHE.
Back radiation takes energy from the upper atmosphere and delivers this to the lower atmosphere according to GHE. This will result in a lapse rate centered on the Black Body temperature.
However the lapse rate has no term for Back Radiation. This is proof by contradiction that the observed back radiation is the effect is the lapse rate not the cause.
To me this contradiction goes to the heart of the scientific method. You cannot have truth and contradiction. Thus either the formula for lapse rate is wrong or back radiation cannot be the cause of GHE.
I cannot state this too strongly.
The diagram with temperature on the horizontal axis and altitude on the vertical axis is key. The vertical line is Black Body temperature. The sloped line is lapse rate. The horizontal line at the intersection of black body and lapse rate is the effective radiation height.
Now consider the triangle formed by the surface, black body and lapse rate. This represents the energy delivered to the lower atmosphere and surface by back radiation.
Now consider the triangle formed by the black body, lapse rate and top of atmosphere. This represents the energy taken from the upper atmosphere by back radiation.
Thus without a lapse rate the area of these 2 triangles goes to zero and there is no back radiation energy transfer.
And since the lapse rate is not caused by back radiation because (1) a process cannot be its own cause and (2) the lapse rate has no term for back radiation. Back radiation is simply an observed effect of this process, not a cause.
Therefore back radiation is not the cause of the greenhouse effect because it is the effect of the lapse rate. Therefore the lapse rate and by extension the terms in the lapse rate are the cause of enhanced surface warming.
There are some real back-radiative fluxes affecting surface temperature. Cloud cover at night in the high latitudes really does keep the surface warmer for example. But these are localised effects, and the water vapour that forms the cloud cooled the surface somewhere else when it evaporated.
The key point about Ned’s discovery is that it is accurate for the annual average global surface temperature across hugely different condition on planets and moons spread throughout the solar system. Whatever sub processes are going on in those bodies’ climate systems with evapo-transpiration, thermal radiation and conduction, they have to sum up to the surface T dictated by surface air pressure, the surface albedo, and the amount of energy arriving from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere. This means that cloud albedo, longwave radiation levels at various heights in the atmospheric column, wind fields, and all the other climatic and meteorological indices are emergent properties ultimately determined by the surface air pressure, surface albedo and solar radiation.
The tricky bit is predicting how those sub-processes will behave at the localised level, because chaotic turbulent mixing has very complicated chains of cause and effect and feedbacks at work within it. We know the climatic sum, but can’t predict the weather induced by the parts.
And as for climatic change, we know, if Ned is right, that changing CO2 levels won’t affect surface T. Changing solar output and it’s effect on cloud albedo will though. That’s why we here at the talkshop have spent a lot of time and effort developing a solar prediction model.
To Ed Fox:
Gases do not reflect IR LW radiation, but most hard objects do reflect a little bit of thermal radiation. In most bodies, however, this reflection is so small that it can be ignored for all practical purposes. Metals like silver, gold, aluminum, and copper reflect substantial amounts of IR LW radiation, which is why they can be used as radiant barriers to insulate against thermal radiation losses. Therefore, the campfire analogy I used in the video is correct from a practical standpoint of view, since it relays a physically correct message.
re: tallbloke on September 8, 2021 at 6:56 am
…
determined by the surface air pressure, surface albedo and solar radiation.
…
CO2 levels won’t affect surface T. Changing solar output and it’s effect on cloud albedo will though.
=====≠===
This appears to be a contradiction. If T is fully determined by surface albedo in first paragraph how can cloud albedo in second paragraph affect T?
Dear Roger:
“Intuitively, the response to this might be “space”, and that would be right,,, but,,, the Sun is providing heat to the system all the time it’s losing heat to space, it’s not the closed experiment we see in textbooks on thermodynamics. Speaking of which, those textbooks on thermodynamics often contain idealised experiments where the imaginary container is ‘perfectly insulated’, and in those cases, the temperature DOES NOT FALL after the gas is compressed. The Poisson relation is what it is. Gases at a higher pressure have a higher temperature, period.”
I am sorry, are you stating that the only systems in the known universe that does not cool after compression are the atmosphere of planets?
I think the NZ theory is great. Seems plausible, logical and works. What I can not accept (sorry) is the concept you just mentioned above:
“the Sun is providing heat to the system all the time it’s losing heat to space…”.
Yes you are right, but the compression effect has been and gone and we are left with the gas and its density.
The legacy of compression is the increase in density. The solar radiation operating on the increased density gives an increased temperature.
By mentioning density and not pressure, would, I believe would overcome all resistance to this theory. I believe Ned’s mention for force, work, pressure has led him down a poor descriptive path.
The curves of density and pressure are effectively the same, so it will work with the word exchange pressure == density…
Ned, I agree with your presentation regarding theoretical flat disk black body temperature bring different than observed because
:
(((a+b)/2)^4) < ((a^4+b^4)/2)
This tells us that the average radiation must be greater than the radiation of the average.
Which tells me you can only use radiation to calculate bounds not averages.
Steve Richards says: the compression effect has been and gone
Gravity is continuous?
Ed Fox: If T is fully determined by surface albedo in first paragraph how can cloud albedo in second paragraph affect T?
Surface T set by pressure, surface albedo and solar input is the long term baseline T
Cyclic changes in surface T on decadal to miillennial timescales are caused by solar variation and its effect on cloud albedo.
So although cloud albedo is mostly a pretty stable quantity emergent from the pressure and long term average insolation, it is modulated by solar variation. I seem to recall Ned estimates this might amount to +/- 1.5C on centennial timescales. By integrating the varying solar input to mimic its effect on the high heat capacity oceans, I found that it replicates the temperature record well, especially once a ~60yr oceanic oscillation is included (AMO, PDO).
Ned, the left hand side of the inequality is the flat disk BB which yields a theoretical 1100 watts solar for T of -18C.
However the right hand side tells us the observed flux will be greater than 1100C for and observed average T of -18C. So the observed average T must be decreased until the average flux is 1100 watts.
This agrees with your presentation that the observed T of a sphere must be less than the theoretical BB flat disk T.
Steve: but the compression effect has been and gone and we are left with the gas and its density.
This is what people have so much trouble understanding. They think the “compression effect” is a transient phenomenon because their real world experience is that compressed gases cool to the surrounding environment until they equilibriate.
I presume you’ll agree that if you put a lot of boiler lagging around the aqualung you’re filling, the “compression effect” of the cylinder getting warm will last longer. What if it was perfectly insulated? Well, the cylinder would remain warm forever. Gases at higher pressures have higher temperatures, as stated by the gas laws.
The legacy of compression is the increase in density
As Oldbrew points out, gravity doesn’t go away after it acts on atmospheric mass to create the pressure gradient in the atmosphere. It keep on keeping on, the pressure remains higher nearer the surface, and so does the temperature. As Ned pointed out: “the energy is given by the product PV = Joule. Pressure affects temperature because it’s a FORCE, and energy cannot exist without a force. Density measured in kg m-3 is not a force, and because of that, it is a result (byproduct) of temperature and pressure.”
The curves of density and pressure are effectively the same, so it will work with the word exchange pressure == density
This works both ways, so there should be no reason you can’t accept Ned’s theory. What you seem to be saying is that people would find it easier to accept if we spoke of density rather than pressure. Ned gave you his reasons for the primacy of the pressure, but it certainly wouldn’t do any harm to mention them both, so that’s something Ned could think about.
Please keep batting this one back and forth with us Steve, it’s vital that we find a way to get people to understand this crucial aspect of Ned’s theory, so please help us by continuing the argument. I hope we’ll be able to work out a formulation which you’ll be able to agree with.
There seems to be some confusion about the role of albedo in regulating the global surface temperature (Ts). Luckily, we have a special video dedicated to this topic, which was presented at the 101st AMS Conference last January:
rotation rates do not affect the average surface temperatures of airless bodies.
=========
My work on the subject shows that increasing the rotation rate reduces the variance in T which reduces the outgoing radiation for a given average T. Thus the body must warm to restore the same outgoing radiation.
This is a result of the inequality I mentioned above. Even Willis finally mentioned on WUWT that adding an atmosphere will affect surface average T by reducing variance in T which affects 4th power SB nonlinearly with T.
This nonlinearity requires that the average must change to compensate for a change in the variance.
There seems to be some confusion about the role of albedo
======
OK. Watched the vid and albedo contradiction now makes sense. Climate determines albedo as part of climate system/regulation/feedback. So albedo is effect not cause of surface T.
External forces can also act on albedo and thus change climate, but climate system will try and compensate and restore balance over long term.
For example, your lawn mower gas engine likely has governor to keep speed constant. You can push on governor with your hand and change speed but once your hand is removed the governor will restore previous speed.
Empirical data strongly suggest that the spin rate of a planet does not have a measurable impact on global surface temperature (Ts). This is confirmed by the results from our analysis. If rotation had an affect on Ts, then the 6 planetary bodies we use (which have very different rotation periods!) would not fit on the same Ts/Tna – P curve as they do, provided that our model does not include spin rate as a predictor.
Also, our 2014 paper devotes an entire section discussing the effect of rotation speed on Ts and shows that physically rotation cannot really affect the average global surface temperature of a planet. See:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
I still think campfire analogy is a poor model to dispute back radiation because the people around the campfire have a non zero effect on the temp of the fire.
A good analogy would be one where there is zero effect. Otherwise the viewers of the presentation such as myself will doubt the accuracy of the rest of the presentation.
In science a non zero effect is not the same as zero effect regardless of magnitude. It is attention to the small details that are most important.
To Ed Fox:
Ed, you’ve got it right about the role of albedo! I like your analogy with the governor of a lawn mower.
Our planetary data analysis gave rise to a new paradigm not only about the Atmospheric Thermal Effect, but planetary albedo as well. Our conclusion that there is a baseline albedo, which is a byproduct of the climate system and does not impact Ts, and that this baseline can be perturbed to a limited extent by Sun’s magnetic activity, in which case Δα does affect Ts, is not intuitively obvious. As with other physical phenomena, the role of albedo is more complicated than initially meets the eye… 🙂
“and the COP26 attendees need to pay attention. ” <— based on a false premise.
They are not one whit about actual science. They are power and money mad pols and industrialists. This totally false CAGW rubbish they know is false but it serves their purpose of bringing more and more control over the lives and economy of the public.
Asking those folks to follow and adhere to the real science of folks like Nikolov and Zeller is like asking the Devil to repent and preach the love of Christ and a Christian life. Not likely.
Empirical data strongly suggest that the spin rate of a planet does not have a measurable impact on global surface temperature (Ts).
===========
Then this indicates that radiation in and radiation out are not directly connected to Ts. Because it is inescapable that mathematically outgoing radiation decreases as spin rate increases.
Try an example using 15C as the average surface temp on both day and night, then use 30C and 0C as the average day and night.
Do the SB from this and you will get maybe 1C predicted temp diff required to restore radiative balance (It has been awhile I don’t have the exact numbers.)
Consider a slow turning planet with average day and night time temps of 300k and 100k. Average temp overall is 200k. Ignoring albedo and area, incoming and outgoing radiation is proportional to:
(300^4+100^4)/2 = 82/2 x10^8
Now spin this planet rapidly such that both sides are at 200k. Now the outgoing radiation is:
(200^4+200^4)/2 = 32/2 x10^8
The rapidly turning planet now has a radiation imbalance and must warm to approx 253k to restore the balance.
PS: as per my previous example showing that according to radiative theory a slow turning planet with average temp of 200k will have to warm to as much as 253k if it is rapidly turning.
This conclusion follows from radiative theory that you can determine average temperature of a planet from average outgoing radiation using SB Law as is practiced by Climate Science..
Obviously if observation says otherwise it could well be that climate science is perhaps not using SB Law correctly or I have misunderstood how it should be applied.
I do think the 4 the root relationship between temperature and radiation is going to generate many interesting results when applied mathematically.
This is perhaps another area of investigation showing that SB Law cannot be used to predict average temp because you need to know statistical variance.
Ed,
It is mathematically impossible to estimate the average global temperature of a spherical planet from the average outgoing radiation using the simple (isothermal) form of the SB radiation law! It has to do with Holder’s inequality between integrals. We explain this in our 2014 paper, which you should read to get a better understand:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Also, the outgoing IR LW radiation does NOT depend on the speed of rotation!
There are 2 things I’ve noticed Ned repeatedly has to repeat:
1. global average (long-run) surface temperature
2. observations
Paul, yes that’s correct. People often mix up a theory they might have in their heads with reality or observations. These 2 things always need to be kept separate… 🙂
Roger:
“I presume you’ll agree that if you put a lot of boiler lagging around the aqualung you’re filling, the ‘compression effect’ of the cylinder getting warm will last longer.”
I agree.
“What if it was perfectly insulated? Well, the cylinder would remain warm forever.”
I agree.
“Gases at higher pressures have higher temperatures, as stated by the gas laws.”
I agree – were on a roll here..
“As Oldbrew points out, gravity doesn’t go away after it acts on atmospheric mass to create the pressure gradient in the atmosphere. It keep on keeping on, the pressure remains higher nearer the surface, and so does the temperature.”
Oh dear! A string of apparent facts. Some I agree with but to what end do you state them?
Yes, gravity is persistent.
Yes, the pressure is higher on the surface, then you use the phrase:
“As Ned pointed out: “the energy is given by the product PV = Joule.”
How does that help? What does it mean? Part of a gas law formula? Could it be specified in full?
Rog, you know that a hot object cools. You know that gravity operating on a gas will compress lower levels of gas more than the higher levels. You know from the gas formulas that density is linked directly with pressure and volume.
I am not sure why you appear to be throwing practical reality out of the window. Hot objects cool.
Don’t want to use the word ‘proxy’ but pressure is a good proxy for density.
If you have a cubic metre of air at sea level, exposed to radiation from the sun or ground, it will warm up and suffer a temperature rise.
A identical cubic metre of air at a higher level will exposed to radiation from the sun or ground, it will warm up and suffer a temperature rise. The difference between the two cubic metres is the density of air within and therefore the maximum temperature rise expected. Yes the pressure will be different, but as we know in the real world, pressure heating effect dissipates.
It is mathematically impossible to estimate the average global
=====
Ned, I’m well aware of the problem outlined in your paper having independently come to the same conclusion.
The simple algebraic inequality I introduced above is how I first came across the issue.
However I do not agree that calculating temperature is impossible.
The problem is that average temperature itself is problematic. How do you average the temperature of land and sea when they have vastly different heat capacities.
A simple average of the temperature of different substances is mathematical garbage because temperature is a fraction. Energy/mass. So when you add two temperatures you are adding fractions without a common denominator. In effect you are adding 1/2 + 1/3 = 2/5.
Steve:
You appear to be confused as well. Pressure is NOT a “good proxy for density” at all! That’s because atmospheric density is a function of (depends on) pressure and temperature. Thus, you can have the same surface pressure set by the mass of atmosphere above a unit area and gravity, but vastly different near-surface air densities depending on the solar heating or distance from the Sun. For example, Titan has 49% higher surface pressure than Earth, but more than 4 times the molar density of Earth’s atmosphere. That’s because Titan is much further from the Sun than Earth and receives 92 times less SW radiation than Earth.
About PV = Joule, this means that the kinetic energy and temperature of a gas CANNOT exist without a pressure. In fact, no kinetic energy can exist without the force of pressure. Even EM radiation has pressure despite the fact that photons are supposed to be massless! Radiation pressure has been used to propel the Japanese spacecraft IKAROS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
Not understanding that pressure controls the temperature of a gas in an isobaric system like the atmosphere, is to not understand the very foundation of atmospheric physics!
It is mathematically impossible to estimate the average global
≠======!=!!
I do not agree. If you first average the radiation then I agree the average temperature will be less than that predicted by SB.
If however you grid the earth and sample radiation for each grid square and convert each square to temperate and then average the grid, you will get a similar result to GISS and others.
However, GISS and others are assuming that land, sea and air all have the same heat capacities and thus have a common denominator allowing vthem to be averaged.
While in point of fact the GAT as calculated using a simple average is non physical nonsense.
It is mathematically impossible to estimate the average global
========
W Briggs in his articles on WUWT routinely pointed out the erroneous results of early averaging. He pointed out that if you must average, then this should be the final step in your analysis.
The problem with calculating surface temperature of a sphere as sampled by a flat disk/4 is that you are early averaging. You cannot “undo” this averaging to arrive a surface grid of temperatures to calculate an average.
I suspect this is inherent in the observed average temperatures of the planets and moons in out solar system. They are being observed largely from a single point observer which is early averaging the radiation to derive temperature.
I suspect this explains why the moon data shows lower temperatures than previously observed. Only now do we have sufficient resolution to do late averaging of lunar temperatures, shifting our results from the high side of the inequality to the low side.
(((a+b)/2)^4) < ((a^4+b^4)/2)
Here is the simple algebraic inequality I introduced earlier showing the effect of late vs early averaging.
This shows that the SB law will deliver different estimates of surface temperature, depending on late or early averaging.
This may we be a discrete form of the Holder inequality. In any case it shows that the sampling method used affects the results.
However the example I gave of the spinning plant assumes you are using late averaging and you radiation sensor is of sufficient resolution that it can sample each grid square of the sphere independently.
isnt there a famous quote? Something like: In science nothing is impossible. It is simply awaiting discovery.
Temperature and speed are intensive properties. The problem with averaging can be easily demonstrated.
A car travels for 1 hr at 20 mph and 2 hrs at 50 mph. What is the average speed?
The naive answer is 35. That is how Global Average Temperature (GAT) is calculated. However if you were paying attention in school you know the answer is 40 mph. The solution is to first convert speed into its extensive properties. Distance and time.
The same problem exists with temperature. You have a sea temp of 20C and air temp over land of 0C. A simple average of 10C has no physical meaning.
In the earths surface was all the same material then a simple average will work. But different materials will not unless you first convert temperature to energy, mass, and specific heat.
The satellite records, if they are sampling only air temperatures they are somewhat correct, but the specific heat of air changes with temp and pressure and humidity so even they have it wrong if they try and do a simple average.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
[…] HiFast on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… […]
On the video Demystifying….
, a bit fast for me and not sure I understand about CO2 is not reflecting heat back but radiating it. I think of it as IR exciting electrons in the CO2 and H2O de- exciting and releasing energy but this will not be in IR region but more likely scattered light photons – is that correct or have I got it wrong?
Also, the outgoing IR LW radiation does NOT depend on the speed of rotation
≠=======
Ned, I never said it did. Radiation depends on actual temperature. Which affects both the average and variance.
The rate of spin affects the variance in temperature. This should not be controversial. And because SB is non linear this change in variants affects radiation. This is simple to demonstrate mathematically which I did in my posting.
And since radiation in and out must match this change in outgoing radiation due to a change in variance must result in a change in temperature to restore the radiative balance. The math behind this should not be in any way controversial.
‘Standard radiation theory exactly explains the temperature distribution all along the Moon’s equator’ – claims David Appell
– – –
Where can we read this ‘standard’ radiation theory?
Ed Fox says: September 9, 2021 at 4:57 pm
Quote “My work on the subject shows that increasing the rotation rate reduces the variance in T which reduces the outgoing radiation for a given average T. Thus the body must warm to restore the same outgoing radiation.”
Here “warm” is taken to mean ‘raise its temperature’. Correct?
Taking (again) a comparison with rotating heat exchangers, rotation rate has ‘some’ effect, however there is a point where heat exchange stalls as rotation reduces beyond a certain point.
In the situation of a planet like body exposed to a heat source, stall can occur from very slow rotation (venus may be a case in point), or from being axially aligned to the heat source. Which makes axial tilt wrt ecliptic also a factor.
The “stall” of the effect of rotation speed on global temperature simply means NO effect! That’s what empirical data show as well.
The myth that rotation speed impacts the average temperature of a sphere comes from 1-D simulation models that do not consider the lateral (horizontal) transfer (conduction) of heat. It’s a model artifact rather than physical reality!
of a sphere comes from 1-D simulation models
========
Hi Ned, I’m not trying to dispute observations in any way.
What I’m saying is that an increase in temperature variance will result in an increase in radiation via SB Law for any given average.
Let’s leave confounding issues aside and discuss this first for an airless sphere with near uniform surface such that average temperature has physical meaning.
Is there any doubt that for such an object
1. Increasing rotational speed will reduce variance.
2. By SB Law increased variance yields increased outgoing radiation for a given average.
3. To maintain radiative balance average temp must decrease with increasing variance or increase with decreasing variance.
Pls let me know which 1,2, and/or 3 we are not agreed.
By corollary this may explain why increasing variance has been associated with decreasing temperatures in the historical records.
[…] life on the basis of an irrational fear of trace gases leads nowhere good. Time for a complete re-think.– – –Global computer usage produces twice the greenhouse gases as the aviation industry, new […]
Ed,
If by “variance” you mean a the diurnal temperature amplitude at a point, I think it depends on the thermal conductivity and thermal inertia of the substrate (the ground). Airless bodies like the Moon have a porous regolith of very low thermal conductivity unless the body is far enough from the Sun and its surface is covered by some type of ice (typically water, CO2, or nitrogen). Under a low thermal conductivity and a low thermal inertia, it takes quite a rapid rotation (not found among bodies of the Solar System) to significantly reduce the diurnal temp. amplitude at the surface. That’s because, the ground quickly reaches an equilibrium temperature with the absorbed solar radiation.
If by “variance” you mean a the diurnal temperature amplitude at a point
==========/
Hi Ned. Variance is a defined statistical property. It is the flip side of average.
to significantly reduce the diurnal temp. amplitude
====≠=
Hi Ted, I see the error. Variance is not a measure of amplitude. From Google: “In statistics, variance measures variability from the average or mean.”
In the case of a rotating object, the curve of temperature should approximate a sinusoidal. On the hot side this sinusoidal may well be amplitude limited.
For a given amplitude, the closer this waveform comes to a square tooth the greater the variance. The closer this comes to a saw tooth the lower the variance.
For a very slow turning object the wave form of temperature will more approximate a square wave with steep leading and trailing edges, maximizing variance.
As this rotation speeds up the leading and trailing edges of the waveform will tend to become less steep, minimizing variance.
As rotation speeds even more a decrease in amplitude will eventually occur, further minimizing variance.
Ned, hopefully this is clear. Are we now agreed that:
1. Increasing rotational speed will reduce variance
Thanks for looking at this.
PS: typo. Ned not Ted. Apologies.
PPS: by curve of temperature I mean actual temperature at any given point with day/night pattern for rotating bodies. Average and variance are calculated at that given point. Global average is the randomly sampled average of all such given points on the sphere.
Ed Fox says: September 11, 2021 at 8:50 pm
Quote “By corollary this may explain why increasing variance has been associated with decreasing temperatures in the historical records.”
First, thanks for the ‘statistical perspective’; provides a much better grasp on the matter.
I’m intrigued about the ‘historical records of decreasing temperatures’. Can we have a better lead on this point? Tks.
I’m intrigued about the ‘historical records of decreasing temperatures’
=========
Anecdotally we hear that periods such as the LIA experienced wild swings in weather while periods like the Medieval Warm Periods had relatively mild weather.
One of the failings in climate science is the reliance on averages. If you have one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer, you are on average comfortable.
What is not being considered is variance. The measure of how much your feet depart from the average.
For those not of a statistical background, think of average as the DC component of a signal and variance as the AC component.
Variance is non linear power 2 so that the result is always positive regardless if the difference from the average is positive or negative.
In sampling theory the root of variance becomes standard deviation and likely is also the basis for RMS. Not my field.
Anyhow. In physics there is a property called degrees of freedom. Meaning that a change in radiation does not necessarily result in a change in average temperature. Instead it may result in a change in variance without any change in average.
This is because radiation is power and DC and AC are also power. And you can increase the power by boosting the DC componenys which is what climate science assumes will happen. But you can also increasr power by leaving the DC unchanged and boosting the AC.
Nowhere is this considered when dealing with averages alone. Think of your housr mains. The average voltage is zero. Not 120 or 240. The root of the variance is 120 or 240.
So for any given input solar radiation, if the average temperature drops, there would be a drop in outgoing radiation. Climate science tells us the average temperature must rise tovrestore the balance.
Howerver this is not true because in we increase the variance this will increase the outgoing radiation without any change in average temperature.
Rhus, colder aberage temperatures are likely to be matches by increased variability in temperature.
This looks interesting…
IPCC Method Linking Climate Change To Greenhouse Gases Disputed
11 SEP. 2021
‘A new study in “Climate Dynamics” has criticized a key methodology that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to attribute climate change to greenhouse gases, raising questions about the validity of research that relied on it and prompting a response from one of the scientists who developed the technique.
The new study’s author, economist Ross McKitrick, told The Epoch Times in an exclusive interview that he thinks his results have weakened the IPCC’s case that greenhouse gases cause climate change.
The methodology, known as “optimal fingerprinting,” has been used to link greenhouse gases to everything from temperature to forest fires, precipitation, and snow cover.
McKitrick compared optimal fingerprinting to the way law enforcement officers use fingerprinting to identify criminals.
“[They] take this big smudge of data and say, ‘Yeah, the fingerprints of greenhouse gas are on it,’” he said.’
More here — https://climatechangedispatch.com/ipcc-method-linking-climate-change-to-greenhouse-gases-disputed/
“optimal fingerprinting,”
========
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
Optimal Fingerprinting relies on a circular argument, that we know how much of the variability in the training data that went into climate models was due to humans and how much is due to nature.
Climate science assumes natural variability is low. Thus the variability we see is a fingerprint of human activity.
As noted in my post on historical climate variability, this is because of inadequate treatment of statistical variance. Proxy data does not preserve the AC signal in historical data, only the DC signal.
Quite simply, we cannot validate “optimal fingerprinting” because a key statistical property, namely variance is missing from the historical records.
Ned I was ready this post
Willis makes the observation that radiation between rhe 2 hemuspheres is balance reason unknown. I seem to recall this is the secong rime i have heard this.
I belueve it is support for your approach because it argues that what is being observed is a result not a cause.
Saw that WUWT post too – see the discussion paragraph. It sure looks like something broke.
Beautiful.
Ned, Roger
The reason i am trying to demonstrate that temperature variance affects surface temperature is because adding an atmosphere to a planet also affect temperature variance.
And it is central to GHG theory that adding an atmosphere to a planet does not change temp. That the 33 C warming on earth is due to GHG alone and the atmosphere without GHG has no affect.
So I believe this supports the NZ conclusion but perhaps not the mechanism.
I also believe it calls into question mainstream GHG theory which ignores the effect of statistical variance.
Lunar Surface Temperature and Emissivity Retrieval From Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment Sensor
Huazhong Ren, Jing Nie, Jiaji Dong, Rongyuan Liu, Wenzhe Fa, Ling Hu, Wenjie Fan
First published: 04 October 2020
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001436
– – –
Not sure how to interpret this but it looks interesting. Figures 6(c) and 9(c) are surface temperature histograms for daytime (section 3.1) and nighttime (section 3.2).
Daytime centres around 270K and nighttime around 80K in the histograms.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but here goes. Doesn’t the ideal gas law tell us that molecular density is what matters for temperature? How can it be that an atmosphere on a planet that has density doesn’t conform to the ideal gas law? Isn’t what ned is saying just an application of the ideal gas law?
@Ned Nikolov says: September 8, 2021 at 5:54 pm
I’m definitely not a phd. I can often follow the math, but it doesn’t always give me an understanding of what’s going on. I’m trying to get a “gut” idea of what you are saying regarding “steady state compression”, and here’s what I’ve come up with that makes sense to me:
I’m picturing the (inevitable) planet with a non-GHG CO₂ atmosphere. The average pressure at the planet’s surface is dependent on the total amount of CO₂ distributed around the plant which determines the number of molecules over any one spot. More CO₂ means more pressure. Incoming solar flux heats the planet’s surface, which in turn heats the atmosphere via conduction.
In general, the surface temperature is governed by the ideal gas formula (PV=nRT). A way to look at this is to look at an isolated volume of gas at one point on the planet surface. I picture an open-topped cardboard box with a volume of one cubic foot/meter/cubit/whatever. For that particular volume, P = nRT.
Rearranging terms, T = P / nR. As we’ve already stipulated, P is governed by the number of CO₂ molecules stacked over our box and so doesn’t change. As incoming power (watts/m²) increases, the only way T can stay the same is if nR gets smaller with an increase in solar flux. R is a constant, so that would mean a decrease in “n”. This could only occur if the atmosphere could expand infinitely, but of course it can’t because of gravity. This, of course, means that T *must* increase.
All this is complicated by such things as the fact that even though the atmosphere is getting less dense (n getting smaller), the actual density at our box is higher than any spot above, all the way to the TOA. But still, here we see “steady state compression” keeping the temperature higher than it would be without an atmosphere and without resorting to “back radiation” and such.
I totally get this has all the sophistication you might expect from an eight-year-old, but it feels right to me.
Oldbrew, it is well known that for surfaces that the absorptivity and emissivity changes with temperature (eg fig 5-12 & 5-13 in Perry’s chemical engineering Handbook). Then with Wien’s displacement law the emissivity changes with wavelength. Climate Scientists really do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which applies to surfaces in a vacuum. It does not apply to gases which have no surface and need to be treated on a volume basis -CO2 has zero absorptivity at 10 micron and only has a small absorptivity/ emissivity at a wavelength of 14.8 micron (equivalent to a temperature of about 196K)
Nelson,
No, the Ideal Gas Law does not tell us that air density drives temperature. Density is simply a consequence (byproduct) of pressure and and temperature. The Gas Law states:
PV = nRT,
where PV = Joule is the kinetic energy of the gas. Temperature is a linear expression of that energy. Note that, by definition, energy cannot exist without pressure, because pressure is a FORCE applied over a unit area. In planetary atmospheres, surface atmospheric pressure (P) is the adiabatic component of the climate system, since P depends on atmospheric mass, gravity and planet’s surface area. Volume (V) is the diabatic component, since it depends on the intensity of solar heating. So, the total kinetic energy of a planetary atmosphere consists of a diabatic and adiabatic component. Modern climate science has totally misinterpreted this fact and mostly missed the adiabatic component of climate in the “Greenhouse” theory!
@Dan September 13, 2021 at 9:35 pm
Aargh! Things have been hectic and I was in a hurry. I meant to say the atmosphere consists of inert N₂, not CO₂. Apologies.
@Ned Nikolov September 14, 2021 at 6:14 am
“Volume (V) is the diabatic component, since it depends on the intensity of solar heating….”
I understand here that you are talking about the volume of the entire atmosphere, or perhaps a column from ground to TOA. That makes perfect sense.
However, in my example above, it proved more useful (to me) to see what happens to a fixed volume at ground level in order to understand ATE. For example, as the volume of the atmosphere increases due to an increase in the “intensity of solar heating”, the number of molecules (n) contained in the fixed volume at the ground decreases. Given a constant P, T *must* increase. Just another application of the ideal gas law to look at something in a different way.
Harry Huffman’s Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures comparison is ignored because it ignores planetary albedoes — that’s how blinkered it is.
He’s known this for years.
oldbrew says:
‘Standard radiation theory exactly explains the temperature distribution all along the Moon’s equator’ – claims David Appell
Where can we read this ‘standard’ radiation theory?
Here:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
oldbrew says:
Einstein rejected greenhouse gas theory over a century ago.
Could you please quote in Einstein’s paper where he rejected GHG theory?
@Dan September 14, 2021 at 1:31 pm
I also should have pointed out that my example also makes clear that as P is proportional to the overall amount of gas comprising the atmosphere, and T is proportional to P (assuming an ideal gas), then T will also be greater for planets with “thicker” atmospheres. I suppose the same applies to acceleration due to gravity (g).
I hope what I’m saying has merit. Looking at it this way makes me gives me much more confidence that there really is something to NZ’s ATE theory.
A few comments, may spread them out.
First I am surprised and alarmed at Ned’s dismissal of Eds point about the rotation speed affecting the average temperature of the planet.
I understand that there are good reasons for and against this argument.
I think the overall maths comes down on the side that it does affect the average temperature of a planet..
The faster a planet rotates the closer it approximates an ideal black body and hence the closer it approaches to the ideal average emitting temperature of the SB law.
Note; any rotation energy is separate to and does not add any new energy to the incoming and out going energy which remains the same.
The planet cannot get any hotter due to the rotation, it merely approaches the ideal average temperature which it cannot go above.
A non spinning planet ie in synchronous orbit same side facing the heating source has two different levels of energy output but the average of the emitting temperatures [ the average temperature of that planet] is lower than that of a spinning planet] .
What does this say when Ned dismisses this?
To me it says that part of his theory cannot include this fact.
A theory that does not include all the relevant facts must have some problems with it no matter how close it can get to observations
As stated by someone elsewhere
“There is a difference between effective radiative temperature, which depends only on energy balance (i.e., energy in = energy out) and the average of the temperature, which will depend on how the temperature is distributed across the surface. Essentially, given the T^4 dependence for energy radiated into space, means that if you have two planets with the same incoming energy, the average of the temperature of the planet with a large temperature difference between the two hemispheres will be smaller than the average of the temperature of planet where the hemispheres have similar temperatures. However, the effective radiative temperatures will be the same.”
The second point I have mad before.
Ned is coming from one perspective, pressure, and dismissing other perspectives GHG theory.
Why?
Because if you incorporate both theories you double the effect and shoot yourself in the foot.
If both theories are right then the effect should be twice as great.
If not twice as great the theories are wrong.
How to get around this conundrum?
The fact is that both theories are right and the various properties that we see are manifestations of the process, not causes.
Pressure has a direct relevance to temperature, undeniable.
GHG theory has a direct relevance to temperature, undeniable.
But they fit together, they work together and you cannot use one to exclude the other.
Unless you are trying to use either of them as causation when they are, whats that lovely word about ECS , an emergent property or outcome of the processes.
Instead of trying to fight GHG or NZ the concepts of atmospheric and surface composition and pressure and changes ensuant need to be merged in the maths as they are in real life.
A comment like
” A natural open system such as a planet will always find a way to radiate heat to Space! The notion that “greenhouse gases” are essential to cool a planet is simply unfounded.”
is not helpful.
While not essential, the presence of GHG changes the radiative dynamics.
Hence the temperature of different layers of the atmosphere.
Hence the pressure in the atmosphere at that level.
Leading to an observation that the pressure is higher in that system without taking into account that it is that particular composition that has to have that particular pressure.
“Because Earth is the only planet in the Solar System to have liquid water on the surface and vapor clouds in the sky, many think that Earth’s climate is somehow special and controlled by unique and different drivers…. However, this is not the case!”
Arguing that the unique and different drivers that exist on all planets can be reduced to a simple pressure temperature theory is not right.
The pressure and temperature are linked in many ways.
That is why the laws work the way that they do. But the laws also take into account the effects of the different compositions. They have to.
You spell it out yourself by defining some of those compositions [above].
Albedo is important.
Albedo is usually pretty constant for most solid materials.
But it varies enormously with different gas mixes.
Take a planet like Jupiter. Give it two fixed circulating gases a bit like those mood lamps with the blobs of liquid rising or falling due to their energy gain when they sink to the heater at the bottom.
Make one black and the other white. Yju have a white world half the time and a black world half the time.
What is the surface temperature?
Definitely not stable or predictable by a simple pressure model [note the pressures would of course change with the albedo changes so your theory would work but give different results on a timing basis].
Now clouds are not unique but they do a form of what I have just described. Variable timing of albedo, unpredictable. with different average surfaces temperatures all the time.
Incorporate or sink.
Steve Richards: Rog, you know that a hot object cools.
Only if the surroundings are cooler than the gas or the hot gas expands adiabatically.
Stefan-Boltzmann law states ( — and I thought I was done with thermo ) —– per ‘Unit surface area’.
So in the above matter planet orientation is really a big issue. The heat source is a point source, but the receiving in and radiating out surfaces depend:
1. planet orientation (zero obliquity to 90deg[stall])
2. daily rotation speed (eg: revs per day)
3. orbit time
In an earlier thread, Ned has a graph in video comparing latitudinal temperatures for the Eocene and today’s. Ned attributes that to possible change in ‘air mass’, I would bet that it was change in orientation/obliquity. (And this point can be tested for dates in the Holocene, between 5200bce and 2000bce, if we can get the data).
Angech,
You have to watch our videos and carefully read our papers several more times, because your statement
“Pressure has a direct relevance to temperature, undeniable.
GHG theory has a direct relevance to temperature, undeniable.
But they fit together, they work together and you cannot use one to exclude the other.”
is completely wrong! This fact is clearly shown by the data and our newly discovered P-T relationship. The Atmospheric Thermal Effect is 100% explained by pressure, and there is no room left for any effects of so-called “greenhouse gases”. Furthermore, the most important conclusion from our research is that atmospheric long-wave radiation is an effect (i.e. a byproduct) of atmospheric temperature and as such it has no impact on global surface temperature. In other words, the IR LW radiation is a consequence of the operation of the climate system, not a driver of climate! Those, who do not grasp this simple fact, understand nothing about our concept… I’m astonished at how difficult it is for some people to realize that the “Greenhouse” theory is all upside down and backward regarding physical reality. All main tenets of the “greenhouse” theory are fundamentally wrong, and that fact is clearly demonstrated in our videos and papers!
I don’t know how to say it more clearly than that!!
Interesting: https://notrickszone.com/2021/09/09/scientists-increasingly-agree-the-last-ice-age-temperatures-were-3-4c-warmer-than-todays/
Well, if summers during at Last Glacial Maximum ware warmer by several degrees Celsius in the high Northern latitudes than today, how can we explain the presence of huge continental ice sheets in both Europe/Asia and North America during that period? Something is not right with the conclusions reached in this paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104061822030656X
oldmanK,
What you said (on September 15, 2021 at 2:49 pm) is incorrect! Obliquity cannot even begin to explain, why the global temperature during the Eocene was 15-17 C higher than today. Also, our analysis of planetary temperatures showed that one does not need to consider obliquity in order to accurately predict variations of global surface temperatures across a broad range of rocky planets & moons in the solar system. This fact tells you that obliquity has NO effect on the annual average global temperature of a planet!
Furthermore, we showed conclusively that the only parameter, which can accurately explain the observed polar amplifications throughout the geological record are changes in total atmospheric mass and surface pressure. Watch this video carefully:
Something is not right with a lot of issues.
I have been following Alaska and Siberia in times when it should have been ice-bound according to ‘dogma’. Apparently there were animals there during those periods; maybe intermittently, but there they were because of dated finds.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/05/world/frozen-cave-lion-cubs-siberia-scn/index.html 28,000 and 43,448yrs.
https://mostlymammoths.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/exciting-new-info-about-mastodons-and-humans-yukon-paleontology-part-1/ 50,000 yrs
(But note that my interest there was their tragic demise — cataclysmic).
angech on September 15, 2021 at 2:20 am
A few comments, may spread them out.
First I am surprised and alarmed at Ned’s dismissal of Eds point about the rotation speed affecting the average temperature of the planet.
=======!
I share your concerns. Ned did not refute the exceedingly simple mathematics of temperature vs rotation. Dismissal does not boost confidence in NZ.
The effect of rotation speed on surface temperature of airless bodies is discussed at length in a special section of our 2014 paper. Please read it first before engaging in theoretical discussions that are not supported by actual data:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
The claim that spin rate affects the global temperature of spherical bodies is a myth born from incomplete math models, and not something observed in the real world.
Ned, I misspoke. I shouldn’t have used density. My point was that the molar form of the ideal gas laws provides a formula for temperature that seems to work everywhere. Pressure is just gravity working on molecules in the atmosphere.. If you increase the molecular weight of a volume of air, the pressure increases so does the temperature. For any planet that has an atmosphere, you can use the molar form of the ideal gas law to solve for temperate. My point is, aren’t you just reformulating what we know from the ideal gas law. What I have always found interesting is the inconsistency of claiming extreme temperature increase from doubling CO2 with the ideal gas law. If you add the molecular weight of an additional 400 ppm of CO2, you don’t get much of any change in temperature according to the molar form of the ideal gas law.
The effective heat storage fraction η e is the only variable in Eq. (16) that might potentially be affected by a change in planet’s spin rate.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
======!!
A theory cannot prove itself.
Your Fig 5 of equatorial lunar temps clearly shows that changing the rotation rate to 1 earth day would significantly alter min & max temps. All that is required is to cut out the middle 27 days of Fig 5 to approximate what will happen.
This clearly shows that the temp variance will change which will change the temp deviation from abs zero which will change total outgoing actual radiation, which must change temps to maintain thermodynamic balance.
Clarification. Fig 5. A 1 day long lunar day would be 2 slices of 1/2 day each centered on sunrise and sunset.
Your fig 5 has a lunar day marked as 24 hours with sunrise and sunset around 18 and 6 hrs. Confusing. Why?
Nighttime lunar temps are perhaps the most reliable indication that rotation will affect variance. As can be seen, even after 2 earth weeks nighttime temps are still dropping.
This means that for sure a moon that rotates once an earth day, month or year is going to have different min temps.
Also, because we are seeing a buffering effect more than 2 earth weeks in length a similar effect should also influence max temps on the day side depending on rotation rate.
The curve of nighttime temps clearly is not linear. It is tending to level. Thus the effect of rotation should be more pronounced for a rotation change from 30 days to 1 day than from 30 years to 1 year in earth std units.
To Ed Fox:
What we describe in our 2014 paper regarding controls of the night-time temperature on the Moon is real physics. What you describe about rotation speed changing the average temperature of a planetary body is a “theory” and a fictional one at best… If the rotation speed was an important factor determining a planet’s global temperature, our empirical P-T model based on NASA data would not have the accuracy that it does without accounting for differences in rotation speed between planetary bodies. Six objects spanning a wide range of spin rates line up on a single curve with no need for a rotation parameter in the equation… What does this imply? Think about it!
Nelson,
No, one cannot use the molar form of the Ideal Gas Law to predict planetary temperatures, because you have one equation (PV = n R T) with 2 unknowns in it (V and T). That’s because atmospheric volume physically depends on pressure and temperature (remember that the atmosphere is an isobaric system at the surface!). Because of this, the relationship between pressure and temperature in the atmosphere (both at the surface and aloft) is non-linear. The empirical relationship between Ts/Tna and P, which we extracted from NASA planetary data, is not directly derivable from the Gas Law, although this curve has roots in gas thermodynamics that is governed by the Gas Law… Therefore, our Ts/Tna – P curve is not a reformulation of the Gas Law, but a new macrolevel relationship with the strength of planetary-level physical law.
To Rog and Nic, I don’t have the time to respond fully to your criticisms right now. My father has just died from the second AZ shot. Not a good time.
However Roger, I want you to look back to debates I had on this site with an older guy. Joe? Had a “dear in the headlights” as his gravitar? Remember him Roger?
He tried to teach me something. He succeeded. But by the time I’d finally understood the lesson, he was dead.
I had all my new-fangled ways of determining the true (not apparent) LWIR emissivity of water. Including quantum casscade lasers. He was decades older and laughing at me.
He was right. I finally got it, and I never got to show him that I understood his teaching.
Can you get it Roger? No empirical experiments or measurements are required. (I did them, crazy experiments with LWIR reflection from water under covers cooled to -50C). He was laughing at me. Look back in the comments. And he was right to laugh. He seriously was.
It was a 3D geometry problem. All you needed to know was that the depth of LWIR emission and absorption for liquid water was greater than 0.000mm.
Roger, it doesn’t matter what depth (D) LWIR is emitted from water. If D>0, then true LWIR emissivity must be 0.7 or below. It’s a 3D geometry problem. My empirical experiments were not required.
Can’t work out that geometry problem? Then what hope of working out solar thermal gain in 71% of our planet’s surface? No, just setting 71% of the surface to 0.67 emissivity and banging at the instantaneous radiative balance equations won’t work …
What will?
Now if the true LWIR emissivity of 71% of this planet’s
What you describe about rotation speed changing the average temperature of a planetary body is a “theory” and a fictional one at best…
======
disagree. What I’m saying is confirmed by your own Figure 5 from your 2014 paper. To demonstrate this I have analyzed your fig 5 and posted the results here:
https://ibb.co/KNYWXW6
What I did was:
1. make Fig 5 transparent.
2. overlay a mirror image.
3. overlay a cos curve from 00:00 to 06:00 (pink line) corresponding to zenith to sunset.
From this it is clear that:
1. For at least 2 weeks after sunset the lunar surface cools. This means that if the lunar rotation rate speeds up, the nighttime minimum temp will be warmer than current temps and if rotation speeds ip, the nighttime minimum temp will be cooler than current temps.
This is contrary to what you have predicted, from your own data.
2. The observed daytime temps from zenith to sunset track outside of the cos function. This makes no sense if there is low inertia in the surface temps.
Look at Fig 5 at 04:00. The black curve is well above 50% of the daytime range which is not consistent with the angle of incidence of the solar radiation (cos 60 = 1/2). Thus, the daytime temp in Fig 5 from 00:00 to 06:00 must have heat/energy coming from some source other than the direct sunlight.
correction:
From this it is clear that:
1. For at least 2 weeks after sunset the lunar surface cools. This means that if the lunar rotation rate speeds up, the nighttime minimum temp will be warmer than current temps and if rotation SLOWS DOWN, the nighttime minimum temp will be cooler than current temps.
correction:
change: “rotation speeds ip,”
to: ” rotation slows down,”
ps: the marks/ticks on the cos curve have no meaning. I was simply too lazy to bother to erase them. The cos curve X axis was filled such that 0 degrees corresponds to 00:00 and 90 degrees corresponds to 06:00. The Y axis was fitted such that 1 corresponds to temp at 00:00 and 0 corresponds to temps at 06:00. The mark 1 eyeball was used to guide the fit.
Six objects spanning a wide range of spin rates line up on a single curve with no need for a rotation parameter in the equation… What does this imply?
=============
Temperature calculation is not associative. Some objects are likely calculated as the average temperature of radiation and some are likely calculated as temperature of average radiation. This violates the associate rule. A correction for spin rate is required for temperature of average radiation
============
In my discussion of Fig 5, point 2.
It appears that you have explained the daytime temps as lying outside the cos function due to changing albedo with angle of incidence. Thus the temps at sunset are already much lower than angle of incidence would explain and 90 degrees on cos curve would need to be moved to much higher temp. It is possible I guess but is would seem to me that the surface of the moon is too rough and black to have 6x greater albedo at local sunrise/sunset than local noon. Similar to what happens with water. Otherwise I would expect the brightness of the moon towards the terminator to be readily apparent from earth.
In discussing spin it is apparent that there is the assumption that planet axial tilt is zero. Tilt is another factor to consider.
Contrary to scientific belief there is evidence of tilt change between 5200bce and 2000bce. Tilt was about 14.5deg at 5200bce, changed to ~18 at 4375bce, back to about 14.5 at 3550bce and to ~25 at 2345bce. The measurable evidence is there, the dating came later from multiple proxies.
The first supporting evidence came from polar and equatorial O2 isotope in ice cores, in the opposing trends of polar and equatorial. But also as regards this thread subject, the overall rising and falling temp trends globally with every tilt change. For the period in question low tilt lead to a rising temp trend, higher tilt to falling trend.
See https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
Most of this time-span is recorded history, both in legend (and myths based in reality) and written. I do not think atmospheric mass change was a cause – it would have been somehow recorded (noticeable).
Ned Nikolov says:
“Pressure has a direct relevance to temperature, undeniable.
GHG theory has a direct relevance to temperature, undeniable.
But they fit together, they work together and you cannot use one to exclude the other.”
is completely wrong! This fact is clearly shown by the data and our newly discovered P-T relationship. The Atmospheric Thermal Effect is 100% explained by pressure, and there is no room left for any effects of so-called “greenhouse gases”.
My comments on your conclusion The Atmospheric Thermal Effect is 100% explained by pressure,was more to the fact that both pressure and it’s relationship to temperature and radiative theory and back radiation are not exclusive.
Both fit the observed states well as they should.
When you then comment
” the most important conclusion from our research is that atmospheric long-wave radiation is an effect (i.e. a byproduct) of atmospheric temperature and as such it has no impact on global surface temperature.”
you miss the boat.
The radiation, while a product of atmospheric temperature, does affect the final temperature reached.
Which is does through a combination of the effects of the mixture of GHG and non GHG which then have to operate at the pressures commensurate with that temperature.
If you deny or exclude the role of the GHG in this process, or your theory does not take it into account then it is weakened.
“The IR LW radiation is not a driver of climate!”
It is nonetheless fundamental to how things work.
” All main tenets of the “greenhouse” theory are fundamentally wrong, and that fact is clearly demonstrated in our videos and papers!”
Stating that does not exclude the facts. GHG theory has many tenets that are both correct and necessary.
As I said neither theory has to invalidate the other.
If you can find a way to accept this and incorporate it properly into your theory your contributions will be recognized.
Pressure has a very important relationship with temperature but not the sole relationship.
Ned Nikolov says: September 15, 2021 at 9:41 pm
“the effect of rotation speed on surface temperature of airless bodies is discussed at length in a special section of our 2014 paper. Please read it first before engaging in theoretical discussions that are not supported by actual data:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
The claim that spin rate affects the global temperature of spherical bodies is a myth born from incomplete math models, and not something observed in the real world.”
The claim that spin rate affects the global temperature of spherical bodies is a myth.
Yes.
Because you are misstating the concept.
The claim is that spin rate affects the global temperature of externally heated spherical bodies heated by a point source such as the sun.
The mathematical models are not incomplete and you use them.
Energy in equals energy out.
Spin has no effect on energy in or out.
Average temperature is a much more difficult concept and is affected in any real world spherical object heated by an external source like a sun.
Increasing the spin does not make a planet hotter than the energy in, energy out allows.
A theoretical perfect black body has the amazing ability to radiate instantly from all sides the energy received on one side only. This does not happen in real life.
A planet spinning near the speed of light approaches a perfect black body because the average radiation received on all sides is now nearly equal. This also does not happen in real life.
A third hypothetical would be a light source all the way around the body. Not going to happen.
Hence, SB a non spinning planet and a very slowly spinning planet or one in synchronous orbit has a very hot area at double the temperature for 16 times the energy added to all the areas with not temperature increase and a low average temperature.
The faster it spins the more evenly spread the radiation and the more the average temperature approaches the ideal temperature for the energy input.
Don’t claim the maths or the maths models are incomplete.
You use them and know them.
You may dismiss the concept if it does not suit your theory but you cannot diss the maths.
Thank you for your reference
Despite
” We showed that the actual mean surface temperature of the Moon (197.3 K) is about 73 K cooler than the Moon’s effective radiating temperature Te ≈ 270 K computed from Eq. (3) using the same albedo. This large discrepancy is due to the fact that Eq. (3) essentially yields a disk-average temperature instead of a spherical temperature mean.”
You argue that the Te is only a theoretical construct yet it has the ability to be transformed by your equations into a more representative form of spherical planets, airless or not, average temperatures.
I read your take on rotation and dismissal with dismay.
“Specifically, it has been suggested that a higher ω would cause a planet’s Tna to approach Te (e.g. Smith 2008).”
You stated above that it was a myth but here were papers on it in your own paper.
You went off on a tangent about
“The effective heat storage fraction η e is the only variable in Eq. (16) that might potentially be affected by a change in planet’s spin rate.”
After breading your valuable insights into
Hölder’s inequality and its implications for planetary flux-temperature relationships
ie, the area-weighted average temperature of a spherical surface is always lower than the temperature calculated from the area-weighted average long-wave radiation emitted by the surface in proportion to T(μ)4
I realized that what you were describing was just the true non rotating average global heat of any spherical body illuminated by a heat source.
With the moon having a slow rotation it does not change much but as things speed up the average rises a little towards your TE theoretical construct.
A lot more respect for your work after reading this.
However you had better have another look at what the true effect of rotational speed on Holders inequality means.
Angular velocity changes do not cause emission energy changes but they provide another layer of complexity into your model as they do exist by your own maths.
“Rog, you know that a hot object cools.
Only if the surroundings are cooler than the gas or the hot gas expands adiabatically.”
You’ve got it Rog, the hot object radiates to the level of CBR of about 3K.
angech,
You have misinterpreted important aspects of our 2014 paper. Please read it again and pay attention to the section about the effect of spin rate on the average temperature and the context in which the paper by Smith (2008) is quoted. Then read our 2017 paper and think, why the Ts/Tna – P relationship is so precise across planetary bodies having very different rotation speeds?
I’m not sure how the discussion in this blog drifted to a marginal issue such as the effect of rotation speed on the global temperature, when the main topic was the evidence for insolvency of the radiative “greenhouse” theory discussed in the above video??
I’m not sure how the discussion
=======
Because theory and observation (fig 5 2014 paper nightine temps) contradict NZ central claim that pressure alone determines temp.
Fig 5 of the 2014 paper clearly shows that avg nighttime temps will rise if the moon rotates faster without any change in pressure. It is so obvious looking at the graph as to be irrefutable.
The problem is that one rather glaring problem hurts the rest of your work because it begs the question.
have another look at what the true effect of rotational speed on Holders inequality means.
==========
Agreed
A related problem is the temperature difference between day and night, equator and poles. The temperature variance.
That is how we got on to spin rate. A simple example of non atmospheric temperature variance.
My original point was that temperature variance has an effect on mean temperature because of the non linearity of SB law.
I used an airless moon as an example to remove the confounding factors.
For the period in question low tilt lead to a rising temp trend, higher tilt to falling trend.
=========
A change in axial tilt changes temperature variance between the seasons.
If you reduce tilt this reduces variance which reduces outgoing radiation as previously demonstrated. Average temp will rise to restore outgoing radiation
Thus observation confirms my previous point about variance.
Tallbloke
The Einstein post is back:
[reply] noted, thanks
Phil Salmon, and all interested parties,
Einstein’s 1917 paper is also available (for viewing) at
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/232
Ned Nikolov says:
I’m not sure how the discussion in this blog drifted to a marginal issue such as the effect of rotation speed on the global temperature, when the main topic was the evidence for insolvency of the radiative “greenhouse” theory discussed in the above video??
Eds comments and I piled on, sorry.
Re your work on the lower planet temperature it is still true that the energy in equals the energy out and all of the theories have to satisfy this despite the different amounts of Thermal energy conjectured.
Not sure how the GHG equations have to change if the different temperature constraints are factored in.
We do have the measured surface temps and the incoming radiation and albedo measurable
Phil Salmon, I already mentioned something like that about Wien’s displacement Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law . Also, look at this about Wien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Wien. He found the theory before Planck and he won a Nobel prize in Physics in 1911 before Einstein’s 1917 paper. There are some on this site who do not understand thermodynamics. The so-called ideal gas law is actually the 5th postulate in Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics which states “The macroscopic properties of homogeneous PVT systems at internal equilibrium can be expressed as functions of temperature, pressure and composition only”
Note the 4th Postulate (2nd law of Thermodynamics) is stated as “The entropy change of any system and its surroundings ,considered together, resulting from any real process is positive, approaching zero when the process approaches reversibility.”
The Greenhouse theory fails both these 4th and 5th postulates of Thermodynamics.
Also note Dimensional Analysis is part of Chemical Engineering which uses many dimensionless numbers such as the Schmidt number (which Dr Gavan Schmidt of NASA Giss admitted he did not know its formation and use). Most engineers have at least heard of the Mach and Reynolds numbers.
I am happy with the NZ findings.
Ned, likely I’m the one to blame for ‘I’m not sure how the discussion in this blog drifted to a marginal issue—-‘.
In the case of the Earth rotational speed is not so much of an issue (from my perspective), since it is not likely to change much. But the effect of tilt on rotational speed is another matter. CO2 may be just a paper ‘dragon king’ (but that I leave to others to prove), but tilt change is a very real one — and still scientifically invisible.
NZ in an earlier video, provided a graph comparing latitudinal temp change for today and for the Eocene. Is the difference a ‘Mass change’ or a ’tilt change’? Evidence for the second option exists, and that is far worse than CO2.
There is a famous painting of a pipe that has the title “this is not a pipe”.
If you understand the logic behind this painting you will understand the problem with average temperature. It is a statistical construct of the mind that does not conserve energy. Thus you cannot use it on the left side of any equation. A curve fit violates this rule.
Take a snapshot of 2 one-tonne cubes of water, radiating 1000 watts/meter squared in total at that moment in time.
Each cube is at a different temperature, but within each cube the water temperature is uniform.
What is the average temperature of the water?
What is the average temperature of the water?
=======!!
The answer is that there are an infinite number of different average temperatures that yield the exact same outgoing radiation.
The reason is because average is linear and radiation is 4th power.
However, if we were to say that the temperature variance was for example 100C then the solution for average is unique. If the variance is 25C then a different average temp satisfies the constraints.
The simple fact is that climate science does not know the value for temperature variance and they have no theory to predict it.
Instead climate science assumes that natural variability is low and thus variance is due to human activity. Variance is the so called “fingerprint” of human caused climate change.
Average temperature is interesting, but even if average temperature was to remain unchanged, variance is being used as evidence that humans are changing the climate.
My assumption was that we were undertaking a peer review of NZ. My critique of NZ is that using the very same math as used in NZ, it is trivial to show that there is no unique solution for average temperature.
Further, fig 5 of NZ 2014 paper confirms this, showing that lunar average nighttime temperatures are not constant, even though pressure and radiation are.
Fig 5 clearly shows that an increase in variance due to spin rate will lower the average nighttime temperature.
There are many other sources of variance besides spin rate. I simply used that as an example to make the problem obvious.
Orbital parameters affect variability as does atmospheric composition, surface composition and weather, among the most obvious.
Others have also pointed out reasons why variance affects average temperature.
My conclusion is that NZ is incomplete. It predicts an average temperature where a unique solution for average temperature does not exists. The Holder inequality confirms this.
As such, if NZ is correct, then there must be a unique variance that can be predicted from NZ to satisfy the unique average temperature.
As such, NZ could provide the answer that has so far evaded climate science. What is the natural variability of the climate system.
Unfortunately NZ have not approached this criticism constructively. Claiming that the very same math used in NZ is invalid because it contradicts NZ..
This is unfortunate because there is a much larger question than average temperature to be answered. The question of natural variability.
Should in fact NZ provide a unique solution for average temperature, then this means you should be able to apply NZ to derive a unique solution for natural variability. The holy grail of climate science.
I hope my point is clear. Climate science in the first IPCC report recognized that there is no unique solution for average temperature. We see that in the spaghetti graphs. The climate models provide projections not predictions.
Thus, if NZ does provide a uniques solution for temperature, then it must also be able to provide a unique solution for variance and thereby answer the biggest question in climate science. What is the magnitude of natural variability.
Support, criticism, suggestions for improvement are all welcome in our open peer review here at the Talkshop.
======≠
The above paragraph from the introduction to NZ is why I introduced the question of temperature variance.
Far from being a minor issue, average temperature is non physical. It is a statistical construct.
Statistically, the average person has 1 testicle. Without knowing the variance the average can be worse than meaningless. It can be misleading.
NZ, this blog post is in a tail-spin, as skydivers well know happened when Icarus flew too close to the radiative Sun. Thanks for taking climate off-world!
For variability, thanks to Svensmark, Shaviv, for taking climate off-Solar System!
Thank you Ned and Roger
This is quite a revelation for me.
As an engineer for 40 years I’ve lived through and watched this climate theory turn into a religion which no one is allowed to question, it just doesn’t appear to be debatable at higher levels than this.
As a student the basic fundamental gas laws were on page 1 of the text book. T for any gas is directly proportional to P..
I haven’t read the IPCC reports and wasn’t aware of the claim that the 30+ deg difference that the earths atmosphere adds is all due to the Greenhouse effect.. A basic back of a fag packet calculation shows the majority of this is due to atmospheric pressure.
Ned’s expansion of the basic gas laws and addition of Solar input plus confirmation of their accuracy with data from other planets and moons is exceptional.
To restore some of my faith in the current scientific establishment I hope to see the day when work such as Ned’s is openly and fully discussed at the level it deserves. As dissenting views on the subject don’t appear to be allowed even though the results show they’re indisputable I imagine it may be some time yet. Good luck Ned
It has been a while since I commented here. I used to comment as Q. Daniels.
Some basic notes:
Adiabatic Compression is a continuous process. At the 10 micron scale, parcels of air are moving at an average speed of 3mm/s, or 300 times the scale size. This movement is faster than the thermal exchange, making it adiabatic.
It’s easy to do the math wrong. Boltzmann showed us that with the assumption of molecular chaos.
Doing the math correctly appears to require “Landau-Lifshitz Navier-Stokes” (LLNS) , which is currently beyond us. There are people working on it, and they may get there in a few years.
All of this violates the ‘Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics’, of course.
I’ve got a paper which also violates the Zeroth Law. We were able to measure the electron temperature of unbiased infrared LEDs at high temperature. What we found was that even without a bias, the temperature was well above the device temperature. It should be a relatively easy experiment to replicate.
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/7/12/360
Say, you had a very large transparent [quartz glass] cylinder at the equator of our Moon.
Which was 100 km in diameter and 100 km high {wall thickest at base 1 foot thick and 1 inch at top}.
In middle of the 100 km one has basin which is 10 km in diameter and 500 meter deep.
Just the construction of the above should effect average surface temperature by some amount.
And then during lunar night, you fill basin with 80% liquid Nitrogen and 20% liquid Oxygen. Wait a lunar day, and next night fill the basin with water.
How much does adding that air and water effect the huge “greenhouse” and the temperature of the entire Moon.
Volume of filled up basin is about 39,269,875,000 cubic meters.
Or adding about 39 billion tonnes of water and and around 35 billion tonnes of air,
a tiny amount of water and air to the Moon. Or Mars has 25 trillion tonnes atmosphere and trillions
of tonnes of water. But Mars is bigger.
I would think eventually all water evaporate, but it might take a long time.
What happens within 1 year.
TO: Nick Hoss says (September 20, 2021 at 5:29 pm)
Thank you, Nick. I bear no illusion in my mind that it will be a while before our discovery and new climate concept become widely acknowledged (I may not even be around when that happens). But one must initiate the transformation of climate science at some point in time in order for a Paradigm Shift to occur in the future. We are in the very beginning of this process… The bigger problem is that climate science is by far not the only research discipline ruled by a false paradigm. Similar situations exist in cosmology, string theory, archeology, medicine, nutrition science etc… We simply need a New Renaissance in science in general! 🙂
Ned Nikolov says:
The bigger problem is that climate science is by far not the only research discipline ruled by a false paradigm.
Ned, do you think CO2, CH4, N2O, etc don’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth’s surface doesn’t emit it?
Suppose Earth had 1/2 as much gravity as it has, what would Earth’s air temperature be?
Suppose Earth had 1/2 as nitrogen and oxygen gas as it has now, what would Earth’s air temperature be?
I think the ocean temperature controls global air temperature. And I don’t think global average air
surface temperature means much, other than average global surface air temperature of around 15 C, is obviously a cold air temperature.
And so 15 C air temperature helps to indicate that we are in icehouse climate.
But we in ice house climate because we have a cold ocean.
Or 90% of our ocean is 3 C or colder, and the entire ocean has average temperature
of about 3.5 C.
Without such a cold ocean we would not be in this icehouse climate which we have been in
for about 34 million years.
And period of time being called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age or also called Antarctic Glaciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
If talking Earth’s history in terms last few hundred million year, Earth’s ocean have been warmer as
compared to last 34 million years. Not having any ice caps and having warmer ocean than 10 C was common during the last 300 million years, and Earth started developing permanent ice caps with the glaciation of Antarctic which occurred as it moved closer to south pole.
Obviously greenhouse “theory” began before plate tectonic movement become the accepted as a theory. And should mentioned that greenhouse “theory” has never been accepted as theory.
Anyhow back 1/2 gravity or 1/2 atm mass.
Our ocean surface has average temperature of about 17 C and global land is about 10 C
And tropical ocean surface is about 26 C.
So if don’t think global average air means much, you could provide an idea of how warm or cool the tropical ocean surface temperature. Or global land temperature. Or does Antarctica get warmer of cooler
gbaikie,
To your question about how Earth’s global temperature would change, if we had 1/2 gravity or 1/2 atmospheric mass? Halving any of those quantities will reduce the total surface air pressure by 50% from today’s value of 98.55 kPa. You can use the Equation shown in my video at 1:02:59 to calculate Earth’s global temperature, if the pressure were 98.55/2 = 49.275 kPa. See:
Regarding Earth’s paleoclimate and its drivers, watch this video:
To David Appell:
That’s not an intelligent question. Try again… 🙂
I see you are all ignoring Apple. Well done ! It’s the most intelligent option
“To your question about how Earth’s global temperature would change, if we had 1/2 gravity or 1/2 atmospheric mass? Halving any of those quantities will reduce the total surface air pressure by 50% from today’s value of 98.55 kPa. You can use the Equation shown in my video at 1:02:59 to calculate Earth’s global temperature, if the pressure were 98.55/2 = 49.275 kPa. ”
Long term temperature is a vague term.
The very problem of the Greenhouse Effect theory is it’s vagueness.
Or it is pseudo science as science is not vague.
The reality is we living in an Ice Age.
A Question or the Question is why are living in an Ice Age.
The vagueness Greenhouse Effect theory allows the idiocy that Earth could become too warm.
Whereas this is impossible.
Some believers admit we can’t leave this Ice Age.
Or they say, that any added CO2 will delay returning to an Glaciation period- the largest
guess is by 75,000 years. And one could say such people not conforming to what their
gospel is telling them.
I would say no one has the capability of predicting when we return to glaciation period.
But it seems on could argue {though it could be pointless] that we have been entering
a glaciation period for last 5000 years.
Now we have had a recent cooling period which is called the Little Ice Age. In terms any
agreement, it widely accepted that LIA ended around 1850 AD, but when LIA started is all
over the place- some say around 1300 AD. This illustrated the “problem” say when we entering
a glaciation period- how do define it?
Or we have agreement about the end of LIA, because worldwide a lot temperate glaciers receded.
Or when glaciers disappear is marks the end. So we apparently capable of say when interglacial begins- roughly speaking one massive global sea level rise. Or it take not much skill- village idiots will as correct as anyone.
But if asked about my opinion of when global cooling starts to lower, I would say when the Sahara desert stops being grassland and starts becoming huge sandy desert. Plus when tree near arctic treeline start dying and becoming frozen stumps.
Or in terms the Holocene we have past our Holocene peak when we left the Holocene Climate Optimum, wiki:
“The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.”
It seems possible we have another such “peak”, but there no evidence of it, yet.
If the frozen treeline stumps thawed, and Sahara desert greened significantly, then at least that’s something offer as evidence. But our Holocene Climate Optimum was not as warm as other
interglacial period’s peak global temperature, and warmer periods of the past were not the end of the world.
So I have question about, “demystifying-the-atmospheric-greenhouse”.
And it very obvious question.
Why does Earth absorb a lot of energy and emit a lot of energy.
Science would tell you, why.
gbaikie,
As I said earlier, in order to understand Earth’s paleo-climate and why do we now live in an ice age compared to the early Eocene, for example, when there was no ice on Earth, watch this video:
Let’s look at the cargo cult of the “Greenhouse Effect Theory”
Most believers think the upper atmosphere radiant a lot energy.
Or why emits more radiation than any other planet. But certainly emits a lot
more than Venus which at it’s distance from the sun gets twice as
solar radiation as 1 AU.
So cult believers say a lot of Earth’s heat is radiated from upper atmosphere and
Earth most powerful warming effect is when there is a lot water vapor in atmosphere
and they “know” CO2 gas is weak greenhouse gas, and that Venus lacks water vapor.
They could say the water vapor is reason earth emits so much energy as compared to
Venus.
So, I would propose that cult cargo believers would say Earth emits more because of water
vapor and Earth doesn’t have Venus thick clouds.
But though not many cargo cult believers around {they hide a lot- for some reason} if anyone
could also add the other main reasons this pseudo imagines Earth emits a lot and emits a lot
in upper atmosphere.
Why Earth absorbs as much as it does, is not as clear among the cultist or anyone.
I suppose it has do with Earth atmosphere have 10 tons of mass per square meter.
If they were saner, they might mention the Earth oceans.
But there are cargo cult believers which could point to back radiation as increasing the absorbing
ability of the atmosphere.
On topic of cargo cultists, I never meet one who would think if Venus was at Earth distance from the Sun, it would be warmer. No one has been forthcoming about how cold Venus would be at 1 AU distance.
But I guess every soul would say, Venus absorb less energy and emit less energy than does currently AND would continue to be far less than Earth does.
Forest Research: What do we know about how trees can cool our towns and cities?
Healthy urban trees are known to have a cooling benefit. They do this through the release of water vapour, in the process of evapotranspiration. Trees also provide cooling through the provision of shade and because they reflect more solar radiation and store less energy than many artificial surfaces such as concrete and asphalt.
https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/news/what-do-we-know-about-how-trees-can-cool-our-towns-and-cities/
If water vapour has a cooling benefit, why is it thought by IPCC to be a ‘greenhouse’ gas?
–gbaikie,
As I said earlier, in order to understand Earth’s paleo-climate and why do we now live in an ice age compared to the early Eocene, for example, when there was no ice on Earth, watch this video:–
So, 37 million year ago, you think Earth had twice as much atmosphere. Or 20,000 kg per square meter?
And a little over 55 million years ago, we quickly gained more than an addition 10 tons per square meter and relatively lost more than 10 tons per square meter.
Or our atmosphere which is 10 tons per square meter is about 5.1 x 10^18 kg
5.1 x 10^15 tonnes / 5100 trillion tonnes.
Or more than 5100 trillion tonnes of gas arrived and than disappeared somehow.
Did it come from the ocean and then go back into the ocean?
What do I think happen if 5100 trillion tonnes of 20% oxygen and 80 % nitrogen were to have been
added say 2000 year over a period of 1000 years, so we have had twice as much atmosphere since 1021 AD.
That would be a lot air added over a short period of time. And addition of that much air would increase global air temperature, while it was being added or such a short time period. But unlike the ocean, the atmosphere can cool down quickly.
Or blocked the sunlight within days the atmosphere would cool considerably, and ocean would cool immeasurably. So after 1000 years of time, all warming from this huge addition would have disappeared.
With this addition of mass, the tropical ocean would receive less sunlight. But the tropical ocean would be the least effected by this addition of Atm mass. And rest of world dims considerably more as compared dimming in tropics.
In terms solar energy they have a term called peak solar hours which is about 6 hours of the average
12 hour day. The 6 hours are when the sun is highest in the sky. Similar to tropics {which have most near zenith sunlight and therefore has more than 1/2 sunlight reaching this %40 of world as compared the remaining 60% of Earth surface.
One see the effects of sunlight when going thru 2 atm of air, it’s when the sun is 30 degree above the horizon { or 60 degrees below zenith}. At tropics when sun at noon is at zenith, each hour it rises or falls by 15 degree {the rest of world is more complicated} so, 3 hours before and after noon is the sun at 45 degrees above horizon {or 45 degrees below zenith} and within 1 more hours at 30 degrees and going thru twice and much atmosphere {45 is 1.14 atm}. And rapidly below 30 degree above horizon goes thru more atmosphere and go thru more then 10 atm near morning or sunset.
And doubling Atm mass doubles this effect.
So daytime is quite dim, and say, Germany is always quite dim. Or their solar panel work twice as badly as they do now {which is hideously bad}.
But as said the tropics is least effected and tropical ocean absorbs both direct and indirect sunlight- and adding twice atmosphere significantly increases global indirect sunlight {or has a lot less direct sunlight}.
With 100 km wide and high glass walls, the amount air and water added was not enough to have much effect, so going to makes basin bigger: 50 km in diameter and 1 km deep:
1,963,493,750,000 cubic meter.
still less than Mars. But maybe have some effect.
So 39,269,875,000 cubic meters vs 1,963,493,750,000
39.2 billion vs 1.96 trillion is about 50 times more air and water.
I was thinking needed about 200 times more- and if you want can add
4 them, could be one noon, a midnight and a morning and an evening one.
But happens with just one.
As guess, one lunar day may not evaporate all the liquid air- as takes a lot energy
to do this. If was on Mercury, it probably have enough energy.
So when put water in next lunar day {at night} there could be some liquid air left, but
doesn’t matter much just dump in the water, and get lots H20 ice and probably liquid
water. Let’s say water is dumped in at 5 C.
But seems before this with possibility of having liquid air, the “greenhouse” could warmer than
lunar surface. One complication is if more than 1 trillion tonnes get out cylinder is how far does
travel in about 1 month. If detecting for this added gas at one of pole, you aren’t going to able to detect one molecule of it within 1 hour , but within hours this is possible. But if you within 100 km of
the cylinder, one should able detect a molecule quickly and have a lot air molecules detectable
in 6 hours, than someone a pole measures within 6 hours. Or most molecules might be with 500 km of cylinder. Or perhaps more molecule return to being inside cylinder compared to ending up at the poles.
So dump water, and any liquid water evaporates quicker than frozen water, and at dawn could have
all water frozen. And sunlight lack enough energy to evaporate that much water.
When become night again the frozen water in basin will be warmer than lunar surface at night.
And next day, the cylinder at noon will be colder than lunar surface around it, and next night warmer
than lunar surface. And water should have higher average temperature than lunar surface.
Another problem with N&Z’s physics is that at certain points on the planet’s surface, temperature=0. This is explicit in equation 4 here:
– https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/utc_blog_reply_part-1.pdf
This is, of course, physically impossible and represents a singularity in their model, which they ignore and integrate over without any concern.
Earth’s sunlit side (at any given time) is cooler than the sunlit side of the Moon, but Earth’s dark side keeps so warm primarily because of the oceans rather than the atmosphere.
Why is the moderator here refusing to allow me to ask a question about fundamental physics — viz why Nikolov is ignoring basic radiation laws?
Seems very strange that a science blog wouldn’t allow discussion of basic physics. What gives?
[mod] you already had a reply to your question
moderator wrote”
“Why is the moderator here refusing to allow me to ask a question about fundamental physics — viz why Nikolov is ignoring basic radiation laws?”
[mod] you already had a reply to your question
The reply was that it was “not an intelligent question,” which of course isn’t a response worthy of a science blog. Or one anyone here should accept.
Why is everyone here willing to overlook the most basic, glaring errors in N&Z’s work?
David Appell: “at certain points on the planet’s surface, temperature=0”
Scientists use the Kelvin temperature scale, David. You may have heard of it, even if you don’t know how to use it.
Heat or heat flux, energy or energy flux, or temperature or thermal change?
tallbloke says:
Scientists use the Kelvin temperature scale, David. You may have heard of it, even if you don’t know how to use it.
T = 0 Kelvin violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics.
N&Z’s theory violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics.
And no one here cares? You don’t care??
Reply: We don’t care about your nonsensical arguments David, no.
David,
You make unsubstantiated claims by misquoting our work. You do not pay attention to our peer-reviewed research published in 2014 and 2017, where there is no T = 0 K anywhere on the surface of a planet!
Volokin & ReLlez (2014): https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Nikolov & Zeller (2017): https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
Furthermore, if you watch the video at the top of this blog (which apparently you haven’t), you’d see that it provides a clear and comprehensive answer to your elementary question “do you think CO2, CH4, N2O, etc don’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth’s surface doesn’t emit it?“…. This why I said that it’s not an intelligent question.
Why don’t you try to bring yourself up to speed on our research by actually studying our published work (papers and videos) instead of embarrassing yourself with incoherent questions?
Re:
tom0mason says:
September 26, 2021 at 5:07 pm
“The lack of souls.”
I propose it is the lack of education.
This lack of education is not years spent “having education inflicted upon you”
Or the number of years one gets brainwashed.
One can argue that people need some brainwashing.
But no one can argue that they have not had some brainwashing.
So, I would say we getting too much brainwashing and not enough education.
What too much education look like?
Well, we don’t have this problem.
We need more choices of education.
End the teacher’s Unions.
We need school choice. We need more competition of schooling for everyone.
But we start by allowing more school choice for those people who aren’t rich enough
to get a private education.
More Re:
tom0mason says:
September 26, 2021 at 5:07 pm
I don’t think “serious cargo cult believers” think or say “back radiation” warms the surface.
But also don’t think that among “serious cargo cult believers” there is agreement of how greenhouse gases cause an increase in global temperature. But roughly greenhouse gases are suppose to reduce the amount heat lost to space.
And what called “greenhouse effect theory” which not to long ago was called “greenhouse effect hypothesis” is neither a theory or hypothesis. And doesn’t even have an author.
And no one claims that greenhouse gases cause interglacial and glaciation period which was once thought might cause interglacial and glaciation period.
Global warming is a cult.
We live in one the coldest periods in Earth’s history. We had a cold ocean for about 34 million years and this cold ocean is why we currently have low global CO2 levels. When ocean was the coldest we had dangerously low CO2 level. Currently our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C. Has been around this temperature for last 5000 years, and is typical ocean temperature during a interglacial period. The warmest the ocean gets in last 2 million years has been about 4 C or perhaps more.
A 5 C temperature ocean is still a cold ocean, but I think a 5 C ocean would have dramatic effects.
But global warming is not hotter weather conditions, rather it’s a more uniform global air temperature.
Or we have Canada with average temperature of about -3 C, it could get above 0 C average temperature {mostly warmer nights and winters}.
Or the tropical zone remains around the same temperature which averages around 26 C.
The tropical zone is 40% of the surface of Earth and about 80% ocean surface- it’s the 30% of southern and/or northern hemispheres which warm or cool. In regards to global warming or cooling.
gbaikie says: September 28, 2021 at 6:00 am
“We live in one the coldest periods in Earth’s history.”
“Currently our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C. Has been around this temperature for last 5000 years,”
We need to hone in on what matters, -Food-. During the last 5000yrs there have near a dozen periodic global famines, and great irruptions to major civilisations.
“Some plant seeds, including cool season vegetables like lettuce and broccoli, germinate best in temperatures between 55 and 70 degrees F. (13-21 C.), while warm season plants such as squash and marigolds, germinate best when temperatures are between 70 and 85 degrees F. (21-30 C.)”.
“The minimum water content required in the grain for wheat germination is 35 to 45 percent by weight (Evans et al., 1975). Germination may occur between 4° and 37°C, optimal temperature being from 12° to 25°C. Seed size does not alter germination but affects growth, development and yield.”
We need arable land to be between 12C and 25C. And the right humidity.
Interesting comment on the wuwt ghe thread.
Re — tallbloke says: September 28, 2021 at 12:03 pm
The experiment (link below) says:
The CO2 was no defence to the heat radiation.
It is the thermopile instrument the has led us to believe CO2 is special. Tyndall, in 1859, really and only discovered the thermoelectric gases: the gases that transduce electricity from IR radiation.
I cannot see that anyone has conducted a similar experiment. Not only does this refute greenhouse theory at its foundations but also has implications for our understanding of heat radiation physics as a whole. Our belief in infrared absorption or transparency for different substances is totally based on instrument type and not on practical testing by modern instruments.
I have concluded there has been a systematic error in our measurement of infrared (IR) radiation and the greenhouse gases.
http://www.fractalnomics.com/2021/05/refuting-greenhouse-theory-experiment.html
Well no-one claims the IR absorbed by CO2 isn’t re-emitted, so no surprise he could feel some heat. Added to which, CO2 only absorbs a narrow part of the IR spectrum.
Ned Nikolov says:
You make unsubstantiated claims by misquoting our work. You do not pay attention to our peer-reviewed research published in 2014 and 2017, where there is no T = 0 K anywhere on the surface of a planet!
Ned, you published a paper where T=0 on a planet’s surface, despite knowing that that violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics. That is explicit in equation 4 here:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/utc_blog_reply_part-1.pdf
Why did you do this? How did this paper ever pass peer review?? Clearly a big flaw there.
What equation in subsequent papers fixes this? Please give the link to the paper AND the equation number.
tallbloke says:
Well no-one claims the IR absorbed by CO2 isn’t re-emitted, so no surprise he could feel some heat. Added to which, CO2 only absorbs a narrow part of the IR spectrum.
Yes. So it comes down to a calculation — how much does CO2 absorb, so how much heat does it trap?
Physicists have worked extremely hard on this question for a century. Where is the flaw in their research?
gbaikie says: September 28, 2021 at 6:00 am wrote:
“We live in one the coldest periods in Earth’s history.”
“Currently our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C. Has been around this temperature for last 5000 years,”
So what? Completely irrelevant.
Civilization has been built at the preindustrial climate point. That’s what it has adapted to.
Now we’ve changed that climate. Can civilization withstand that amount of climate change? That’s really the only question? Can we, and all other species, adapt to the current pace of climate change, which is very very fast by any historical standard.
Roger, that experiment has flaws but so does the greenhouse theory. CO2 emits and absorbs radiation at wavelengths of 2.8 micron, 4.3 micron and 14.8 micron which from Wien’s displacement law are equivalent to peak temperatures of 1000K, 660K and 195K. The experimenter claimed the temperature of the heat flow from the element was about 200C or 473K. CO2 will be transparent to radiation at that level. The average temperature of the surface of the Earth is claimed to be 288K -radiation at that peak wavelength is also not absorbed by CO2. Radiation with a wavelength of 14.8 micron (of which there is only a small amount) is only absorbed and radiated (to space) high in the atmosphere where the temperature is about 200K. If one talks about emissivity (in relation to a black body) across the whole spectrum, the value for CO2 is only about 0.002 and certainly no where near the 1.0 claimed by alarmists.
Another point, the claim that any body radiates in all directions is plain wrong. That only could apply to an isolated body in a vacuum at huge distances from any other body such as the Sun. In a system where there are more than one surface in an atmosphere there will be directional heat flow in keeping with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (eg in an heat exchanger the outer surface would be insulated to minimise external heat loss and to maximise the internal heat transfer.) A simple experiment back in university days was the have an uninsulated pipe suspended a short distance from the ground with hot water flowing through it and measure the heat loss and the surround temperatures, then insulate portions of the pipe and measure changes.
David. The radiative equilibrium temperature of the CO2 molecule is around 200K from memory. That’s quite similar to the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere at the tropopause. Below that level, it’s being kept warm by N2 and O2. The fact that it absorbs and re-emits IR into a convecting atmosphere is of interest, but little consequence.
Please provide the scientific definition of “trap” in the context in which you’ve used it.
The theory is intriguing, most notably the fact that three “close by” planets, Venus, Earth, Mars are so different with respect to temperature, yet can be explained by one and the same theory.
The key to the theory is the atmospheric pressure.
So, my question then is, why is the pressure so different? Sure, it is amount of gas, and gravitational force. But why is the amount of gas so much different?
Venus and Earth, in particular, are often described as planetary siblings, and I’d throw Mars into that mix as well. So, why are these siblings so different when it comes to amount of gas?
ullix – maybe something to do with the amount of volcanic activity, or lack of it in Mars’ case.
CaF; I’m sure emission is in random directions, but the net flow us ever upwards, and any deficiency in that flow of energy is made up for by convection and latent heat transport. Energy cannot be ‘trapped’ in a freely convecting atmosphere, which is why radiative greenhouse modelers only parameterise convection instead of properly coupling it.
ullix, I am no expert but my thought is that both Earth and Venus had lots of CO2 in the first billions of years of formation. The difference is due to Earth being hit by Ice asteroids which brought water and organisms which then developed into life. I know that there are limestone deposits which date back to Silurian and Devonian periods (444-419-359 M yrs ago) This locked up much CO2. Then there was the Carboneous period 358-298M years ago when many of the coal deposits all around the world were put down. The Cretaceous period 145- 65.5 M years ago saw the huge deposits of chalk (CaCO3) in southern England, France, Holland, Belgium and western Germany laid down. Even now plants are growing, coral reefs are expanding, organisms in the oceans are thriving and binding CO2. Basically, the atmosphere on earth has been stripped of most of the CO2.
It is possible that Venus was hit by a large rocky object (maybe Mars size) which may have had additional CO2( as does Mars). Note, Venus turns the opposite of other planets and turns slowly. The Venus atmosphere has a greater height than Earth and the molecular weight of CO2 is greater than N2 +O2 combination on Earth so the surface atmospheric pressure is higher although I think gravity is similar.
I admire Ned’s patience when dealing with dummies like David Appell.
gallopingcamel:
The only reason I reply to people like David Appell, who would never admit the idiocy of their “arguments”, is to help genuine truth seekers out there understand the actual drivers of climate, which has nothing to do with non-condensing trace gases like CO2…
Hi Rog and Ned,
I’ve been trying to think of a simple experiment that could possibly demonstrate the thermal enhancement principle and hopefully help encourage more people to consider the concept.
It could maybe go along the lines of something like making a small vessel that could be pressurized but from a material that doesn’t slow heat transfer too much (for speed of results purpose). Place the vessel in a room that has a constantly controlled fixed temperature. Pressurize the vessel with air that is lower in temp than the room, Suggest fitting a pressure relief valve so constant pressure can be maintained. Sit back and monitor the vessels temp. I assume it will absorb the rooms heat but the temp will eventually rise above the rooms temp in relation to the increased pressure. Guess you could go back in a couple of weeks and it wouldn’t have changed. Just a thought, if climbing a mountain or going down a mine doesn’t convince some people the huge role that pressure plays in governing a planets temperature. Would that work? tell me if I’m going mad – I can take it.
Nick, your idea won’t work, as Ned’s theory involves the throughput of solar energy as well as pressure. What might work is having two identical transparent containers at different pressures exposed to the same heat source or sunlight. But they would need to be big enough to avoid rapid equilibriation with the ambient air.
Hi Rog, just switched on after realizing temp would stop at room temp (equilibrium as you said earlier). Switched on to suggest as you’ve just said bringing in another vessel and not pressurizing it, then put the sunlamp on both and show the internal temperatures of both, guess the pressurized will be higher. Trying to picture a classroom experiment that can’t be explained away. Probably not easy to do on a small scale.
There is only one “effective temperature” and that occurs around 5km up in the atmosphere, is -18° Celsius.
There are two adiabatic lapse rates. One dry the other wet. Applying the wet adiabatic lapse at 6.5° per km for 5km we have 32.5° C.
Add the two values together we get 14.5°C rounded up we get 15°C, which of course is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
Therefore greenhouse gas theory is debunked as the above does not rely on any radiation calculations.
For an alternative proof, read this paper from, Holmes
Holmes, R. I. (2018). Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change. Earth, 7(3), 107-123.
Regards
Climate Heretic
–Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on all planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 0.69kPa”
0.69kPa = .1 psi
Mars average pressure is .61 kPa
What happens if Mars average pressure is increase to 0.69kPa?
Of course Mars has variation in elevation where there is both less and more of the average of 610 pascal of air pressure at surface:
“Peak of Olympus Mons: 30 pascals (0.3 millibars) Hellas Planitia: 1,155 pascals (11.5 millibars) This is quite a range of values.”
So in large regions of higher 0.69kPa is there some “effect” other what people normally expect
or there some reason the average must increase to 0.69kPa to have some effect?
And what would be?
Though I think if add a few trillion cubic meter of water in form of lakes in crater of Mars in the tropical region of Mars, it would increase Mars water vapor and increase average pressure of Mars. And increase Mars average temperature.
So Mars has about 25 trillion tons of Atmosphere which gives average of .61 kPa how many trillion tons of some gas increases average to about .7 kPa
And I think water could cheaper to mine in per trillion tonnes as compared any other gas.
And trillion tonnes of water in lake is far more useful than a trillion tonnes of air added to sky.
For example, pick crater near Gale Crater {which is about 150 km in diameter] and about 150 km northeast of it, looks crater about 120 km in diameter and with rim walls about 1 km or more high.
So at lowest part of crater {I don’t know it’s name] you pump in lots of water which above freezing at say 5 C. And fill the entire crater with about 1 trillion tons {cubic meters} of water.
Crater area seem like it’s about 11,000 square km so average depth of less than 100 meter of water depth. which means some parts will deeper than 100 meter, and some parts will shallower than 50 meters.
It seems one will have more water vapor within the rim walls as compared to outside of crater. And more water vapor 100 km outside the rim wall as compare to 200 km or further from the rim wall.
And wouldn’t seem surprising if there was frost/snow on rim and within 100 km beyond the rim within months and years. And depending on weather one would have more frost which east, west, south or north beyond 100 km away from crater. Or might have smaller patches all around it, but more concentration in some direction.
And question could be, how long does it take before there is more than say, 6 inches of snow beyond
the rim wall? And when that happens, how much would it change global water vapor which is currently about 210 ppm.
And if one were to take thermal images of region, before any water is added, what difference would be when the was some place which had more than 6 inches on the ground beyond the crater rim.
Water of lake:
One can use this lake if surface is liquid or frozen. But question is would surface of lake be frozen or liquid. If liquid then area will have much higher average temperature. And if frozen, the area could have higher average temperature.
Now other got the issue of added heat to the lake water. If you have nuclear reactor, it will have waste heat.
So Mars thin atmosphere similar to Earth’s thick atmosphere is not adequate to cool a nuclear reactor [or any other electrical powerplant]. Water used on Earth, and one use water as coolant on Mars.
So trillion tons of liquid water is useful for electrical power generation.
It lake surface has a foot or more of ice on it. It gives a good flat surface. And if thicker, one might land rockets on it.
But it seems to me it’s not going to be frozen because it’s in the tropical zone of Mars, if it was 40 degree latitude rather 5 degree south latitude, it would get less sunlight.
But main advantage is water gives pressure, and Earthling are used to 10 tons of pressure per square meter, but handle 5 tons of per square meter [or less]. On Earth one gets about 5 tons of pressure per 5 meter of water depth, with Mars lower gravity it takes more water depth.
Climate Heretic, thanks for the reference. I have managed to download both the 2017 and 2018 Holmes’ papers through researchgate where I am registered and have a peer viewed paper which has been cited.
I have read both the papers. The 2018 paper has many references including the NZ 2017 paper and a paper by (Prof)Abbott and (Dr) Mahorasy (who I have both met and discussed their paper). I need to think them through but the reasoning and evidence appears valid.
One point I can immediately agree through personal experience of going down a number of deep mines is that the atmospheric pressure effect continues below the surface to cause warming. I also have been to the top of the Potala Palace at about 3800m where the atmospheric pressure is about 63kPa
cementafriend,
As I explained in my video, the effect of atmospheric pressure on temperature is a part of standard atmospheric thermodynamics. Hence, it should come as no surprise that the increased pressure in deep mines makes the environment warmer… However, one thing should not be forgotten: Pressure only has a relative effect on temperature, not absolute! That’s true for thermodynamic systems of any size and type, and it’s part of our planetary temperature model as well.
@Nick Hoss at October 1, 2021 at 4:10 pm
“I’ve been trying to think of a simple experiment …”. Yeah, me too, ever since I first read about N&Z’s theory.
The problem is that almost anything one can dream up involves a closed vessel. The way I understand it (and I’m probably wrong based on a lack of response to some prior posts above), it’s the fact that a gas (the atmosphere) can expand when heated, becoming less dense, that explains ATE.
Picture a column extending from the ground to some infinite level above. The column has a cross section of, say, 1 meter. So each 1 meter vertical section of the column has a volume of 1 cubic meter. (I’ll leave it to the individual to convert to hogsheads.) It seems intuitively obvious that as the air in the column warms, ceteris paribus, the air will expand to take up more volume. In other words, the top of atmosphere will rise higher and higher in the column. Then, it seems intuitively obvious that for each cubic meter of the column, again ceteris paribus, there will be fewer moles of whatever atmosphere contained within.
At each elevation of the column, the pressure is determined by the mass of the gas above. It would be tricky to determine the pressure at anything above ground level because as the air warms and the height increases, there is proportionately more moles of gas above.
Fortunately, at ground level, the pressure remains the same, so it’s easy to visualize what’s happening as the air warms (by whatever means – probably mostly by conduction from the ground). For an ideal gas, PV = nRT. So, for any particular volume of gas in the column, the pressure P will be nRT. Rearranging terms, T = P / nR.
We’ve already stipulated that at ground level, P is unchanging, so we then have T varying solely in response to changes in n (R is a constant). So, temperature increases as density decreases, density being n moles of gas within V.
Admittedly, I may be getting this all wrong, but it seems right to me and explains Ned’s insistence that the ideal gas laws govern planetary temperature. I’m retired from 29 years in the natural gas industry and am very familiar with Charles, Boyles, Gay-Lussac, etc. But in the calculations we do, V was always a fixed closed vessel. It took me a while to start thinking of V as a “porous” non-containing space. As much as this makes sense to me, coming up with a bench-top demonstration of how this might work still eludes me.
The opposite of Science is ‘The Science’ — Richard Lindzen
Dan,
One cannot solely use the ideal Gas Law to “predict” the surface temperature of a planet, because in the context of an atmosphere, the air volume V depends on P and T. Thus, we’ve got one equation (PV = nRT) with 2 unknowns (T and V). In order to correctly solve for these unknowns, we need 2 equations. This means that one must find an equation that directly relates T to P. Once P and T are determined, one can use the Gas Law to solve for V or the air density (n/V).
Our analysis of NASA planetary data served exactly the purpose of finding an empirical function that relates the global surface T to the average global surface P. That’s the red curve shown in my video:
Ned,
Thank you for your kind reply. I totally understand what you are saying, although the math is somewhat beyond me. What I’m talking about is just a different way of looking at the problem at an extreme local level in order to “get” what’s happening. I think it still demonstrates how the ideal gas law operates, but doesn’t attempt to model an entire planet.
If you divided the entire planet’s first meter of air from the ground into a 1m x 1m grid, each grid section would have a volume of 1 cubic meter. So, for a given grid section, V and P are fixed; only T and n are variable. Since our grid section isn’t an enclosed vessel, just a mathematical abstract, molecules are allowed to come and go. As the air is warmed, it will expand and molecules will leave our grid section; i.e. n decreases. As that happens, T must increase per the ideal gas law. Is this correct?
Again, this isn’t meant to be a restatement of your thesis, just another way of using the ideal gas law to understand (partially) what you are getting at.
“Ned Nikolov says:
October 2, 2021 at 2:19 pm
cementafriend,
As I explained in my video, the effect of atmospheric pressure on temperature is a part of standard atmospheric thermodynamics. Hence, it should come as no surprise that the increased pressure in deep mines makes the environment warmer… ”
Yes. For example when the Mediterranean sea became a dry desert, it’s thousands km lower elevation was expected to have a much higher temperature than Earth “normally could have been”
and there was evident it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
“…the Mediterranean Sea went into a cycle of partial or nearly complete desiccation (drying-up) throughout the latter part of the Messinian age of the Miocene epoch, from 5.96 to 5.33 Ma (million years ago). It ended with the Zanclean flood, when the Atlantic reclaimed the basin.”
With a mine shaft one has also include the geothermal gradient, but the higher pressure would/could be a more significant factor. And with a dried up sea, the geothermal gradient wouldn’t be a factor.
And returning to issue of Mars. Mars is not a water planet, and doesn’t require unusual condition to have very low elevations which below Mars “sea level” or Mars mean planetary elevation.
Btw:
“The zero point of elevation on Mars, the datum, is the elevation at which the atmosphere pressure is 6.1 millibars, or 610 Pascals.”
So, that means the “zero point of elevation on Mars”, will change with the seasons. Going to have to change that whenever we get to the point in time of accurately measuring Mars surface pressure.
@Dan at October 2, 2021 at 10:50 pm
Something I meant to state better was that by looking at the problem this way helps me grasp how N&Z’s ATE depends on the ability of a gas to expand in volume. This necessarily means that for any fixed volume being observed, density (n/V) must decrease with warming.
n and T are interdependent of course. As an atmosphere warms, in a fixed volume, n will decrease as T increases because that’s what a gas does.
It also makes me wonder if there would be any utility in using a 3d grid of fixed volumes for finite element modeling of ATE. Approximating things like conduction and convection within and between cells seems feasible. But in doing so, it would seem to require by definition that V is a constant for each element of the model. P, n, and T would be solved for at each time step. That’s something I could actually get my head around. A working model would necessarily calculate a lapse rate that matches empirical observation, which would be some sort of validation.
Dan,
Keep in mind that our planetary temperature model and ATE only refer to the surface and have nothing to do with vertical temperature changes or gradients! Unlike the current “greenhouse” climate theory, which tries to explain (predict) surface temperatures from top-of-atmosphere (TOA) energy balance and the vertical lapse rate, our concept states that the surface temperature is independent of these factors. The absolute vertical temperature profile above any location is a function of surface temperature, not the other way around. This is also postulated by standard atmospheric Thermodynamics… Everything in the modern climate theory is upside down and backward to the physical reality! 🙂
A comment about the volume variable (V) in the Gas Law: V is the volume of a gas, not a geometric (fixed) space volume as some people seem to think. This means that if you take 1 m^3 of space near the Earth surface and start moving it from Equator to Poles, you’ll observe a change of gas density in this cube increasing along the gradient. That’s because air volume (V) and density (n/V) are functions of temperature and pressure. Atmospheric volume decreases from Equator to Poles while density increases…
Thanks again for your reply, Ned. I absolutely agree with and understand everything you say but for one thing: while you currently do not claim that ATE explains anything to do above the surface, I’m not so sure. I’m not claiming that it does, but I think I can see where it might.
You say, “The absolute vertical temperature profile above any location is a function of surface temperature, not the other way around…”. Agreed.
You also note that surface temperature is independent of several factors above the surface that you list, which I also agree with. The only thing I’m arguing is that surface temperature is *NOT* independent of atmospheric expansion, which results in a lower density at the surface (and everywhere else), and I think the ideal gas law explains why this results in a higher surface temperature than would otherwise exist.
If the atmosphere did not expand, then what would be the difference between a gas atmosphere and a layer of liquid? There would be the same pressure gradient from the surface to the TOA as with a liquid, among other things.
In any case, it would be interesting to see a climate model with zero atmospheric radiative effects.
I said “There would be the same pressure gradient from the surface to the TOA as with a liquid…”.
An assertion without evidence. But it seems it would be the same or very similar.
Dr. Roger Higgs Exposes “Breathtaking Scale of NASA-HadCRUT Temperature-Fixing Fraud”
OCTOBER 4, 2021
Below is Dr. Roger Higgs’ newest ResearchGate contribution — comprised of 4 simple slides (a 15 minute read) proving beyond doubt that the Sun governs climate.
SLIDE 1 — CONCLUSIONS:
1) Our star, the Sun, controls global (& regional) warming & cooling, with 150-year delay due to ocean thermal inertia. (IPCC failed to notice this lag & dismissed solar fluctuations as too small to cause climate change.)
2) ‘Modern Warming’ since 1910 (recovery from Little Ice Age) is greatly exaggerated by NASA-HadCRUT improper ‘corrections’ to the thermometer record, e.g. failure to compensate fully for urbanization. This solves the tree-ring Divergence Problem: “A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming since the 1950s”.
3) The 1930’s (Dust Bowl) was probably the warmest decade of the last 1,000 years; it corresponds to the climax of the Sun’s 1700-1780 strongest multi-decade surge of the 2nd Millennium (effect delayed 150 years).
4) The joint rise in both CO2 (since 1850, start of Industrial Revolution) & temperature (since 1910, with downturns lacked by CO2, and without CO2’s acceleration) was purely coincidental.
5) Following the 2016 temperature peak, relative coolness will now persist for about 50 years.
6) CO2 is irrelevant to climate. (We need more CO2 for agriculture & forestry).
7) CO2’s theoretical greenhouse effect must be either conceptually flawed or is cancelled by negative feedbacks overlooked or ignored by IPCC.
More here: https://electroverse.net/dr-roger-higgs-exposes-nasa-temperature-fraud/
Tech. report: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354893015_Global_Temperature_strong_correlation_with_Sun_for_last_1000_years_unnoticed_by_IPCC_confirms_NASA-HadCRUT_greatly_inflated_post-1980_thermometer_data_to_mimic_CO2
Still giving Nobel prizes based on the ideas of Arrhenius… 🙄
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-nobel-prize-physics-awarded-scientists.html
(See ‘Establishing the role of carbon dioxide’).
I see Nikolov still won’t address the fact that his hypothesis violates the third law of thermodynamics.
Let’s note several more serious problems with N&Z’s paper at
— https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
1. Their mean surface pressure for Mercury, given in Table 1, is too high by a factor of 10, according to NASA data: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html
2. They have the Moon’s mean surface pressure too high by a factor of 3.6 according to NASA (and given to four significant places!): https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
3. Any reason they ignore Pluto, which has a quite high mean surface pressure of 1 Pa, while considering bodies with surface pressures much, much less? Why doesn’t it show in their Figure 5? Oh, come on, you can easily guess.
4. They try to set the Moon’s polar temperatures (where their mu=0, viz the solar incident angle=90 degrees) equal to the background temperature of space, “2.72 K,” through the “small constant” c_s in their equation 2, when the Moon’s actual surface temperature at those points is actually about 90 K, due to thermal conductivity through the regolith.
David doesn’t understand the Kelvin temperature scale, but blames Ned for his ignorance. Nor has he read and understood Ned and Karl’s paper on the Lunar temperatures published by Springer more recently than the poster he refers to. He’s years out of date.
Tallbloke, can we please move on? Nikolov is approximately right, but he says nothing about Climate Change, other than “no such thing.”
With a Nobel prize for physics for Germany the newspapers write “he got it for proofing with his models that the climate change is man-made”.
So, models can deliver “proof”? Times sure have changed! Or has the Nobel committee joined the “woke” community?
But maybe I should wait for any conclusion for their official statement – which I hope will be published here – and ask on Ned et al.’s reasoning.
One thing which remains cloudy to me is how this shown dependency of temperature on pressure has been derived. There is your multi-variable method, I forgot how you cal it, which you have used to come up with that near-perfect fit to the data of several celestial objects. So far, so good.
But it seems to be a variant of a fitting process. What I do not see is the rigid derivative of that formula from first principles. Or have I missed that?
Pochas, maybe when the mainstream consensus has moved on from its broken ghg climate paradigm.
And, Ned has said plenty about climate change. Specifically that the decadal to centennial change we see is due to solar variation and Earth albedo changes, not co2.
Ullix, Ned used the well known technique of dimensional analysis to discover that all the planets and moons’ surface temps for which there is good NASA data lie on a curve similar to the Poisson P-T curve when you consider just their surface pressure amd solar distance, not the ‘ghg’ content of their atmospheres.
Mainstream consensus is not able to derive any similarly simple curve using the parameters they believe control climate.
This doesn’t mean radiatively active gases have no role, just not a defining or dominant one.
Ned’s equation is an empirical fit to the curve created by real observed data across widely varying solar system conditions. It’s the best game in town, regardless of not being a ‘from first principles’ derivation.
Ullix, I too would like to see a formula derived from first principles. It seems possible for somebody with the PhD, the time and inclination. I’m missing the first two of those, unfortunately.
Fundamentally, as I understand it, heat in a gas atmosphere is distributed much differently than for a solid or liquid. Intuitively, we know that as the atmosphere warms it will expand vertically. This necessarily means that the atmosphere at ground level becomes less dense. (That is, the Ideal Gas Law’s “n” variable decreases.) For any given volume (V) of an ideal gas, T = PV / nR, so as n decreases, T necessarily increases.
Ned claims all you need to know is the insolation and P at ground level. P seems to me to be a function of gravity and total atmospheric mass. If that’s so, then it seems to simplify the problem dramatically since you can ignore those two variables.
We know what “standard conditions” for the earth are at sea level. I’ve always assumed these were discovered empirically by observation. If somebody was able to derive these given only P (101325 pa) and insolation (1361.7 W/m² ?), I think you’d have your answer.
Dan says: October 7, 2021 at 4:09 pm
“Intuitively, we know that as the atmosphere warms it will expand vertically. This necessarily means that the atmosphere at ground level becomes less dense.”
At that point the situation is unstable, there is buoyancy to deal with.
1 Atm:
-50 C 1.582 kg per cubic meter
50 C 1.093 kg per cubic meter
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html
pochas94,
You have apparently a very superficial understanding of our research and results. Ultimately, our discovery is about explaining climate change. Watch these 2 videos we presented at the 101st AMS Meeting last January:
Drivers of Earth’s Paleo-climate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpUkPPtkPVc
Drivers of Modern Climate Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv66_mpJz-c
It’s all spelled out there!
People, who talk about “first principles”, often do not know that all known physical laws have their roots in empirical observations and curve fitting. Take for example the Ideal Gas Law:
PV = nRT
It’s entirely based on precise measurements with the Universal Gas Constant R being a fitting parameter! See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_constant
Our newly discovered Ts/Tna – P relationship across planetary bodies has all features of a macro-level physical law.
Manabe and Broccoli published a book last year called “Beyond Global Warming: How Numerical Models Revealed the Secrets of Climate Change: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691058863/beyond-global-warming
The very title reveals a sad truth about current climate science: Models have replace observations! In a recent press conference, Manabe said that just like chemists do experiments in a lab, he did “virtual” experiments using a model to “study climate“. This type of model-based delusion is now widespread in physics and cosmology!
Ned Nikolov says: October 8, 2021 at 3:54 am
Part quote “– that all known physical laws have their roots in empirical observations and curve fitting.–”
That is very important to keep in mind.
A more critical example (to my mind) is the variation of the formula for ‘obliquity’, the earth’s axial tilt. It is also a piece of curve fitting to some calculated values, and fitted to a ‘polynomial’. Which, to boot, does not agree with the measured values since 1100bce.
Others have shown that the polynomial is superimposed by an exponential decay curve. And that is another Pandora’s Box.
In my former life in a control room for a high pressure natural gas transmission pipeline system, we ran a pipeline modeling system coupled with telemetry. Incredibly complex and useful, but also significantly limited. Even with real-time values constantly being fed to the model, it could sometimes “stray” for various reasons, meaning values computed by the model wouldn’t match reality. This is for an enclosed, finite, and well understood and well measured system. So I don’t have any problem with Ned’s criticisms of modeling as a substitute for real science.
Dan,
Complex math models that are not periodically nudged (adjusted) to reality go astray pretty quickly. A good example in this regards are the numerical weather prediction models that start deviating after day 4 of the forecast or so. That’s because models based on “first principles” are only an approximate representation of reality. The latter has boundary conditions such as Sun’s and Moon’s magnetic/gravitational influence on the jet streams that are not considered by models.
Another key truth to keep in mind is that math can produce solutions that are not physical. All physical phenomena have a mathematical description, but not all math solutions have physical equivalents in reality. This fact has apparently been forgotten (or never understood) by climate modelers, because many researchers (especially young scientists) show a blind trust in complex climate models and interpret any result produced by them as being physically real. That’s a fundamental mistake!
Ned, re “not all math solutions have physical equivalents in reality”, this may fit that category, but please let me know why I’m wrong:
I’ve been arguing that ATE makes intuitive sense to me because it can be explained by the fact that as an atmosphere is heated, it becomes less dense because of expansion (total volume increases). That is, T varies inversely to n.
I’ve been thinking about it and have come up with something I think supports this.
In N&Z’s poster of October, 2011, there is a table with physical values for planetary bodies including these for Earth:
Tɢʙ = gray body temperature = 154.3K
Ts = mean surface temperature = 286.4K (13.25C)
Nᴛᴇ = thermal enhancement = 1.863
It’s hard to get information at densities for air at various temperatures, but as a rough guide I looked at nitrogen and found that:
At 154.3K, nitrogen has a density = 2.186 kg/m³
At 286.4K, nitrogen has a density of 1.194 kg/m³
2.186 / 1.194 = 1.831, which to me looks suspiciously close to 1.863. Whether this is a mechanism in how ATE works or a consequence, it’s a correlation that, as I said, gives me some insight into what’s happening.
If nothing else, maybe it in some way validates your work.
Dan,
The data in our 2011 poster are outdated. Don’t use them! Much newer and better data are provided in our 2017 paper: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
Some of the 2017 data have also slightly been revised based on more recent publications. The latest planetary data can be seen in my video that’s the subject of this blog. Watch this segment:
Regarding the near-surface atmospheric density, it’s a product of pressure and temperature, and does not drive/explain Ts or ATE.
ATE is a sole function of total pressure and TOA solar irradiance!
tallbloke commented:
David doesn’t understand the Kelvin temperature scale
I have a PhD in physics. Exactly what do you think I don’t understand about it?
Still waiting to hear why N&Z excluded Pluto.
And arbitrarily threw out Mercury.
Real science doesn’t just exclude data because it’s inconvenient.
And why their model violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics. (That little c_s parameter doesn’t fit the observations anyway.)
David,
Do you have a cognitive impairment or you are just slow?
Mercury, Pluto, Calisto and Europa are discussed on pages 15-16 in our 2017 paper: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
These planetary bodies were used as independent data points to validate our model. I have provided this reference more than once in the discussion above. Why don’t you read first before commenting?
Reblogged this on muunyayo and commented:
#greenhouse
Ned, thanks for the pointer to the newer data. I’d forgotten I’d seen it in the video.
Re “Regarding the near-surface atmospheric density, it’s a product of pressure and temperature, and does not drive/explain Ts or ATE.
ATE is a sole function of total pressure and TOA solar irradiance!”
Earlier in this thread, I’d asked what would be the difference, then, between a layer of liquid or a gas atmosphere. Around 10.2 meters of water would get you 1 bar pressure at the surface. Yet I’d doubt that you’d claim any temperature enhancement.
It’s pretty obvious that I don’t get what you are suggesting is the mechanism for ATE. The major difference between a gas and liquid is that gas is expansibile/compressible, yet you seem to be saying that doesn’t matter. However, it makes total sense to me how atmospheric expansion as the atmosphere warms would cause surface temperature to rise by more than if the atmosphere didn’t expand. I’m about ready to give up.
Dan, 10.2m of water would get you 1 bar of pressure at 10.2m depth into the water, not at the surface.
Ned Nikolov on September 14, 2021 at 6:14 am
.. The Gas Law states:
PV = nRT,
where PV = Joule is the kinetic energy of the gas. Temperature is a linear expression of that energy.
≠==========
Ned, that is fundamentally incorrect. Temperate is not a linear expression of kinetic energy..
Temperature is an intensive property. It does not rely on the size of the sample. Kinetic energy is an extensive property . It depends on sample size.
So for example take 2 identical samples of air at STP. The kinetic energy of each sample is 1/2 the total kinetic energy. Yet the temperature remains unchanged.
thus from the Gas Law
T = PV/nR
T = (kinetic energy)/(mass * constant)
In other words. Temperature varies linearly as the kinetic energy divided by the mass.
This has implications for averaging temperature. Take 2 samples:
t1 = e1/m1
t2 = e2/m2
With appropriate units, assuming both samples have same specific heat.
Avg t1, t2 =
(m2e1 + m1e2)/(m1+m2)
Climate Science makes the mistake of assuming m1=m2=1.
Dan,
The atmosphere is a compressible fluid and that allows for adiabatic (pressure-induced) heating to take place. Water is almost non-compressible. If you somehow instantaneously lower Earth’s gravity, the volume of the atmosphere will increase but pressure will decrease, which will cause cooling of the surface on average. If you increase Earth’s gravity, the reverse will occur: atmospheric volume will decrease, pressure will increase and the global surface temperature will rise. So, ATE is controlled by surface pressure, not atmospheric volume or air density.
If gravity is fixed, then atmospheric volume and surface temperature vary with solar heating, which is largest in the tropics and lowest at the Poles. If a gas volume is fixed, then temperature becomes proportional to pressure (Gay-Lussac’s law). In a freely expanding atmosphere, temperature is a non-linear function of pressure, because some of the energy received from the Sun is used to conduct the expansion, which is work done by the atmosphere against gravity. Because of this work, an expanding atmosphere warms less than a fixed-volume atmosphere for the same amount of absorbed solar energy. So, your statement:
“… atmospheric expansion as the atmosphere warms would cause surface temperature to rise by more than if the atmosphere didn’t expand”
is thermodynamically incorrect!
Tallbloke: “Dan, 10.2m of water would get you 1 bar of pressure at 10.2m depth into the water, not at the surface…” That was my point. Without a gas’s ability to contract or expand, there would be no difference between a liquid or gas.
Ned: ““… atmospheric expansion as the atmosphere warms would cause surface temperature to rise by more than if the atmosphere didn’t expand” is thermodynamically incorrect!”
I really have to disagree with that. T = PV/nR. In a fixed volume at the earth’s surface, P, V, and R are all fixed. The only variables are T and n. Nobody doubts n will decrease with warming because the atmosphere will expand and fewer molecules will occupy V. As n decreases, T *MUST* increase more than if n stayed constant. This is a really, really simple application of the Ideal Gas Law.
“If a gas volume is fixed, then temperature becomes proportional to pressure (Gay-Lussac’s law).” That’s true for a closed vessel where n cannot vary; I’m consistently and clearly talking about a volume V that is not enclosed (“porous” if you prefer – think mosquito netting). Again, in this situation P and V will not vary, but T and n can and will, inversely, with a gain or loss of heat. I believe the Ideal Gas Law is completely valid and relevant in this situation. But I used to think the government was there for my benefit, so what do I know.
Oops avg =
(m2e1 + m1e2)/(2m1m2)
As n decreases, T *MUST* increase more than if n stayed constant. This is a really, really simple application of the Ideal Gas Law.
========
Dan, i agree with this. Confusion over temperature and kinetic energy occurs because temperature is not affected by sample size while kinetic energy.
Take 100 molecules all with the same kinetic energy. The temperature of each molecule is the same, but the kinetic energy of each molecule is less than the total kinetic energy of all 100 molecules.
PV is the total kinetic energy of all 100 molecules. T is the average kinetic energy of the individual molecules.
Dan,
What I said about work done by the atmosphere against gravity when expanding is correct, and not disputable. This is basic Thermodynamics! You disagreeing with such a fundamental fact only points toward the need for you to take a thermodynamics refresher course.
Your assumption that atmospheric volume V and therefore density are constant at the surface is totally incorrect. Air density and volume vary with surface temperature for any given pressure! That’s why density is lower over the tropics and higher near the Poles… look it up!
Non-scientists are oftentimes confused about the meaning of V in the Gas Law: PV = nRT. They assume that V is some sort of a geometric fixed volume. Not so!! V is the volume occupied by the gas rather than a constant geometric volume. A larger V implies a lower air density D, because D = m/V, where m is the mass of gas (in kg or mole).
Ed, no. T is proportional to average *velocity* of all 100 molecules.
Temperature is a bulk property in the troposphere.
Ed, no. T is proportional to average *velocity* of all 100 molecules.
Temperature is a bulk property in the troposphere.
=====!=
Rog, reread my post. I specified all 100 molecules had the same kinetic energy.
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of each molecule, regardless of where you sample has 1 or 100 or 10^100 molecules.
Ned, wow! You totally mischaracterized everything I said. So you can beat up on a straw man? I did not expect this. Point by point:
1. Ned: “What I said about work done by the atmosphere against gravity when expanding is correct, and not disputable. This is basic Thermodynamics! You disagreeing with such a fundamental fact only points toward the need for you to take a thermodynamics refresher course.”
Me: I totally agree that “work done by the atmosphere against gravity when expanding is correct, and not disputable”. That has been my understanding this entire time and nothing I said could possibly lead to the conclusion that I disagree. Why are you saying this?
2. Ned: “Your assumption that atmospheric volume V and therefore density are constant at the surface is totally incorrect. Air density and volume vary with surface temperature for any given pressure! That’s why density is lower over the tropics and higher near the Poles… look it up!”
Me:
2.a. If I started a thought experiment with: “A train leaves Chicago going east at 50 miles per hour…”, would you say this whole exercise was pointless because trains can travel for more than an hour or even less? “It takes days to cross the U.S. by train… look it up!” Or are you just saying it’s somehow wrong or invalid to look at what happens during one hour of train travel? Or what happens to a cubic meter of atmosphere as conditions change? More precisely, for PV=nRT, what happens to the other variables if we hold V constant? This is junior high school algebra.
For physical values, engineers and physicists use terms like “kg/m³” all the time. It means that each cubic meter contains x kg of mass, not a claim that the atmosphere is a fixed volume.
2.b. Every single f***ing single thing I’ve written here is about my understanding that density at the surface **CHANGES**, in inverse relation to temperature. And vice versa. My *ONE AND ONLY* claim is that it’s this relationship that explains why the temperature at the surface is higher than it would be without an atmosphere.
At October 9, 2021 at 10:29 pm, Ned said “Regarding the near-surface atmospheric density, it’s a product of pressure and temperature, and does not drive/explain Ts or ATE…ATE is a sole function of total pressure and TOA solar irradiance!” showing that at one point you at least understood my argument, even if you disagreed.
3. Ned: “Non-scientists are oftentimes confused about the meaning of V in the Gas Law: PV = nRT. They assume that V is some sort of a geometric fixed volume. Not so!! V is the volume occupied by the gas rather than a constant geometric volume. A larger V implies a lower air density D, because D = m/V, where m is the mass of gas (in kg or mole).”
Me:
3.a. (Step 1). I am in complete agreement! You say “A larger V implies a lower air density D…”. I’ve consistently been saying things like “as an atmosphere is heated, it becomes less dense because of expansion (total volume increases). That is, T varies inversely to n”. Sounds to me like we’re saying the same thing. Where is my confusion?
The whole starting point of my argument is that a larger Vₜₒₜₐₗₐₜₘₒₛₚₕₑᵣₑ implies a lower Dₜₒₜₐₗₐₜₘₒₛₚₕₑᵣₑ and indeed a lower D anywhere in the atmosphere, including at the surface. YOU are the one saying density doesn’t matter to ATE, only pressure and TOA solar irradiance. I’m arguing that to me it seems necessary. Otherwise, as I’ve pointed out, why wouldn’t replacing the gas atmosphere with a liquid be the same thing?
3.b. (Step 2). OK, now we’ve established that the atmosphere is less dense, and I’m claiming that this applies at the surface as well, let’s go on to step 2:
Let’s now consider what happens at the planetary surface. We are no longer looking at Vₜₒₜₐₗₐₜₘₒₛₚₕₑᵣₑ. We’re done with that. Served its purpose. For each cubic meter of air at the surface, let’s call that V, T = PV /nRT.
Atmospheric thermal enhancement, per Ned, increases surface temperature from a “gray body” (no atmosphere) temperature (T₁) to a significantly higher temperature (T₂). I believe this is likely true and makes more sense (to me) than things like “back radiation”.
So what happens between condition 1 (no atmosphere) and condition 2 (atmosphere at approximate steady state)?
Let’s assume the Ideal Gas Law is valid for explaining this. For any V, T = PV /nRT. V by definition is fixed. Since the gas volume is unconstrained (not in a container), P is dependent on the mass of molecules above which doesn’t change appreciably. R is also a constant by definition. So we are left with only T and n that can change. This leads to
PV/R = n₁T₁ = n₂T₂.
For anybody who’s able to do simple algebra, it should be obvious that if T₂ is greater than T₁ then n₂ is proportionately smaller than n₁.
This is for any arbitrary volume at the surface and is specifically *NOT* a claim that atmospheric volume never changes, or that density never changes. In fact, since n₁ and n₂ are different values, then n₁/V and n₂/V must be different values, and I am specifically claiming that density DOES and MUST change. We are also not at this point talking about Vₜₒₜₐₗₐₜₘₒₛₚₕₑᵣₑ. It is absolutely unbelievable to me that anybody can misunderstand this.
The crux of our disagreement is that Ned claims that changes in density don’t matter; in his words: “Regarding the near-surface atmospheric density, it’s a product of pressure and temperature, and does not drive/explain Ts or ATE.
ATE is a sole function of total pressure and TOA solar irradiance!”
I, on the other hand, feel that the change in density with atmospheric expansion DOES explain it. Again, if that isn’t true, why wouldn’t a layer of liquid instead of gas perform the same function? If “ATE is a sole function of total pressure and TOA solar irradiance!” is true, then why would it matter to Ned if Vₜₒₜₐₗₐₜₘₒₛₚₕₑᵣₑ changes. I think it’s crucial.
However, I do think it’s entirely plausible that N&Z’s ATE calculation is able to accurately predict surface temperature with just surface pressure and TOA solar irradiance. Maybe their empirical formula accounts for pressure, temperature and density gradients as the atmosphere expands. I’d like to see more work on this, possibly even modeling (yeah, I know).
This feels right to me, but feelings aren’t science. I get that. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think it makes me as stupid as Ned paints me with his last post. At least argue with what I said, not some made-up version that makes me look like an idiot. I can do that all by myself.
Dan, no-one here is trying to make any honest truthseeker look stupid. These interactions are very valuable because they help us understand where misunderstandings develop. Thank you for your input.
There are a couple of points I’d flag up in your latest comment.
1) you say you are talking about a cubic metre of atmosphere at one place, but a porous “think mosquito mesh” geometric space at another. Consider Ned’s point about the tropopause being much higher over the tropics than the poles, it’s important.
2). Ned is saying that density is dependent on T and V in the real atmosphere. This means that although your static thought experiment is ok in the abstract, it can’t then be extrapolated to the real world situation in a way that makes density primary in the setting of real world Temperatures.
Ed, if all the molecules have the same KE, then each one will have the average KE of all of them. While this is trivially true, it doesn’t tell us anything profound about T or KE.
Tallbloke:
1. I’m talking solely and completely about density at the surface. By definition, density = n/V. Any time I have ever said something like “let’s consider a fixed volume of air at the surface”, I have never once in any way said “let’s consider a closed pressure vessel at the surface”. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have always and consistently been referring to the same concept. Verbiage has changed because nobody reads closely enough to understand what I’m saying. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, have I ever said that the atmosphere is uniform around the entire planet. OF COURSE the atmosphere is highest over the warmest parts of the planet. When I say the atmosphere expands as it’s heated, by implication I’m acknowledging that the atmosphere expands more where it’s heated more. I don’t understand why you and Ned are attributing statements to me that I did not make.
2. Maybe you’re right, but Ned specifically claims that density doesn’t matter. So, again, if density doesn’t matter, then why wouldn’t an “atmosphere” of liquid rather than gas be the same thing? How about instead of liquid, we talk about an atmosphere consisting of a magic non-expanding gas that has all the same properties as our air, with the exception that it only expands the slight amount that, say, water does. Pressure at the surface would be the same as with our gaseous atmosphere, so theoretically ATE should work just fine. However, my feeling is that heat distribution would be dramatically different and temperature at the surface would not be appreciably affected.
Dan, youre taking offence where none is intended. We’re all trying to reach mutual understanding so chill out please.
You did talk about a permeable cubic metre at surface. This is by definition a geometrical space through which gas can migrate.
Once an atmospheric gas has liquified and joined the surface it is part of the surface and is no longer part of an above surface atmosphere, so Ned’s equations will no longer apply to it.
We need to clear away all these needlessly complicated side issues and get to the heart of what you are saying. To me, that appears to be that “reduced density causes higher T”. Is that it? I could well be wrong.
Tallbloke: ” Ned is saying that density is dependent on T and V in the real atmosphere. This means that although your static thought experiment is ok in the abstract, it can’t then be extrapolated to the real world situation in a way that makes density primary in the setting of real world Temperatures.”
Again, you may be right, but it seems to me that’s more of an assertion than a statement of fact. To be clear, I’m not trying to claim that density drives temperature per se. I think they are codependent and drive each other. So temperature is likely both a driver and a consequence of density.
I believe, for the moment anyway, that N&Z are onto something and are mostly right. What I’m a little frustrated about is that people seem to have no problem telling me I’m wrong, but not explaining why that would be. Accusing me of saying things I did not say seems to be the extent of any rebuttal.
oops Rog please remove my previous version of this post. I can’t see a way to edit then once sent.
Rog,
1. can we agree that temperature is an intensive property? Anyone can easily verify this in wikipedia etc.
And why is this profound? Because calculating the mean of an intensive property almost always gives erroneous results. So any theory that rests on average temperature is almost certainly wrong. To understand why this is true, look at point 2.
2. Can we agree that the gas law tells us that:
T = PV/nR
T = (kinetic energy)/((moles)(gas constant))
What is profound about point 2 is that temperature is not kinetic energy. It is kinetic energy DIVIDED BY quantity (moles * gas constant).
In other words temperature is actually a ratio, as are most intensive properties. And what is profound about this is what we learned in school. The normal rules of mathematics do not apply when dealing with ratios such as speed and temperature. Temperature, speed, density are implied fractions and need to first to be converted their underlying extensive properties with a common denominator.
And why is this profound? Because the way climate science gets around this to simply treat temperature as energy, but this is wrong because as we see from the gas law temperature is not energy.
And what is profound about this? Any theory that uses climate science data for average temperatures is likely wrong because the underlying data was almost certainly incorrectly calculated.
Take a cubic meter of water at 10C and a cubic meter of air at 20C. According to GISS sampling of gridded temperatures of the earth, the average temperature is 15C.
However if you placed these samples in a perfectly insulated container, the 2 cubic r total sample would eventually average out close to 10C.
The problem is that the GISS average temp of 15C has no physical meaning. So if you fit a curve to this point and base a discovery on the fit, there is no physical meaning to the discovery..
The problem is that you cannot calculate average temperature as (a+b)/2 because 10C+20C=30C has no meaning. You cannot add temperature. It is non-additive.
Tallbloke says “To me, that appears to be that “reduced density causes higher T”. Is that it? I could well be wrong.”
Yes, thank you, you’re not wrong. Essentially, heat added to the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to expand vertically. The distribution of heat is radically different for the gaseous atmosphere than it would be for a liquid or solid. One consequence of the atmosphere expanding is that the density at the surface decreases which NECESSARILY means that the temperature MUST increase because the surface pressure remains constant. That’s it in a nutshell.
I’m mostly on board with N&Z’s ATE theory, but the insistence that density doesn’t matter makes no sense to me. Thanks for trying to see what I’m saying.
Dan,
I think the root of your misunderstanding is that you think the decreased density at the surface is the cause for the higher near-surface temperature. That’s not the case, though! It’s the increased energy of the gas near the surface that raises the gas temperature, which in turn makes the atmosphere expand lowering the surface air density. In other words, surface temperature along with surface pressure determine/dictate the near-surface air density. That’s the true chain of causality here!
At the surface, the atmosphere behaves as an isobaric (constant-pressure) system. As I point out in my video, in isobaric systems, gas volume and air density are proportional (linearly related) to temperature.
Thanks, Ned. You’ve perfectly described what my (mis)understanding is. I’m trying to see what you are saying, just not there yet.
–Ed Fox says:
October 12, 2021 at 11:56 pm
Take a cubic meter of water at 10C and a cubic meter of air at 20C. According to GISS sampling of gridded temperatures of the earth, the average temperature is 15C.–
The atmosphere has mass of 10 tonnes square meter and cubic meter of water is 1 ton.
A cubic meter of air at is not isolated from the 10 tons of air above it. Nor is one cubic meter of surface waters isolated from atmosphere above.
If talking about period of time of say 24 hours, the one meter depth of ocean water is “roughly” more isolated from deeper ocean water.
The one cubic meter of air above the surface of ocean has roughly the same energy per kg of air all
the way up the troposphere- it’s higher potential energy due to more distance from surface and lower air temperature due lower density per cubic meter
Per square 2.5 meter depth of ocean has same heat content as 10 tonnes of air above. Therefore it’s roughly correct 10 C average temperature of 1 meter of water is equal to 20 C air at surface.
But for there to be 20 C air above it, the skin surface of ocean has around 20 C, but average temperature of ocean of top 1 meter could be about 10 C – warm at surface and colder below the surface by the 1 meter depth
Ed, great comments on averaging T. GISS takes no account of the fact that it takes a lot less energy to raise a cold temp than a warm one. But they don’t average water and air temps. Their network is all 2m air temps (many of them guestimated).
Ned, to be clear, when you say “in isobaric systems, gas volume and air density are proportional (linearly related) to temperature.” Are you saying T increase is linear to volume decrease and density decrease? That seems to be telling us the T effect reducing density is stronger than the Volume reduction effect of causing density to increase. Isn’t that another way of demonstrating that Pressure increase is the cause of T increase because it’s also the cause of V decrease?
Dan says: October 11, 2021 at 1:52 pm
Temperature in water falls with increasing pressure. See:
https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/28439029/working-document-ID-1785/b55e5aa5-5e8d-5d6b-8c8d-4d1ae0024d97/
This shows the temperature coefficient in pure water to be −0.73 mK/m. Not a lot but it is taken into account when testing triple point water cells and calibrating lab temperature sensors.
Roger (tallbloke),
In an isobaric (constant-pressure) system, gas volume is proportional (linearly related) to temperature in accordance with Charles Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%27s_law). Since gas density D is inversely proportional to volume (D = n/V), density is also inversely proportional to temperature in an isobaric system.
Steve,
Don’t forget that pressure only has a RELATIVE effect on temperature, not an absolute one. This is explained in my video and in our 2017 paper. This means that the absolute thermal effect of the atmosphere depends on both pressure and solar radiation.
Just a few comments to the bottle vinegar experiment:
The production of CO2 from vinegar and baking soda is an endothermic reaction so the liquid should cool (though I actually don’t know if the solvation energy of the baking soda is positive and the enthalpy is positive).
Anyway, the production of CO2 increases pressure in the bottle thereby increasing the temperature. It is actually an experiment demonstrating the ATE!
At least partly.
I would like to see an experiment with an endothermic reaction that also produces an increase in pressure.
My guess would be that depending on the increase in pressure the bottle with the reaction will still warm faster than the other bottle.
I forgot to mention that I would like to see an experiment where a so-called “non-greenhouse gas” is produced. Like N2 or O2.
Ron,
I agree – the bottled CO2 experiment confirms in a way the pressure-induced ATE concept!
Rather rhan steady state compression it seems obvious work is being done supporting the atmosphere against gravity.
Let M= atm mass
H = atm height
A = earth surface area
E = energy
Then:
nRT=PV
= M/AV
= (M•H)/(A•H)V
= (E)/(V)V
= E
From this it appears energy not pressure is determining temperature.
Since M, A are both constant, so is P. The only variable is H, the atmospheric height. The higher the height, the higher the temperature.
Ned Nikolov wrote:
Mercury, Pluto, Calisto and Europa are discussed on pages 15-16 in our 2017 paper: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
But somehow they are missing from all his graphs LOL.
That’s massive cherry-picking, folks.
Ask yourselves why.
David,
I now see that you have cognitive issues or some kind of an Attention Deficit Disorder, because in my post above I clearly stated about Mercury, Pluto, Calisto and Europa:
“These planetary bodies were used as independent data points to validate our model.”
and I emphasized the word “independent”! You demonstrated to everyone that you have difficulty comprehending simple sentences…
To Ed Fox (October 15, 2021 at 4:20 pm),
Your math is totally wrong! The thermal kinetic energy of a gas is given by PV, since this product has units of Joule. The surface air pressure P = (M/A)*g, which is the atmospheric mass over unit area (M/A) multiplied by the gravitational acceleration g (m s-2).
nRT does not equal (M•H)/(A•H)V !!! Where did you get that nonsense from?
Thanks Ned. Back to school everybody, me included.
Yes, Ned one should always consider dimensional analysis with any equation
Roger, remember this
“In unit systems where force is a derived unit, like in SI units, gc is equal to 1
…
Specific systems of units.
International System English System British Customary System
gc = 1 (kg·m)/(N·s2) gc = 32.2 (lb·ft)/(lbf·s2) gc = 1 (slug·ft)/(lbf·s2) ”
gc = M.L/(M.L.T-2 *T2) =1 dimensionless (where M =mass kg, L= length m, T= time sec)
Young people may never have heard of slugs but they also do not understand dimensional analysis as Ned says in the introduction of his paper.
Thank you, CementaFriend.
Understanding Dimensional Analysis is key to understanding the physics of nature. That’s because Mother Nature functions using laws that operates with dimensionless quantities!
Dr. Nikolov,
Thank you for this analysis. I have read your paper, and though you acknowledge the possibility of overfitting, I have to say I am not convinced that you have avoided this problem. As I see it, there are two possibilities: 1) you have empirically discovered a universal law which determines the mean temperatures of planets given only their surface pressure and solar insolation, or 2) you have overfitted 6 data points with an arbitrary 4-parameter model. (I will only consider your results for planets with “tangible atmospheres,” as these are the ones that you have fit without albedo or “heat storage coefficient.”)
The first reason I am not convinced is that option 2) is incredibly easy to do by accident, while option 1) seems incredibly unlikely to be possible. Why should the average temperature of a planet be determined by only two variables? Even the average temperature of my bedroom depends on many more variables than that: the setting of the heater, quality of insulation, size of windows, air circulation, outside temperature, etc. No two variables can account for all variation. And yet, if I measured the temperature under 6 conditions, I could surely write down an equation which fits those temperatures perfectly using only two variables (and 4 parameters). But the model wouldn’t be able to predict the temperature under other conditions, especially if variables besides those two changed. And it wouldn’t capture the relevant physics.
The temperature of a planet can only be more complicated, with clouds, storms, rotation rates, greenhouse gases, etc. It is always easy to fit a model to a few data points, but I seriously doubt your two-parameter model captures the underlying physics, or will predict changes successfully.
My second issue is that the model is rather unstable, and the best fit parameters change drastically for small changes. For example, if I fit the data without including Venus, then check the result by calculating the temperature of Venus with this model, it is wrong by hundreds of degrees Celsius. A universal law should not be this sensitive to leaving out fitting data!
What’s worse, it appears the fit in Equation 10a of your 2017 paper has not fully converged. I can get a better fit, using the exact same equation, with these parameters:
T_s/T_na = exp[0.1752 (P/P_r)^0.1475 + 7.685*10^-25 (P/P_r)^5.679]
This has an R^2 of 0.99999, and an adjusted R^2 of 0.99997, significantly better than your fit. But the second term is very different. In fact, this model has a ridiculously large superexponential scaling at pressures larger than that of Venus. For a pressure just 40% larger than that of Venus (and with the same T_na), it predicts a temperature higher than the surface of the sun. For a pressure double that of Venus, if predicts a temperature >450 billion Celsius. Your fit also has superexponential scaling, but less strong.
This highly sensitive behavior of the model would seem very strange in a real physical law, but quite standard for an overfitted model.
It is almost always possible to write down an equation which can fit 6 data points, especially if given 4 fitting parameters. But such an equation is almost never meaningful. I am convinced that is what has happened in your paper, but I would appreciate your comments.
SamMich says: October 21, 2021 at 2:42 am
seems incredibly unlikely to be possible
– – –
Argument from incredulity isn’t a valid reason for rejecting empirical evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
While usually applied to Earth’s atmosphere, the concept of lapse rate can be
extended to atmospheres (if any) that exist on other planets.
Source: https://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/civil_engineering/Atmospheric_lapse_rate.pdf
Climate scientists blame the high temperatures on Venus on the greenhouse effect.
Given that Venus surface receives very little sunlight, and that nights there are months long with no drop in temperature, it is absurd to compare the Venusian climate to a greenhouse.
Venus has a similar lapse rate to Earth, despite a very different atmospheric composition. This shows that the lapse rate is due to the pressure gradient, not the atmospheric composition.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/men-are-from-mars-climate-scientists-are-from-venus/
oldbrew, I agree that the lapse rate is not primarily set by greenhouse gases. It is basically determined by convection, and can be accurately calculated with gravitational acceleration, specific heat of the atmosphere, and some properties of water vapor if there is water. Of course, the lapse rate does not tell you everything you want to know about the atmosphere. In particular, the lapse rate alone gives no information about the surface temperature. Calculating that requires additional physics, including the greenhouse effect.
Regarding “Argument from incredulity isn’t a valid reason for rejecting empirical evidence”: in this case I am using probability to evaluate the strength of empirical evidence. This is generally necessary, as when using p-values, or the 5 sigma criterion in particle physics experiments.
The empirical evidence we have is a single equation that goes through 6 data points. To get to this equation, Dr. Nikolov and Dr. Zeller had a computer guess many different equations until one worked. He tried 12 different combinations of variables, running a numerical optimization algorithm on each combination, so probably the computer tried at least 12,000 guesses to come to this equation. There is no doubt that this equation fits the data quite well. The question is, does it fit because it’s a real physical law, or because after 12,000 guesses one is bound to work?
As a close analogy: let’s say you think of a number between 1 and 100. I guess repeatedly, and you tell me if each guess is closer or farther. I get it on the 28th try and say, “I have you figured out now, and can perfectly guess any number you think of from now on.” There is some evidence for my claim: after all, I just guessed your number correctly. But more likely, I just got lucky, and if you think of a new number, I’ll guess wrong.
That is exactly what is happening here. To show this, I used the N&Z formula to fit all the planets except Venus. The computer guessed 100 equations and found one which goes through the remaining 5 data points perfectly. Great, a new physical law! But when I plugged the pressure of Venus into this equation, it predicted a temperature of 450 K, wrong by a few hundred degrees. Not good.
There seems to be little doubt that N&Z are simply overfitting, i.e. having the computer guess equations until it gets lucky. There is no real physical law here, and we shouldn’t expect the equation to be good at predicting temperatures after we change things like albedo, greenhouse gas concentrations, etc.
I’m more inclined to follow the data.
From Harry Huffmann’s analysis here:
https://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
oldbrew, that’s a very interesting table, but it doesn’t provide strong evidence for or against any particular theory. If you scale the temperatures on Titan the same way (by the square root of orbital radius), the scaled lapse rate is very different from that of earth, and the scaled temperature at 1 bar is 30 K off from Earth’s. So I’d say the reasonably good correspondence between Venus and Earth with this particular scaling is just a coincidence.
In any case, I still hope to hear comment from Dr. Nikolov on the possibility of his model being overfitted.
That’s not to say atmospheric pressure is unimportant in determining surface temperature. It is very important. But the idea that the mean surface temperature can be determined by _only_ pressure, or with one simple equation, is just silly.
Might be a bit late as the post is getting older but since I’ve seen Ned’s concept it plays on your mind. Feels like it needs more publicity so it gets as much consideration as it deserves from all parts of society. It’s not the specialized subject of engineering I eventually took up, but surely it’s just the mechanics of a gas. If you warm a compressed gas the resultant temperature of that gas will be directly proportional to the heat input and its pressure (atmosphere no exception to the rule). Maybe if just the basic fundamentals of the concept could be validated by an independent body (eg ASME) more people in general might start to realize and explore alternatives to the “settled science” we’re told to believe. It can only be right or wrong, though that doesn’t seem to matter these days.
@Nick Hoss. It does indeed play on your mind; I can’t help but think something is there.
Regarding “If you warm a compressed gas the resultant temperature of that gas will be directly proportional to the heat input and its pressure (atmosphere no exception to the rule)”, I’ve been continuously pointing out on this thread that the atmosphere IS different. This is because as the atmosphere warms, it also expands, which means it also becomes less dense (same number of molecules taking up a larger volume). So, yes, surface pressure remains the same, but because T=PV/nR, as n decreases, T must increase. This would mean that the resultant temperature of the atmosphere at the surface is NOT “directly proportional to the heat input and its pressure”. T, in fact increases at a HIGHER than 1:1 rate. It is increasing not only due to heat input, but also due to the density of atmosphere decreasing from that heat input.
Just as continuously, I’ve been told that I’m completely wrong, but without an explanation as to why. I also can never get an explanation as to what exactly is driving N&Z’s thermal enhancement. But whatever
T=PV/nR I used this calculator: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/ideal-gas-law.php
I find that as one increases moles, the temperature goes down. Doesn’t sound right to me because one is increasing density. I think this is because T=PV/nR is talking about speed of molecules, not the temperature of a parcel of air.
Somewhat unrelated: is it really true that a parcel of air cools because the molecules expend energy to expand and thus have less translational energy? That doesn’t sound right, either. I would’ve thought that it was because the parcel is getting less dense, caused by lessened pressure. And, we must necessarily have fewer moles per parcel if the theoretical parcel is expanding, but according to my handy calculator (above) fewer moles means higher temp.
Don’t expect people to do my thinking or homework for me, but would appreciate some insight.
Don132: “we must necessarily have fewer moles per parcel if the theoretical parcel is expanding”
The parcel is the parcel, regardless of its volume at the time, so the number of moles it contains doesn’t change.
Tallbloke: Thanks.
More on T=PV/nR. Why would temperature increase as volume increases? If the parcel expands, it cools.
Atmospheric volume increases because temperature increases. Volume does not control temperature in any thermodynamic system…
OK, some more questions.
Does the N&Z mechanism have anything to do with the virial theorem?
Simple statement of my understanding of virial theorem: (the atmosphere is buoyant and yet within this apparent lightness) gravitational acceleration continually converts atmospheric potential energy to kinetic energy; this kinetic energy necessarily increases the closer one gets to the center of gravity.