# Leading Heat Transfer Physicists/Geologists Assert The Impact Of CO2 Emissions On Climate Is ‘Negligible’

## Explaining Climate Change Without CO2

###### Wiley Textbook Image Source

The increasingly corroborated atmospheric mass pressure (gravity) explanation for variances in planetary temperatures – which precludes a significant role for CO2 concentration changes – has now advanced from peer-reviewed scientific journals to university-level textbooks.

The “adiabatic theory” of the greenhouse effect (adiabatic: “the constant decline in temperature of an air parcel as it rises in the atmosphere due to pressure drop and gas expansion”) is capable of explaining the variances in temperatures on planets like Earth, Mars, and Venus using each planet’s atmospheric pressure gradient – and without reliance on the traditional greenhouse effect theory that assigns a governing role to CO2.

As a simplified example, Mars has an atmosphere made up of about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2 compared to the Earth’s 400 ppm (0.04%), and yet Mars’ average surface temperature is about -75°C colder than Earth’s.  Venus also has an atmosphere with about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2, but its surface is +447°C warmer than Earth’s.   In addition to each planet’s variable distance from the Sun, the difference in temperature for Mars, Venus, and Earth can be calculated by considering its atmospheric mass (pressure) gradient.  Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s.  Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times heavier (pressurized) than Earth’s.  The CO2 concentration of each planet may therefore be insignificant in determining surface temperature relative to factors (a) distance from the Sun and (b) atmospheric density.

Sciencing.com

###### “In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be. A planet with weak gravity will tend to have less mass and allow more atmosphere to escape into space. Thus the thickness or thinness of the atmosphere depends upon the strength or weakness of gravity. For example, the gravity on Jupiter is 318 times greater than Earth, and thus Jupiter’s atmosphere is much thicker than Earth’s. Gravity gets weaker the further away it is from a planet, so the atmosphere will be thicker near the surface.”

The determinative role of atmospheric pressure in planetary temperatures has previously been asserted by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin (Russian Academy of Sciences) and other scientists introducing the “adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect”.

Sorokhtin et al., 2007

###### “According to the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect (see below), besides the Sun’s radiation, the main determining factors of the Earth’s climate are the Earth’s atmosphere pressure and its composition. The denser the atmosphere (i.e., the higher the atmospheric pressure), the warmer the climate. Thus, the high surface temperature at the ocean level during the Archaean time, at a low Sun’s luminosity, may only be a result of higher atmospheric pressure. The gradual decrease in the oceanic water temperature with a smooth increase of Sun’s luminosity may only be a result of a gradual decrease in the atmospheric pressure.”

Florides and Christodoulides (2009) followed up with a peer-reviewed scientific paper of their own that also affirmed the “adiabatic theory of the greenhouse effect” and its cogency in explaining planetary temperatures, as well as the “negligible” effect of CO2 concentration changes.

###### “A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2. … If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases from 0.035% [350 ppm] to its double value of 0.070% [700 ppm], the atmospheric pressure will increase slightly (by 0.00015 atm). Consequently the temperature at sea level will increase by about 0.01 °C and the increase in temperature at an altitude of 10 km will be less than 0.03 °C. These amounts are negligible compared to the natural temporal fluctuations of the global temperature.”

Drs. John Robertson and George Chilingar, professors of geology and environmental (petroleum) engineering, have authored 12 textbooks, 70 books, and 575 scientific papers between them.  Both are verifiable experts in heat transfer physics.

Their latest joint effort, a 416-page university-level textbook published in June (2017), includes a section on the adiabatic theory that precludes a significant role for CO2 in determining planetary temperatures.  In fact, after explaining the details of the theory and its validation with respect to the atmospheric temperatures of Venus, Robertson and Chilingar conclude:

###### “From the above estimates, one can conclude that even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere practically do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime.”

In the textbook, the authors explain the theory in meticulous detail (pgs. 197-204).  Below is a summary of their conclusions from page 204.

Image cropped from: Environmental Aspects of Oil and Gas Production, John O. Robertson, George V. Chilingar, ISBN: 978-1-119-11737-7, July 2017. Book source here.

### Scientific Papers Supporting Adiabatic Theory

Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

###### “Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”

Chemke et al., 2016

###### “An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.”

Chilingar et al., 2014

Jelbring, 2003

Miatello, 2012

###### “In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth’s atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus, Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle, including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid. Therefore, the so-called “greenhouse effect” and pseudo-mechanisms, such as “backradiation,” have no scientific basis and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’ thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth’s surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.”

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009

###### “The adiabatic constant and the heat coefficients are estimated using actual experimental data. This adiabatic model was verified, with a precision of 0.1%, by comparing the results obtained for the temperature distribution in the troposphere of the Earth with the standard model used worldwide for the calibration of the aircraft gauges and which is based on experimental data. The model was additionally verified with a precision of 0.5%–1.0% for elevations up to 40 km, by comparing the results with the measured temperature distribution in the dense troposphere of Venus consisting mainly of CO2.”

Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2010

### 421 responses to “Leading Heat Transfer Physicists/Geologists Assert The Impact Of CO2 Emissions On Climate Is ‘Negligible’”

1. The following youtube will help explain the REAL nature of the mis-named greenhouse effect to those who’s grasp of real physics is lacking.

2. Kenneth Richard does it again. What a fine compilation of papers that show, mostly from observation, that the much advertised nonsense about CO2 controlling the temperature of the air below the clouds is utter junk.

Well done Kenneth!

1. It is a ridiculous list of pseudo science. Thank you, Kenneth.

The inclusion of this image (https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CO2-Emissions-and-Global-Temperatures-Non-Correlation-Robertson-Chilingar-2017.jpg) should have been enough to dismiss whatever else they are writing as nonsense. It can’t get more misleading than that …

1. “Have you figured out how to explain why…”

Well, yeah. It’s not the percentages of CO2 in atmosphere that matter, it’s the absolute amounts. Venus’s atmosphere is way denser; there’s roughly 15,000x as much CO2 as on Mars. Plus it’s closer to the Sun.

Why would you think percentages of CO2 matter, rather than absolute amounts?

1. The atmospheres of Mars and Venus both have about 950,000 ppm to 960,000 ppm CO2 (95%, 96%).

Yes. They have similar percentages. They do not have similar absolute amounts.

An example. Say you and I don’t have any fruit. A farmer gives you 100 bushels of Golden Delicious apples, and gives me one. Now, for both of us, the amount of fruit we have is 100% Golden Delicious apples. But you have 100 bushels, and I have 1.

Similarly, the *percentages* of the atmosphere made up by CO2 is the same on both Mars and Venus. But Venus has a much denser atmosphere, so there is much more CO2 there in total. And thus, a much stronger greenhouse gas effect.

1. You certain are chasing your own wind, aren’t you.

Let’s see some empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

2. What you have just done (perhaps without realizing it) is explain why the “greenhouse effect” is actually the atmospheric pressure effect

No, he didn’t … stop misinterpreting even the simplest of sentences, Kenneth!

Can you explain this inconsistency, or why the Earth’s greenhouse gas effect is mostly H2O, whereas you claim that Venus has a “stronger greenhouse gas effect” without H2O?

Seriously? Are you really asking this with a straight face?

how is it that the CO2 greenhouse effect could be predominantly responsible for the theorized 33 K of heat from the Earth’s greenhouse effect?

Who says that CO2 is predominantly responsible for the 33 K (SB-law) difference? The greenhouse effect is an effect caused by all molecules in an atmosphere that have more than 2 atoms and can therefore absorb/emit LW radiation.

Kenneth, please try to learn and understand what the radiative greenhouse effect is. You increasingly look like one of those people who claimed that moving so fast would make you sick when the first trains were invented.

3. “Who says that CO2 is predominantly responsible for the 33 K”

No-one with any comment sense or scientific integrity say it has any proven effect whatsoever.

Only anti-science fantasy loons think it does, and they continue with their brain-washed fantasy despite their total inability to provide one tiny bit of empirical proof.

4. “Who says that CO2 is predominantly responsible for the 33 K”

Then why the heck is the world WASTING so much money to try to make tiny insignificant changes in it.

You rally do SUFFER from massive cognitive dissonance, seb. !!

5. Kenneth Richard, an optically thin atmosphere does not produce significant back radiation. That requires an optically thick atmosphere. Replace the CO2 of Venus with an equal mass of nitrogen, and it will be very cold. That’s because you can’t maintain a temperature that requires your surface to radiate over 10000 W/m^2 if it is only receiving a few dozen to a few hundred W/m^2. It is simple conservation of energy – pressure has nothing to do with that. You can’t produce energy by compressing a gas. If that were possible, you could construct a perpetual motion machine.

6. “Replace the CO2 of Venus with an equal mass of nitrogen, and it will be very cold”

Unsubstantiated suppository driven NONSENSE.

7. The gases higher up in the atmosphere are subject to gravity, therefore they want to fall.

It takes energy to hold them up.

Is that simple enough for you?

Or do you skip those lessons in Kinetic and Potential energy at junior high..

8. do -> did.

9. Earth’s atmosphere does have a far less amount of CO2 than Venus, and far more Nitrogen…

… and the temperatures are almost EXACTLY what they should be at the same atmospheric pressure for the distance from the Sun.

The atmospheric composition makes basically zero difference.

H2O is more a “regulator” than a cause of any temperature, giving us the benign, liveable, temperatures we current have…

… but the temperature is set by the pressure/density/gravity induced thermal gradient, same as on every other planet with a viable atmosphere.

…. Taking into account incoming energy variability.

11. Kenneth,

Why do you think the heat forcing diminishes so much (by more than a factor of 5) the higher the CO2 concentration goes? And how is this compatible with your beliefs about the strength of CO2 forcing?

Learn how the greenhouse effect works and you’ll see that this is exactly what happens. Also, it is not a factor of 5, but just a logarithmic scale (each doubling of the concentration produces the same forcing). But then you didn’t understand exponential growth either the last time I brought it up … so whatever. Stay in wonderland where everything seems to contradict itself or educate yourself and learn about what you are arguing against.

12. Have you really all this time quoted the 3.7 W/m² forcing value for a CO2 doubling without understanding where this figure comes from or what it means?

13. There is NO proven forcing from CO2 in a convective atmosphere, seb.

You can produce some actual science to prove that there is, if you are capable. (as if) 😉

Or are you just going to continue your monotonous, nil-educated, anti-science, parrot-like droning?

And no, we don’t want to visit you in your land of make believe !

14. A lot of poorly informed replies to my earlier comment, too many to respond to, but I’ll take this little gem from Andy: “The gases higher up in the atmosphere are subject to gravity, therefore they want to fall. It takes energy to hold them up.”

No, it does not take energy to “hold them up”. It takes pressure. Expending energy on a gas can only (1) *change* the altitude (force acting over a distance = work done); (2) change the pressure (force acting over a distance again); (3) change its velocity (organized kinetic energy); and/or (3) change the temperature (disorganized kinetic energy). If the air remains at altitude, suspended by the pressure from gases beneath, then nothing is changing, and no energy input is required.

Since you people seem to love tire analogies for some reason, consider the air in a pressurized tire. The air “wants” to escape. The valve is holding the air inside the tire. The valve does not have to expend any energy to do that.

15. Kenneth, I don’t know how cold Venus would be if you replace its atmosphere with nitrogen only, because I don’t know what effect this would have on its albedo.

If we assume the albedo is unchanged, then the surface of Venus would be around 220 K.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html

16. Kenneth,

1) the “thought experiment” that results in attributing 33K to the greenhouse effect is just that … in reality, the difference would be much higher as the albedo most definitely would change and our planet isn’t spinning super fast for the rotation period not to matter.

2) You are essentially saying that you don’t know what the expression `RF_co2 = 5.35 * ln (CO2 concentration / base CO2 concentration) W/m²` (that’s an approximation only valid for a certain concentration range) means. Is that right?

3) A forcing is a change in the energy balance (incoming vs. outgoing) from some baseline.

4) Slowly for you: 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in the same forcing as 560 ppm to 1120 ppm and 140 ppm to 280 ppm. Got it? This doesn’t include feedbacks obviously.

17. 5) You really should sleep more, the Venus surface temperature is ~740 K, not 462 K

6) Almost all sunlight gets reflected or absorbed by the clouds on Venus. The sunlight that reaches the surface is around 20 W/m², but that surface has a very good insulation towards space by the almost 100% GHG atmosphere with a very high molecule count. This means not much of that incoming radiation can escape at low temperatures. The heat content increases until it is warm enough and a balance is achieved. On Venus, this happens at surface temperatures of around 740 K.

7) Please finally try to learn how the greenhouse effect (on Earth AND on Venus AND on Mars) works! Maybe you don’t have to ask questions like this one when you finally understand it: Does atmospheric density matter less to planetary temperatures than CO2 concentration, or more?

You fail to realize that it’s not the density alone. The density of the atmosphere means that there are just more molecules that can absorb and re-emit LW radiation. The same density atmosphere consisting of mostly inert gas won’t have the same greenhouse effect. Until you understand this, it is pointless to debate possible contradictions with you. For you, everything is a big question mark / contradiction … so please try understanding the effect. I assure you the energy budget of Venus’ atmosphere is perfectly explainable with the radiative greenhouse effect. And so is Mars’ and Earth’s.

Why do you keep on glossing over the atmospheric density difference?

Because it is only half the story. Density, pressure or gravity don’t change the temperature in an open system like the atmospheres of planets. The heat from initial compression will always be lost to space like a container that got warm from pumping air into it cools over time and can’t maintain its temperature.

If it were possible for gravity to supply the energy, one could construct a Perpetuum mobile using gravity and a compressible gas. It’s pseudo science trying to explain something that has a perfectly good explanation with observed effects that happen to somewhat correlate.

2. And in terms of absolute amounts (ie., the number of molecules), the Martian atmosphere has an order of magnitude more CO2 compared to the atmosphere of Earth, and yet there is no discernable enhanced GHE on Mars!

On Mars not only are there about 12 times as many CO2 molecules as there on Earth, those molecules are much more tightly/closely spaced (as a sphere, Mars is considerably smaller than Earth, which means that its atmosphere has a far lower volume). It follows that the chances of a photon being radiated by the surface of Mars being intercepted bu a molecule of CO2, absorbed and reradiated and then once more intercepted by another molecule of CO2, is far higher on Mars than it is on Earth.

On planet Earth, it is far easirer for a phon to escape from surface to TOA and thence to space, than is the corresponding position on MArs, and yet there is no measurable Radiative GHE on Mars. Funny that.

PS, I am not sayin that because Mars has about 12 times as many CO32 molecules, it follows that one would expect to see a similar 33 degC enhancement of the temperature.

Rather one would expect, as a ball park figure, the 33degC enhancement (claimed to be due to radiative gases in Earth’s atmosphere) to be modulated by the reduced amount of solar irradiance received by Mars.

PPS. Just a reminder, if one were to remove all the non GHGs from Earth’s atmopsphere (ie., all the Nitrogen, Oxygen Argon etc and leave only the so called GHGs) then Earth would have an atmosphere of broadly similar density and pressure to that on Mars. Thus the comparison with Mars is quite a good test as to the strength and effect of GHGs

2. It that compared to your NON-science showing CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere or oceans??

You are STILL totally empty, seb

Your whole life is just a baseless, unsupportable religion.. Poor child. !!

3. A list for which you have no reply just an Ad hominem.

3. I showed this to one of the ACC devotees – he saw the words “experience in petroleum” and shouted about “another oil funded denier” and refused to read any further.

1. Well, are they funded by oil companies or not?

1. All the AGW scammers are funded by far-left socialist totalitarians, and leftist governments.

I would trust someone who has actually done something worthwhile for humanity, over some far-left semi-educated attribution minor.

We have all seen just how deep the lack of integrity runs in the “climate change” agenda.!

You seem to follow that mould. (spelling intentional)

4. I have known several people who are not mentioned here,who also consider the Pressure angle as the major factor on surface temperature.

Alan Siddons as Radio chemist made contributions to the gas pressure as a factor in surface temperature:

by Alan Siddons, August 2008

“Atmospheric pressure, gravity and temperatures

Every planet with sufficient gravity to hold onto a substantial atmosphere shows a temperature gradient like the earth’s, warmer as you approach the surface – and always far warmer than
radiative physics allows. Every planet. Despite evidence now available to us, however, trace gas heating theory has a firm grip on the minds of skeptic and believer alike. Decades more look
likely to pass before this 19th century conjecture is finally abandoned.

It is widely believed that without the “greenhouse effect” our planet’s near-surface temperature would be about -18° Celsius, so we have “greenhouse gases” to thank for an average of +15°C instead. Water vapor, carbon dioxide and other such trace gases all combine to raise the air’s temperature 33 degrees C. But is this true?

Actually, all we’re going on are these few facts:
1) that our atmosphere is warmer than radiant energy calculations predict, and
2) that the air contains trace gases that react to
infrared. So we have assumed that these two things must be related.
Real world evidence challenges that assumption, however. With 1 bar being the earth’s air pressure at sea level, the graph below depicts temperature changes between 0.1 and 1 bar of pressure on earth and five other planets.

In the graphic below, most figures are from NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheets

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html

Chart 1: Atmospheric pressure vs Planetary Temperatures
So from 0.1 to 1 bar…
Venus rises 100°C.
Earth rises 68°.
Jupiter rises 53°.
Saturn rises 50°.
Uranus rises 23°.
Neptune rises 17°.

Yet…

Venus receives 2,614 watts per square meter from the sun.
Earth receives 1,368 watts from the sun.
Jupiter receives 50.5 watts from the sun.
Saturn receives 14.9 watts from the sun.
Uranus receives 3.7 watts from the sun.
And Neptune receives a piddling 1.5 watts from the
sun.

The solid grey line shows the solar irradiance each planet receives, expressed in Watts per square meter. Notice in particular that although it collects only 1.5 Watts per square meter — 0.058% of what Venus receives — Neptune’s atmosphere, at a mere one bar of pressure, manages to raise the planet to 154% of the temperature that a
purely radiative (blackbody) model would predict.

What trait do these planets share? Just the presence of an atmosphere dense enough to reach 1 bar of pressure. Jupiter’s enormous pressure doesn’t stop there. It continues until the temperature is
far higher than Earth’s – and it also does this with hydrogen and helium, which are not greenhouse gases. Measurements indicate that Saturn, too, having only 15 watts to deal with compared to Earth’s 1,368, falls short of Earth by only 15 degrees.
The rate of heating is an intriguing feature here. For instance, Earth climbs from 220 Kelvin to 288K, making for a rate of 1.3K (288/220), while Saturn goes from 84 to 134, a rate of 1.6. A planet’s overall density appears to be a key factor, for comparing 1 bar heating rates to densities relative to Earth reveals an inverse relationship.”

1. Next task is to show a planetary TSI is related to wind speed on the planet.
That is to say planetary advection (say at the equator) is related to the TSI and it’s changes.

5. Nikolov paper is certifiable junk science. Havent read the others. The adiabatic theory is a nonstarter from the gitgo for fundamental physical reasons. The last times gravity induced atmospheric ‘work’ and therefore atmospheric heating was as the Earth formed and then as the Moon was blasted out. Nothing since. The bicycle pump/tire analogy is completely inapt. Gravity has been a constant, not a pump, for billions of years.

1. Rud Istvan,

“Nikolov paper is certifiable junk science.”

And Nikolov probably says the same about your papers and can give good reasons.
I am not surprised to hear that haven’t read any of the rest as only a real scientist would have (they being skeptics of consensus science).

2. Indeed, if I haven’t been driving, the air in my tires has the same temperature as ambient.

3. Gravity is not a ‘pump’. Compressing a gas does not by itself add any energy to it. It merely concentrates the energy that is already there. A mole of gas at 30,000 ft altitude has exactly the same amount of heat energy there as it does when you bring it down to sea level. The difference is that it is confined to a much smaller space at sea level, so the temperature is higher. If you take it back up to 30,000 feet, it will cool again, but it has not lost any energy in the process.

The concept that gravitational contraction heats a forming planet is wrong if you’re implying that energy is being added to the system by the ‘pumping’ action of gravity. The heat energy is already there. Gravity just concentrates it.

One strong clue that the pressure/temperature gradient is a major determinant of planetary surface temperature is the fact that the temperature on Venus at 1 bar atmospheric pressure is approximately the same as it is on earth at sea level. It’s just that on Venus that point happens to be about 60 km high in the atmosphere.

If CO2 were such a strong greenhouse gas, one should reasonably predict that Venus at 1 bar pressure would be far hotter than earth. An atmosphere 95% CO2 versus one of .004% should show a marked temperature difference, especially since Venus is so much closer to the sun than we are.

Yet, they are roughly the same. How do you explain this using the greenhouse gas theory?

1. Surely the gravity mediated pressure retaining heat is an easy concept.

If there are some warmed molecules (heat energized giving them kinetic energy) in a high pressure environment then there more opportunity for molecules have collisions with other particles, therefore they will exchange the kinetic energy (as heat) between each other, and have few opportunities to radiate the energy.
Counter-wise if there are some warmed molecules (heat energized giving them kinetic energy) in a low pressure environment then there less opportunity for molecules to bump into each other, therefore if they are capable of radiating the energy then that is what they will do.
The time element here is of importance (and is particular to the chemistry of the molecules) as this governs how long the molecules have to dissipate excess energy as radiation or kinetic collisions.

Gas lasers give an idea of the timing involved.

1. Collison time of CO2 molecules in the lower atmosphere is magnitudes smaller than re-emit times.

Any energy absorbed by CO2 is immediately thermalised and dealt with by the CONTROILLING mechanism of the pressure thermal gradient.

CO2 is just another route for surface cooling.

Part of the doing the atmospheres job.

2. The three (ideal)gas equations may be written in terms of the proportionality of volume to another quantity:

Avogadro’s law: V ∝ (proportional to) n (at constant P and T)
Boyle’s law: V ∝ (proportional to) 1/P (at constant T and n)
Charles’ law: V ∝ (proportional to) T (at constant P and n)

Joseph Gay-Lussac could gain —

PV=nRT

where P is the pressure, V is the volume, n is the number of moles of gas, R is the universal gas constant, and T is the temperature.

In as much as these can be used to approximate the non-ideal gas of our atmosphere, they still point the correct direction for assessing temperature/volume/pressure relationships.

6. I just wonder how clouds influence the ground temperature. Mars has none, Earth has a fair amount and Venus is completely covered.
Anyone know that clouds make the daytime cooler, and the night warmer.

7. As I remember, NASA used this gravitational gas pressurization atmospheric relationship as part of the space program to calculate the atmosphere’s temperatures. For many years, hundreds of scientists and engineers calculated adiabatic lapse rates and temps from the surface to space, and the results were tested and corrected as the program advanced. The last published edition of the “United States Standard Atmosphere” was in 1976. I think it is still available if you look on the web.

8. How strange that Rud claims we think gravity is a pump. It is a pseudo-force, and merely determines final base density. Gaseous atmosphere (not enclosed) are the words that matter. Matter State-phase and its circumstances. All these mean the gas laws can dominate via their Poisson relationship. Maxwell determined this in his ‘Theory of Heat’. He also considered Fourier’s thinking and understood he was not thinking on greenhouse atmosphere lines.

Looking at Nasa’s Planetary data should peel the scales from the eyes of anyone who puts real effort into understanding atmospheric physics.
The Londom Conference video of N+Z explained all, but it helps to have been following the subject as it has redeveloped over the last ten years….

9. Ah yes, and the standard atmosphere had no need to notice CO2, it is just another gas. Water phase changing, that just speeds the energy flow, and means there is a huge safety margin for stability and hence life.

1. Well stated, Brett. 🙂

10. […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

11. The Sorokhtin quote: “The denser the atmosphere (i.e., the higher the atmospheric pressure), the warmer the climate.”

Density does not determine pressure — weight does. On two equal-sized planets with the same gravity, a cold atmosphere will be denser than a warm atmosphere of the same mass and average molecular weight, because uncontained gases expand with increasing temperature (if we hold constant pressure). Both will have the same pressure. In the ideal gas law,

PV = nRT

n is proportional to mass/average molecular weight. P (for the surface) can be calculated by dividing the atmosphere’s mass M by the surface area A, so we can rewrite this as

kDT = M/A

where D is the density and k is a related to the constant R and the gas’s average molecular weight. (Here, D and T are taken at the surface, since we are considering M as the total atmospheric mass, and we are ignoring irregularities in surface elevation for the sake of simplicity.)

So temperature and density are inversely related. Higher density means the atmosphere is colder. Higher pressure does not guarantee a more dense atmosphere, contrary to the authors’ parenthetical assertion.

12. Florides and Christodoulides: “A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2.” But a look at the actual paper reveals: “This adiabatic model was veriﬁed, with a precision of 0.1%, by comparing the results obtained for the temperature distribution in the troposphere of the Earth with the standard model used worldwide for the calibration of the aircraft gauges and which is based on experimental data. The model was additionally veriﬁed with a precision of 0.5%–1.0% for elevations up to 40 km, by comparing the results with the measured temperature distribution in the dense troposphere of Venus consisting mainly of CO2.”

In other words: nope. They validated the adiabatic lapse rate (which was a pointless exercise, since this has already been validated). There is no model that can predict surface temperature purely from adiabatic lapse rate.

13. Re Chilingar et al., 2014:

“The quoted comparisons indicate that average temperature distribution in the planet’s troposphere is completely defined by the solar constant, atmospheric pressure (mass), heat capacity of its gas composition and the precession angle. The theoretical temperature on Venus surface turned out to be Ts = 735 K, and on Earth’s surface, 288 K. The empiric values are 735.3 and 288.2 K, respectively. This close fit cannot be accidental and presents the convincing evidence in favor of the adiabatic theory of heat transfer in a dense atmosphere.”

The authors give equation 2 which combines the S-B law (modified to account for axial tilt) with the adiabatic gas law (a power function). This equation contains a parameter b which “is the scaling factor determined by
the planet’s given surface temperature Ts in degrees Kelvin”.

So in effect, they are claiming that, given the surface temperature, we can calculate b, and apply equation 2 to determine (wait for it…) the surface temperature!

So yes, in an ironic sense, “This close fit cannot be accidental.”

In a bigger way, this paper illustrates the general problem with “adiabatic theory”, which can be broken down as follows:

We can calculate dry adiabatic lapse rate from just two physical parameters: the specific heat and the acceleration due to gravity. And DALR has a simple definition:

DALR = -dT/dy

So we can easily find the temperature at any height y by integrating the above:

T(y) = DALR * y + C

where C is the constant of integration (aka the T-intercept). D’oh! That means we can’t find T(y) without first finding the temperature at some reference height; or conversely, the height at which some reference temperature is found. In fact, the reference temperature could be the gray-body temperature calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and it applies at the effective radiating height. So all we need to know is the effective radiating height. Unfortunately, without a complete energy balance model that accounts for radiation, we can’t determine this.

Sure, we can rearrange our terms and thereby hide the extra degree of freedom in an innocuous parameter we’ll call “b”, but it’s still an extra degree of freedom.

Every paper that I have looked at that propounds a pressure-only theory has this extra degree of freedom problem hidden somewhere within. Once you know to look for it, it is usually easy to expose.

14. I have not found a single one of the “atmospheric pressure effect” papers that even tries to explain the physical mechanism by which the weight of the atmosphere transfers power to the surface on an ongoing basis.

The earth’s surface emits over 500 W/m2 times the surface area of the earth through radiative, evaporative, and conductive mechanisms. But the earth system absorbs only about 240 W/m2 times the surface area of the earth through radiation from the sun (with less than 0.1 W/m2 from subsurface heating). These numbers are from measurements, known to within a few percent.

No one, not even the most frantic alarmist, thinks the earth is out of energy balance by more than 1 W/m2. So we need another 250 W/m2 or so times the surface area of the earth input to the surface to put it in energy balance.

Where does this come from? The APE people say that it comes from the weight of the atmosphere. But how does this transfer energy on an ongoing basis? The weight of the atmosphere does produce a force on the surface. But high school physics tells us that for a force to transfer energy, it must act over a distance. (Work = Force * Distance)

The pressure of ignited gas in an engine piston transfers energy to the piston head by moving the piston head. No movement, no work done.

One cold morning last winter, after reading some of the APE papers, I tried to warm up my chair by putting some of my barbell weights on it. It didn’t work…

Above, AndyG55 shares this confusion when he states: “The gases higher up in the atmosphere are subject to gravity, therefore they want to fall. It takes energy to hold them up.”

Andy — As you sit in your chair reading this, your body is subject to gravity, therefore it wants to fall. According to you, it takes energy for your chair to hold you up. What is the energy source for your chair to do this? Battery, wall plug, or gasoline powered engine?

The simple fact is that static pressure DOES NOT and CANNOT transfer energy to a surface. All of these APE papers fail on this completely basic high school physics fact.

These papers tie themselves in knots trying to evade this fact. One of my favorites is Chilingar’s “adiabatic theory of heat transfer”, when the fundamental meaning of “adiabatic” is “no heat transfer”!

1. It allows the atmosphere to regulate the heat transfer from the surface outwards.

It regulates how much energy the lower atmosphere can maintain.

The atmosphere is a COOLING mechanism regulated by the pressure/temperature gradient, not a warming mechanism.

“According to you, it takes energy for your chair to hold you up.”

Ed, you missed basic physics, I see.

If an object is at rest, to every force acting on it, there is an equal and opposite resisting force.

That is the way it is.

1. AndyG55, it is you who missed a class or two … the opposite resisting force doesn’t use energy. There is no work done holding up your body weight.

2. “The simple fact is that static pressure DOES NOT and CANNOT transfer energy to a surface.”

It most certainly does. Why do you think building have foundations etc.

You think they just float there, exerting no pressure on the ground?? REALLY ?????

You really have to go and do some basic physics and engineering courses, Ed.

1. Do you really think buildings would collapse without an energy source?

1. Do you really think building would stay up without a countering force to gravity.

Just by “MAGIC”

Where does that force to counter the CONTINUAL force of gravity come from?

Or maybe you think gravity stops operating once an object is stationary. ??

You again show just how ignorant you are of basic physics.

1. The existence of a force doesn’t mean there is work/energy involved. So again, do you think you need energy to keep a building from collapsing or support the weight of a person sitting on a chair? Is that really your understanding of physics?

2. Seb’s right. Statics and stable structures have nothing to do with “work”. Insisting the floor performs work because it applies a force to hold the table is absurd and shows an astonishing level of ignorance of basic physics.

3. I must admit that I am ASTOUNDED by your extreme base level IGNORANCE. !!

BIZARRE doesn’t even start to cover it. !!!!!

15. Andy:

You miss the most basic point, even after it’s been explicitly pointed out to you.

PRESSURE AND FORCE ARE NOT ENERGY!!! (Yes, I’m shouting — something is necessary to get through to you!)

A static force that does not produce motion DOES NOT transfer energy! Your chair does not need an energy source to hold you up. Putting weights on your chair does not heat up the chair.

If I had confused pressure/force and energy like you do when I studied physics at MIT (yes I did!), my professor would have laughed me out of class and told me to go into a less demanding field.

You have tripped over your own feet before you have even gotten out of the starting blocks. Since you can’t understand this most basic point, it’s not worth following anything further you have to say.

1. Static forces cause deflection, Ed..

They are resisted by STRAIN ENERGY.

Seems you really were not paying any attention in class.

How the **** did you ever pass !!!!!

1. As I asked before, where is the energy source for your chair to provide this “strain energy”?

Battery, wall plug, or engine?

What type of chair are you using?

1. OMG.. please keep posting. 🙂

You really are HIGHLIGHTING YOUR IGNORANCE !!

FFS… go and do a basic engineering course, so you don’t come across as a total nil-educated fool. !!

2. Andy:

All of the “atmospheric pressure effect” (APE) papers claim that it is simply the weight of the atmosphere that keeps the surface warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

For this to be true, there would need to be an ongoing steady transfer of power due to this weight, because a higher surface temperature will provide higher losses.

We are not talking here about a one-time increase in the potential energy of “strain” as you call it — we are talking about a never-ending power transfer.

So I ask you again, what is the source of this ongoing power transfer?

1. Your lack of comprehension of what actually happens is your problem Ed.

You have already shown a distinct lack of understanding of even basic physics.

Don’t compound the issue.

2. This is golden … AndyG55 continues to show his level of comprehension. Up until this point, I had hope that he is just faking it to troll other people, but he seems to really mean it.

3. So, you DENY that the chair exerts a force to hold you up against gravity.

That is truly BIZARRE !!!

1. Nowhere did I say that!

You are still absolutely clueless about the difference between force and energy, and between power and energy.

I specifically did talk about the forces present at the surface due to gravity. But no matter how many times I point it out to you, this does not mean there is any ongoing power transfer due to these forces, because there is no ongoing motion due to these forces.

For the “atmospheric pressure effect” theories to be correct, there would need to be this ongoing power transfer to the surface, which would require ongoing motion (not one-time deflection). This does not occur, so these APE theories cannot be correct.

2. So you admit that there is a force, from somewhere, that hold you up when sitting in the chair.

Baby steps, Ed. 😉

So, why do you think there isn’t a force holding the atmosphere up against the same gravitational force.
You really think the atmosphere isn’t in motion?

Missed out on kinetic theory of gases as well, did you. Poor NIL-educated little Ed.

3. A little exercise for you Ed (literally)

Get back to me in 20 minutes and tell me you haven’t expended any energy or done any work.. 😉

4. That’s a different kind of work, and not the type we discuss in physics. i.e. the product of force and distance. You’re talking about the biological ATP, etc. needed to keep the muscles contracted.

5. So, its “Strain energy” agreed. 🙂

To resist a force, you MUST apply another force.

Where does that force come from in the chair?

6. Pierre, if you can access my email

I am quite prepared to show my creds to you, only !

7. Pierre, you said, “the product of force and distance.”

This is very much “physics”, but also engineering.

why is it not discussed?

Biological or otherwise, it is still energy that MUST be expended to hold an object stationary against gravity.

8. I think holding a weight is also work, and someone should pay me for doing it. It’s a different work from the engineering and physics definition of “work”. A bridge doesn’t need to work to hold the traffic. Otherwise all bridges would need motors.

9. “You’re talking about the biological ATP, etc. needed to keep the muscles contracted.”

This is essentially the same as Young’s modulus for material.

Its just biological instead of materials based.

Once you reach “yield strength” the structure collapses.

That is the very nature of engineering design… be it human or otherwise.

10. “Once you reach “yield strength” the structure collapses.”

The other form is what is called “plastic deformation”

Neither yield or plastic deformation is very pleasant in the human structure.

11. “this does not mean there is any ongoing power transfer due to these forces”

So the force holding you up in the chair magically disappears.

OK.. whatever you believe. 😉

12. Again in physics and engineering work is the product of force times distance. If d = 0, then W = 0.
Of course one can make up his own definition of “work” and then insists the foundation of the house works. My roof works to protects me from bad weather.

13. Have you tried the brick test?

Did you feel that you exerted any energy?

If you apply a force to an object to stop that object moving over a distance, does that not require energy?

Do you think that the brakes of a car do not do work ?

14. The brake pads apply a force over a long distance on the disks as the disks rotate. That is the physics definition of work. That’s very different from static equilibrium.

15. Where does the force that holds you up when you are sitting in a chair come from?

I don’t think anyone here (even Ed) would deny that force exists.

16. You seem to confuse work with statics and Newton’s third law, which by the way makes no mention of work. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law.

17. “My roof works to protects me from bad weather.”

Yes, and it exerts an opposing force on winds, and on rain.

Where does that force come from.?

18. Ummm…Newton’s 3rd law, which makes no mention of work. Again, the physics and engineering definition of “work” is force times distance. PERIOD. Statics has nothing to do with work. You’re making up up your own layman junk science definitions. Statics and structures have to do with strengths and forces….which are not measured in Joules, but rather in Newtons. When these forces are applied over a distance, then you are talking about work. And since they are static, there’s no distance, hence zero work.

16. Andy:

I have a mass of 80 kg.

If I sit statically with all of my weight on a chair, how much force am I exerting on the chair?

How much force is the chair exerting on me?

How much energy am I transferring to the chair by virtue of my weight?

How much energy is the chair transferring to me?

1. WOW. !!!

You really haven’t done any basic physics, have you Ed. !!!

You exert a force of about 785N on the chair, and it exerts an equal an opposite force on you.

With all the necessary data, you could actually figure out
the deflection of the chair as the STRAIN energy equals the work done in holding you up.

Under your fantasy fizzics, you could make the chair out of thin rice paper, and it would still hold you up. !

I STRONGLY suggest you not say any more Ed, until you have done at least a basic junior high level course in physics, statics and engineering.

1. OK, let’s say that the chair acts as a spring with a stiffness of 100 Newtons per millimeter. I, with my mass of 80 kg, sit on the chair.

What is the increase in “strain energy” from my weight?

What is the ongoing power transfer to the chair from my weight? (Remember that these “atmospheric pressure effect” theories require ongoing power transfer from the weight force of the atmosphere.)

By the way, I do this type of calculation regularly in my professional career, and I have taught this stuff to both undergraduates and graduates at a top university. I would have no hesitation whatsoever in drumming you out of the program because you were in completely over your head.

1. “By the way, I do this type of calculation regularly in my professional career, and I have taught this stuff to both undergraduates and graduates at a top university. I would have no hesitation whatsoever…”
Please provide us with your full name and “top university” with which you are affiliated. If you really are this sort of leading authority you claim to be, then come out of hiding. We want to verify this claim of yours. I’ve seen lots of people claim authority on a subject, only to find out that they knew little at all.

1. Pierre:

I’ve run into too many nasty and unhinged people who have threatened me to use my real name any more.

I made those (true) claims in response to Andy’s assertion that I hadn’t even taken a middle school class. Suffice it to say that I studied at two of America’s top universities, and that I have taught at a top state university in the US.

I have also had a very successful 30+ year career as a practicing engineer where I have to get these things right or I lose my job.

One does not need to be a “leading authority” to get this stuff right. One only needs to have a basic understanding of introductory undergraduate courses.

Below, you are agreeing with me that Andy is dead wrong on the relationship between force and work. That has been my point all along.

2. Doesn’t everyone who graduated high school or something similar know these basics or should have heard of them? You don’t need any credentials to see that AndyG55 seems to be confused and is making up his own special physics.

3. You are sitting in a chair, the chair is applying an equal and opposite force to hold you up.

“where does the force, and the energy to apply that force, come from?”

No-one seems to want to answer this question.

Surely it can’t be that difficult.

WAITING !!!

4. G R A V I T Y.
Which has nothing to do with work unless we are applying a force over D I S T A N C E.

2. A “spring” you say.

So you do know just a tiny amount about strain energy.

Well done 😉

3. “I have taught this stuff to both undergraduates and graduates at a top university”

Those POOR students !!!

1. 🙂

4. The fact that you think only the spring is affected by the weight force of your body, says it all

There is NO WAY you have the requisite knowledge to teach anything.

As you sit motionless, the force from the chair MUST continually balance your weight force.

Do you DENY this fact?

Where does that force come from..

WAITING !!!!

How is your arm, by the way.

Did you expend any energy, do any work, while holding that brick motionless at arms length?

1. “Where does that force come from..

WAITING !!!!”

hmmm.. seems we have a non-response. !!!

2. Force – is – not – work.
Nothing is more stupid than a stupid person insisting he’s clever.

3. Geez, Andy, do you expect people to discuss this 24 hours a day?

You ask: “As you sit motionless, the force from the chair MUST continually balance your weight force. Do you DENY this fact?”

Nowhere have I ever denied this. I asked you questions about the forces and the power transfer to see if you understood the difference — and as Pierre immediately realized when he entered the discussion, you don’t have a clue!

So let’s see where we are. My weight applies a 785N downward force on the chair. The chair applies a 785N upward force on me. (I have never said this wasn’t the case.)

The application of my weight to the chair causes a one-time increase in what you call the “strain energy” of the materials in the chair. But you don’t understand what that is. The link YOU provided shows very clearly that it is effectively the potential energy of “springiness”.

That is why I stated in my example “let’s say that the chair ACTSas a spring”. Completely in line with the examples in your link. Can you solve the problem?

The next issue is what is the ongoing power transfer required? Pierre, Scott, and I all immediately realize that because the distance over which the force acts is zero, the ongoing work is zero.

The struggling students in my statics classes always got lost thinking of the human example, which Pierre pointed out is not appropriate. That is why I used the chair example. If the supporting force really required the ongoing expending of power, your chair would need a separate power source to keep holding you up. It obviously does not.

Your question: “Where does that force come from?” is meaningless. I simply note that it does not require an ongoing source of power.

4. Andy:

You ask: “Did you expend any energy, do any work, while holding that brick motionless at arms length?”

Yep, you got lost in the weeds using the human example, just like the failing kids in my classes.

Consider a motor driving a winch to lift a weight in earth’s gravity. Just to hold the weight up requires torque out of the motor, which requires current thru the motor, which requires electrical power. Looks like the human example.

But next we apply the brake to the motor and turn off the current. It still hold the weight up, but now without electrical power.

So we see that a steady application of power is NOT fundamentally required to apply the force necessary to hold up the object in a gravitational field.

It is possible that the mechanism for generating the force requires power. In the motor’s case, it was the electrical resistance of the windings that meant that power must be continually applied to generate the lifting force.

I said before that your question “Where does that force come from?” is meaningless. That is because force is not a conserved quantity. Energy is a conserved quantity, so if there is a transfer of energy, it is reasaonable to ask “Where does that energy come from?” But that is not the case for force.

Just another one of your fundamental confusions.

5. This is essentially what you are saying

6. Andy – You say: ““where does the force, and the energy to apply that force, come from?” No-one seems to want to answer this question.”

That’s be cause it’s a meaningless question, and now it’s even based on a false premise, as no energy is required to apply the force.

Given that you can’t ask a scientifically meaningful question (what the heck does “come from” mean in this context?), I will simply have to make related statements that are scientifically meaningful.

The application of a force by itself does not require any transfer of energy, and certainly not any ongoing power transfer.

7. So, your chair requires energy to provide the force to hold you up.

As I keep asking you, what energy source do you use for your chair?

What, no energy source? No battery, no wall plug, no built-in engine? How can that be?

8. Let me be the first to congratulate Ed.

He has found a way to apply a force on a body, without expending any energy.

This will have profound ramifications.

9. Your chair applies a force to your body — 785N if you weigh what I do.

You claim this requires your chair to expend energy.

Please show your calculations for the energy your chair must expend over time to provide this force.

Energy is a conserved quantity. (Force isn’t…) What is your chair’s source for this energy it expends? I keep asking this question.

You say “This will have profound ramifications.” Hmmm. I think I will start selling chairs without energy sources that can still hold you up. I’ll make millions! I can patent it! Wow, thanks!

10. Yep profound ramifications.

Applying a force without expending energy of some sort.

Novel. and wonderful !

11. “What is your chair’s source for this energy it expends?”

If you don’t know were the energy comes from, I can’t help you.

12. AndyG55,

let’s construct a Perpetuum Mobile then. You are saying that compression of the lower atmosphere layers by gravity causes the temperature to increase because you think that gravity is performing work on the system, correct?

The result is that the surface is (on average) warmer than it should be, correct?

So one should be able to build a machine that extracts the heat from the lower layers and let gravity “refill” the heat reservoir again and indirectly make use of gravity as an endless source of energy. Correct?

Where does that energy come from? Gravity is just a force … do you know how a force (N) becomes Energy (J or Nm)?

13. Sebastian:

No fair! Andy doesn’t understand the concept of energy at the most basic level. And you’re expecting him to do a real systems analysis and root out a paradox?

Cruel!

14. “let’s construct a Perpetuum Mobile then”

Not me seb,

Ed and you are the ones saying the force to counter the continual effect of gravity comes from NOWHERE.

15. Not me seb,

Yes, you.

Counter forces don’t come from nowhere, but they perform no work and thus don’t consume energy to sustain their “hold me up” or braking function. You seem to be convinced that you need energy for a counter force to hold something up (your weight on a chair), but you refuse to tell us the amount of energy needed to hold a person up for say 1 hour and where it comes from. Why?

Perhaps you could answer this simple question:
Does your chair need more energy to hold a person up for 2 hours than for 1 hour? After all, it has to counter the continual effect of gravity for a longer time span, right?

17. Well, I’m sure your chairs get their energy from the pink unicorns you keep.

I’ll go with my patented energy-source-free chairs that I’m going to make millions from.

Why won’t you do the calculations as to how much energy must be expended by the chair to hold you up???

1. Please let us know when you have a working prototype utilising this miraculous ability to apply a force without expending any energy.

It will solve the imaginary CO2 emission problem in one fell swoop !

1. The chair I’m sitting in right now has that ability. It is applying a constant force to my butt, and it is not expending any energy. It has no source of energy — no batteries, no wall plug, no nothing.

And when I check it when I stand up and it is no longer applying any force to my body, it is in the same state as before, not a lower energy state. It has not expended any energy to apply force to my body.

I keep asking you, and you refuse to answer, how much energy do you calculate is required for the chair to apply enough force to my body to support it in earth’s gravity.

You claim it is beyond obvious that the chair must do so — why won’t you show us your brilliance and calculate how much?

1. ” and it is not expending any energy.”

roflmao..

Its just a “magical” force.. isn’t it Ed.

2. “Why won’t you do the calculations as to how much energy must be expended by the chair to hold you up”

What is the potential energy difference between your bum in the chair and your bum on the floor.?

1. So in your world the chair is lifting you up from the floor level? I don’t have to stand up and sit down by myself? I’d like to see that chair, please 😉

1. No seb, What Ed is saying is that he can create the force that counters his weight force, from THIN AIR. !!

It just MAGICALLY “IS”.

1. You are saying that there is continuous work being done, e.g. energy is spent to hold the weight of your body up (by the chair). That means that the energy needed to do so increases over time, correct?

Where does this energy come from, AndyG55?

2. Where does the force come from seb

This MAGIC force resisting gravity.

You mean you really don’t know !! WOW !!!

3. Don’t mix the terms energy and force as if they were equal, AndyG55.

4. Comprehension issues again, seb ??

2. Andy – You ask: “What is the potential energy difference between your bum in the chair and your bum on the floor.?”

What is the potential energy difference between your bum in chair and your bum at the center of the earth?

at the center of the solar system?

at the center of the galaxy?

As long as my bum is still on top of the chair, the potential energy it has, relative to any reference level, is irrelevant. The chair is not expending ANY energy to maintain me at a constant height.

You have absolutely no grasp whatsoever on the concept of energy and energy or power transfer. You wouldn’t make it out of the first couple of weeks of an intro thermo course.

1. Ed,

I’ve already congratulated you on being able to create a force out of nowhere.

WELL DONE !!!!

2. Since you consider my chair to be so magical, I’ll let you buy it for the low, low price of \$10,000. A steal for something you think has never been done before!

I take PayPal…

1. I know its not magical..

Its you who seems to think it creates a force from nowhere.

18. Ed Bo 13 and AndyG55

Maybe a return to the classroom and an explanation of potential energy is needed here.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1b.cfm

Take from there the example of a boy on a swing, the work he performs allows his movement to and fro from points of (moving) kinetic energy to the (static position) potential energy and back again.
Does his potential energy change at the top of his swing compared to when he first sat on the swing? What has his work done in altering these energy levels?

Since the gravitational potential energy of an object is directly proportional to its height above the zero position, a doubling of the height will result in a doubling of the gravitational potential energy. A tripling of the height will result in a tripling of the gravitational potential energy.

1. Amazing that someone thinks that the potential energy of bum on seat the same relative to bum on floor.

But hey, who am I to argue with Ed.

He creates forces from nothing, something I could never do.

1. Indeed.
Within our Newtonian world —
Not understanding what potential energy is, and understanding the reason why saying ‘energy is spent’ because potential energy exists (as SebastianH 13. August 2017 at 9:58 AM asserts) is not correct.

Outside our Newtonian world —
Arguably the only properties that can be truly expended in our version of the universe are space and time, and even then it is debatable that one can not be transformed to the other as in the universe expanding (Einsteinian space/time within our dimension — the slowing of time would make our universe appear as if space was expanding.)

1. tomOmason, how does potential energy lead to warming of anything? Continous warming by the force of gravity as AndyG55 puts it. Warming means the heat content of something increases and that means Joules accumulate. Where do these Joules come from? Does the potential energy provide them? How so?

1. Another straw man, off the main argument side track…ho-hum.
“how does potential energy lead to warming of anything?” Wow! that is what you believe he said? It is not what he said (provide a quote), and potential energy does not warm anything.

The point is that gravity in causing the atmospheric gases at lower altitudes to be at a higher pressure/density ensures that any heat energy reaching ground levels (from any source) tends to have more difficulty escaping from the surface levels to the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere.

Thankfully here on earth convection and the non-linear response of water to temperature ensures the global temperature (for what it’s worth) are confined to restricted range. CO2 has a negligible (microscopic) effect on this process.

Now I sure you can reinterpret what I’ve said to some other nonsense, I await your next straw man effort 🙂

2. Now I sure you can reinterpret what I’ve said to some other nonsense, I await your next straw man effort.

No, most of what you wrote is correct. But it is not the pressure/density itself that is ensuring anything, it is the atmospheric composition and CO2 has a very measurable effect.

AndyG55 wrote:

The gases higher up in the atmosphere are subject to gravity, therefore they want to fall.

It takes energy to hold them up.

What do you think he means by that?

And then there are the papers listed in the blog post of course, which are claiming that the lapse rate is caused by gravity/density and the temperature on the ground is a result of that downwards facing gradient.

Or do you think that this is made up? Read those papers 😉

3. Kenneth,

I’ll have to ask you again: `F = m * a (or A * B = C)`

There is nothing that makes either m or a (or A or B) the determinant. Without the other one, the result is no force (or effect). Why is that so difficult for you to accept now?

You got it more or less right in this comment when you wrote:

Therefore, the atmospheric thickness is the determinant of what GHGs can do to affect heat retention. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

You included both factors but still called one the determinant. Is it?

And at the end, you are trying to argue against the existence of a radiative greenhouse effect, aren’t you? Because that is what the list of papers in the blog post suggests. You still don’t seem to understand how it can be the greenhouse effect on all those rocky planets and moons, do you? You still somehow think that what you say somehow contradicts that theory, do you?

4. I’ll give up, you go on and believe whatever you want. I thought you got it, but you don’t see that the composition of an atmosphere is equally important as the number of molecules that it is composed of (density).

Do you honestly believe that an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases could somehow retain heat? How would it do that? Name the mechanism!

Oh, and for the x-th time, gravity does not determine the density or even existence of an atmosphere. It just one variable …

And finally, the status or name of a rocky celestial body does not change the laws of physics. Moons with atmospheres are just the same as planets with atmospheres.

5. seb,

Obviously “AndyG55 wrote:

The gases higher up in the atmosphere are subject to gravity, therefore they want to fall.

It takes energy to hold them up.

What do you think he means by that?”

is lost in translation to you, and I have not either the inclination nor the time to elucidated further.
I’m sure if you ponder on it more, ensuring you keep your mind dispassionately within the context of the argument it was made, enlightenment will come.

2. tom:

The fact that my gravitational potential energy is higher when I’m on the chair than on the floor is absolutely irrelevant to the energy required for the chair to support my weight at a constant height (which is zero).

By Andy’s logic a tall stool would require more energy to hold me up than a shorter chair. A chair on the 2nd floor would require more energy than one on the first floor.

Andy is confusing the case where a chair would actively lift me up from floor level with the case where my height is not changing.

Seb and I have been trying to get Andy to calculate and state how much energy the chair must expend over time to hold up my weight. It should be a simple calculation. Andy refuses to do it. Why?

The gravitational potential energy examples you show in your link all deal with changes in height, which are changes in potential energy of DeltaPE=m*g*DeltaH. We are talking about the static case where DeltaH=0 so DeltaPE=0.

I pulled my Newtonian Mechanics textbook off the shelf last night for review. NOWHERE did it say, or even hint, that energy is required to create a static force. The chapters on energy all showed the energy of work is force applied over distance. No distance, no work.

1. “By Andy’s logic a tall stool would require more energy to hold me up than a shorter chair.”

Yes it does.

You still seem to think the force that holds up comes from nowhere.

Enough trying to teach you.. It is pointless.

2. “A chair on the 2nd floor would require more energy than one on the first floor”

You have just shown you have ZERO concept of relative potential energy.. Well done.

If you can’t understand basic concepts such as this..

and you think that forces can be created from nowhere,

then you have no chance of understanding the gravity/pressure induced thermal gradient.

Go jump off a second floor balcony, tell us about the potential energy later.

Enough. !!! I’m not wasting my time on your ignorance any more.

—————————————————-

1. AndyG55, we all know that you need to spend energy to get something to a certain height (on a chair). Work is being done. Your claim seems to be that energy has to be spent continuously for the chair to hold something up. So what is the amount of energy that is needed to keep a 1 kg weight on a chair in a height of 1 m above sea level for 1 hour? How does the amount change for keeping it there for 2 hours?

I know you think that because air parcels move due to convection that there is work being done. We want to know why you could possibly think that is the case. So please present some calculations and don’t evade by calling us ignorant of your position. You seem to be the pigeon here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

2. Andy:

With all your brilliance, why have you refused to enlighten us as to exactly how much energy is needed to provide a supporting force in even the simplest of examples.

Seb asked you how much energy is necessary to support my 80kg mass for an hour and for two hours in earth’s gravity (not lift it, just hold it steady). It should be a simple calculation.

Since you think that height is important even without motion, please do the calculations for a chair that holds me 1.0m above the floor, and a stool that holds me 1.5m off the floor.

If you think the strain energy is important, you can use the effective spring constant of 100 N/mm.

Educate us fools, if you can. (I don’t think you can — I think it’s all a complete bluff. Prove me wrong!)

1. “With all your brilliance, why have you refused to enlighten us as to exactly how much energy is needed to provide a supporting force in even the simplest of examples.”

You DID NOT comprehend.

Not my fault.

2. How are you going creating a force from NOTHING and NOWHERE??

Big money in that if your fantasy works.

Permalink to the specific comment where you actually gave a value for the Joules required to provide the supporting force of anything for different time spans (you claim the energy is needed to continuously support the mass).

How are you going creating a force from NOTHING and NOWHERE??

You don’t understand. The force isn’t created from nothing, but you confuse that with actual work being performed to hold something at its potential energy level. So … how many Joules to support a weight of 1 kg in a height of 1 m for 1 hour? What about supporting it for 2 hours?

4. “force isn’t created from nothing,”

Well where does the force that counters the weight force due to gravity come from ?

WAITING. !!

5. You can think of all matter as being springs. Putting a weight on it compressed the matter and it’s pushing back. Just like with a spring no energy is needed to support the weight. The potential energy from the weight is transferred to the spring when you put the weight on it and is released back to the environment when the weight is taken off.

Can you now please explain how this process generated heat over time? It’s a one time thing. Compressing a gas doesn’t continuously generate heat, otherwise you could use that heat to drive an engine and construct a Perpetuum Mobile this way.

So care to answer my question? Or have you finally realized how wrong you are and evade this so you don’t look so bad?

6. Well done seb.

You are starting to figure it out. You might even start to use the correct terminology in time.

You even got the potential energy part, that Ed has zero clue about, slightly correct.

You are learning !!

Your fantasy of perpetuum motion is coming purely from your own attention seeking cranial sludge.

3. Andy:

By the way, I agree with both James Clerk Maxwell (Theory of Heat, 1877) and Richard Feynman (Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1 No. 40) that gravity alone cannot create a lapse rate (i.e. a thermodynamically isolated atmosphere in a gravitational field will reach an isothermal equilibrium state).

Both show very quickly how a steady-state lapse rate in such a system would lead to blatant 2nd Law violations.

(Both emphasize that our atmosphere is not thermodynamically isolated.)

Do you think that Maxwell and Feynman don’t understand potential energy? Where do you think they went wrong???

1. YAWN!

You have proven that YOU DON’T.

Stop your mindless attention seeking !!

2. Ed Bo, don’t let him drive you crazy. It’s what he does … he is the resident master troll here 😉

Either that or he really just doesn’t understand.

3. Don’t project from yourself onto others AndyG55 …

4. Poor seb, STILL totally EMPTY of any proof for you superstitious AGW religious belief,

But you just keep yapping and yapping as though anything you say is relevant.. IT ISN’T.

Every planet with an atmosphere has a gravity based pressure/temperature gradient, that, in conjunction with in coming energy, sets the surface temperature.

Stop your troll-child attention seeking, seb.

5. Please refrain from the insults and name-calling. It really isn’t helping your arguments at all. From now on I’m going to delete such comments. If you want your comments to appear in the future, you’ll have to focus much more on substance.

6. So Andy, you think Maxwell and Feynman were complete id**ts who didn’t understand high school physics?

7. Funny EdBo should mention Feynman.

Yes, that is odd. Maxwell too…

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/maxwell-established-that-gravity.html
Maxwell established that gravity & atmospheric mass create so-called greenhouse effect

Dr. Bjornbom notes that in 1888 the famous physicist Maxwell wrote that gravity establishes the temperature gradient [adiabatic lapse rate] of the atmosphere, which is independent of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases and dependent only upon gravity and heat capacity of the atmosphere [lapse rate = -gravity/heat capacity]. Thus, an atmosphere comprised of only non-greenhouse gases such as nitrogen & oxygen [over 99% of Earth’s atmosphere] would create a temperature gradient/adiabatic lapse rate/”greenhouse effect” and not be isothermal as claimed by conventional radiative greenhouse proponents.

Debunking Myths & Strawmen about the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect & Radiative Greenhouse Effect

8. Ahh, thanks for those links, Kenneth.

I don’t see how to understand this stuff without keeping in mind that the atmosphere is a dynamic compressible fluid, not a lump of lead or lard statically at rest on a chair fixed to the surface of the planet.

While he doesn’t have the authority of a Maxwell or a Feynman, Steven Wilde’s insights into what effects GHG’s might have, also appear to be helpful.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html

Slowly but surely I’m beginning to see what’s going on, no thanks to the distractions of the chatbots.

9. Hockeyschtick manages to get this issue 100% backwards, in a jaw-dropping way. Let’s look at what Feynman and Maxwell actually said:

“Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium by connecting a rod to some balls at the bottom (Fig. 40–1), where they would pick up 1/2kT from the molecules there and would shake, via the rod, the balls at the top and those would shake the molecules at the top. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.”

He goes on to derive the PRESSURE gradient in such a situation of a thermodynamically isolated atmosphere (“without the winds and other kinds of disturbance”). But in doing so, he emphasized that “T is constant”.

There is nothing — absolutely nothing — in this lecture that discusses temperature variation as a function of height in a gravitational field. How Hockeyschtick can claim it supports the gravito-thermal theory is utterly mystifying.

Now let’s look at Maxwell, who first figured this out. From his “Theory of Heat”, 1877, p.320:

“The second result of our theory relates to the thermal equilibrium of a vertical column. We find that if a vertical column of a gas were left to itself, till by the conduction of heat it had attained a condition of thermal equilibrium, the temperature would be the same throughout, or, in other words, gravity produces no effect in making the bottom of the column hotter or colder than the top.

This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics, for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be the same; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of itself, the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same. In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of temperature, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be uniform, whatever its material.”

Again, this is unequivocal that the equilibrium state of an isolated atmosphere in a gravitational field is isothermal. Any other conclusion would lead to a blatant 2nd Law violation. If you go through Maxwell’s writings, this was a key check for the validity of his Kinetic Theory of Gases.

Maxwell does go on to analyze the common lapse rates found in the Earth’s atmosphere. But the Earth’s atmosphere is NOT isolated, and the gravito-thermal theory specifically states that the lapse rate would occur in a thermodynamically isolated atmosphere, as a function of gravity ALONE. Maxwell and Feynman both dismiss this out of hand.

So why do we usually see a lapse rate in the Earth’s (and other planets’) atmosphere? Because the non-isolated atmosphere primarily gains energy from the bottom (the surface) and loses it from the top (where it is transparent enough to radiate to space). It’s fundamentally the same reason you have a temperature gradient in a metal bar that has one end in fire and the other end in ice water (although there the main heat transfer mechanism is conduction).

And why do we often see a lapse rate that is close to the (-g/cp) adiabatic lapse rate? Because the opacity of the atmosphere is high enough to create a higher lapse rate. But it is basic physics that a lapse rate greater than adiabatic is an “unstable lapse rate” (any meteorologist knows this), leading to convection that brings the lapse rate toward adiabatic.

In the cases where a region of the atmosphere primarily loses energy from the bottom, which is common on clear cold nights especially in winter with low absolute humidity, permitting the surface to radiate far up in the atmosphere before significant absorption, you get a temperature inversion with the temperature increasing as you go up.

Such a temperature inversion lasts for months over the entire continent of Antarctica in the long night of the Antarctic winter. This would not be possible if the gravito-thermal theory were correct.

10. Oops, it’s “Stephan Wilde” not “Steven..”

Sorry. ;o)

11. ….”Stephen…”

Sheesh!

That’s it for me for today, then.

Oh, and also apologies to Stephen for not paying closer attention to his work (actually, wasn’t aware of it till today, but still). I’ll try to remedy that in the future.

12. Kenneth: You say:

“For Jupiter, there are no greenhouse gases to absorb heat energy at the top of its atmosphere. And yet temperatures reach 725°C there. They’re much cooler the closer one gets to the surface. Can you explain what causes these heating gradients? According to scientists, it’s gravitational waves. Do you think that a barbells-on-a-chair thought experiment could disprove this? Or would you agree that this would not be an applicable comparison and thus a diversion?”

The atmospheric pressure effect theories you wrote this post about claim that it is the weight of the atmosphere that determines surface temperature for a given amount of insolation, and that the weight alone determines the lapse rate (the lower you get, the greater the weight above you, and the higher the temperature). They also claim that atmospheric radiative properties have nothing to do with this.

The intent of my barbell example was to show that this theory was invalid by using a “closer to home” example. I continue to think that it was a completely valid comparison, and that it in no way “hijacked” the thread.

Your example of Jupiter also goes to show that the APE theories cannot be correct. The APE theories predict that Jupiter would have a negative lapse rate (cooling with greater height) even though it does not have “greenhouse gases”.

But the data you link to shows Jupiter with a positive lapse rate. The APE theories cannot explain this!

13. Kenneth, bringing up Jupiter (and Saturn) is a big distraction. They have additional sources of heat. On rocky planets (and moons) these sources don’t exist and the heat from the initial compression is long gone.

Compression of a fluid or gas doesn’t cause a constant influx of heat or increase in temperature in an open system

And as for linking to anything the hockeyschtick blog writes … that’s nearly as bad as linking to principia scientifica or EIKE 😉

@AndyG55:

Every planet with an atmosphere has a gravity based pressure/temperature gradient, that, in conjunction with in coming energy, sets the surface temperature.

Please explain the physical mechanism that sets the start temperature and height for the gradient from where it then increases downwards! You can’t.

The temperature gradient always starts on the surface with decreasing temperatures upwards.

@yonason: “Slowly but surely I’m beginning to see what’s going on” … study a real physics book and don’t believe the nonsense that Mr. Wilde is imagining (convection neutralizing radiative processes). In reality, the radiative properties of an atmosphere are what cause the gradient exist. Without those properties there can’t be any cooling at the top and no further heating at the bottom than what the energy directly received from the sun causes. The atmosphere would essentially be isotherm with some fluctuation at the lowest layers due to day/night cycles, etc

14. Kenneth, this is about how planets can have warmer surface temperature than what the incoming energy from the Sun would make possible without the effect the atmosphere has (*). The gas giants are obviously not fitting in there because they actually emit more radiation towards space than they receive from the Sun, they have an additional source of heat. And I asked you above (Saturn’s heat source) what you think “gravitational compression” means in this case and I’ll ask you again what you think the term “gravity waves” means.

If the difference to what is happening on the rocky planets/moons in this solar system isn’t obvious, I can’t help you. A basic physics course (available online) would help you though …

*) the papers in your post are primarily arguing that it is the mass of the atmosphere pressing downwards that cause the lower layers to be warmer. This is similar to a weight pressing down on a chair. The chair is not getting warmer from that indefinitely, it is just a one-time effect. Same as with pumping air into a tire or scuba bottle. The basic physics course will also help you to understand this better …

@yonason:
This is about the surface being warm due to retained heat, not the upper layers of atmospheres.

15. Arg, you again commented somewhere in the middle of the thread with your moderator powers …

But for Mars, the CO2 greenhouse effect explanation doesn’t work too well […] the greenhouse effect explanation has some rather problematic holes in it. […] there are some other rather fundamental problems with assuming that CO2 controls the Earth’s planetary temperature.

That only happens to people who do not understand what the greenhouse effect is and how it works. Educate yourself and you’ll see that there are no “holes in it”. You just don’t understand how it works.

Then you go on with Saturn and Jupiter and again fail to understand that they have a different source of energy available. It has nothing to do with what the papers you posted up there are proposing.

Finally:

But the relationship between atmospheric pressure/gravity/density and planetary temperatures does seem to have at least some merit in explaining some of the patterns we see with planetary atmospheres. Enough merit that ridiculing and baiting people on comment boards should be beneath someone who claims to be both an educator and an MIT graduate.

It is ok to do so when people refuse to accept the laws of physics and invent mechanisms they can’t even explain and lead to Perpetuum Mobiles. Sorry, when you sit in class and claim that 1+1 = 3, then you will get ridiculed by others … this is not about letting other “opinions” coexist. It’s not an opinion that 1+1 = 3 … it is just plain wrong.

16. “It is ok to do so when people refuse to accept the laws of physics and invent mechanisms they can’t even explain”

Says seb, STARING at himself in the mirror.

You managed to get the FACT that the force responding to weight-force in a chair comes from the material of the chair.

Now all you have to do is realise that the force that holds up a column of atmosphere above the surface comes from the air below it, and you will be a tiny, small step towards understanding the gravity thermal effect that controls the temperature of ALL planets with an atmosphere, and that CO2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with temperatures (as you have continued to PROVE by your inability to provide one single piece of empirical evidence)

Until then…. you will strive to remain as ignorant as you can be.

Have fun with your attention-seeking AGW garbage, seb and Ed.

Bye for a while. I have wasted enough of my time trying to educated the uneducatable.

17. There are gaping holes in the idea that CO2 is a planetary climate control.

You wish, but that doesn’t make it real. You imagine the gaps because you need them to be there. If the greenhouse effect can explain everything then your whole chain of arguments that mankind is not responsible vanished. So you will grasp any straw to saw doubt when everything is perfectly explainable with the laws of physics. You don’t understand them or rather the consequences and that’s ok. But don’t act like it’s all a big scam without evidence and therefore it must all be wrong. And don’t top that by suggesting theories that are so obviously not able to explain anything and are breaking several laws of physics. You don’t want to be called a denier, yet you act like one most of the time. Why?

Your you-don’t-understand-it “rebuttal” is the weakest of defenses.

It’s not a rebuttal, it is an observation. And it’s not a defense either. I am not defending anything here, I am just trying to make you realize that you are barking at the wrong tree. You are the one defending your ridiculous theories (not technically yours, but you post them as quotes, so …) by pivoting everywhere possible to avoid the revelation that you might be wrong.

@AndyG55:

Now all you have to do is realise that the force that holds up a column of atmosphere above the surface comes from the air below it, and you will be a tiny, small step towards understanding the gravity thermal effect that controls the temperature of ALL planets with an atmosphere

I fully understand how you imagine this to work. You think that the atmosphere is pressing downward and by the force of compression causes warming of the lower layers. You have been repeatedly asked how this works continuosly without the pressure at the surface increasing. You refuse to answer … and that’s pretty telling. You too, are afraid that you mind find out that you are wrong.

18. It doesn’t explain Mars’ cold temperatures and 950,000 ppm CO2 atmosphere.

It does. The greenhouse effect on Mars is exactly what it is supposed to be.

It doesn’t explain Jupiter’s 725 C atmospheric temperatures (no greenhouse gases).

How many time do you need to be told that Jupiter has an internal heat source? And of course Jupiter has greenhouse gases, what do you think the atmosphere is composed of?

It doesn’t even explain Earth’s temperatures particularly well…the climate models are consistently failing to simulate the climate response to CO2

Do they? Currently, models are pretty spot on. The greenhouse effect perfectly explains what is happening on Earth and it matches with all observations whether you like it or not.

So you have one planet where CO2 heating could be reasonably claimed to work as the models say it does. One planet.

How many times do you need to be told that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas? The effect works on any planet/moon with an atmosphere that contains gases that absorb and emit radiation.

which is consistent with atmospheric pressure explanations for planetary temperatures

Nothing is consistent about that explanation. It is breaking the laws of physics and allows a Perpetuum Mobile to be built. And yes, of course gravity plays a role in the density of an atmosphere, but it is not the cause of the warming of the surface layer. Gravity is not doing anything … there is no work being done by gravity.

So please stop lying to yourself by claiming that the greenhouse effect only works on one planet and has huge holes, etc … learn what the greenhouse effect and how it works. The mechanism that causes warming due to absorbing and emitting radiation. It’s really not that hard and I assure you it explains everything. It doesn’t explain what is happening on planet like Jupiter and Saturn, because warming from greenhouse gases can not possibly cause a planet to emit more radiation than it receives. And that’s why it should be obvious that those planets have internal heat sources … Earth does have one too, but it’s too small to play a role in Earth’s energy budget.

19. It’s kind of sad that you still don’t show any effort in trying to understand how the greenhouse effect works.

One last time as the discussion in this post seems to grind to a halt…

I know another product of variables and it even includes the surface pressure. I guess you’ll claim that variable is the determining one, correct? Or maybe you’ll finally understand how greenhouse gases are blocking LW radiation from escaping towards space so easily.

So what is the mechanism that leads to cold -130 C to 4 C temperatures near the surface of Jupiter, but 725 C temperatures 1,000 km above the surface?

The surface of Jupiter? What should that be? You probably mean the 1 bar height, right? What makes you think that the temperatures there are especially cold? And while we are at it, why are Earth’s upper layers so hot (1500 °C)?

This is even worse for you! I gave you an out, but you didn’t take it. So tell me, SebastianH, why doesn’t the greenhouse gas explanation work on Jupiter, but yet the gravity/pressure effect explanation does?

The greenhouse effect can never explain an internal heat source. You still don’t understand the difference between both, do you? Nevertheless, the greenhouse effect is always there when you have – wait for it – greenhouse gases in an atmosphere.

“The gravity/pressure effect” doesn’t explain anything, at least not the way you think it does. Put simply, imagine a planet like Jupiter is big enough so it is still contracting from the initial formation (while the rocky planets stopped doing that long ago). That contraction from gravity actually is a source of heat (“stable” planets like Earth emitted that heat a long time ago). Other sources can be radioactivity or friction. Not a lot of that happening on Earth, is there?

I hereby give you an easy out, too … learn how those mechanisms really work. You’ll be surprised!

20. The CO2 greenhouse effect explains one planet’s heating well (Venus)

It is the greenhouse effect, not the CO2 greenhouse effect and it is working in every atmosphere in this universe that has gases that we call greenhouse gases (LW radiation absorbing and emitting gases). If you’d care to understand how it works you would know that and don’t make claims like the one quoted …

The gravity/pressure effect explains at least 6 planets well. Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury…even Earth.

No, it can’t. You have been told the reasons and you choose to ignore them. Got it. Gravity and pressure can only cause warming (in an open system) when something moves, e.g. contraction is happening = pressure increasing. And that’s probably the main source of the surplus heat for the gas giants. It doesn’t work that way for rocky planets and there is a fundamental difference between retaining heat due to the greenhouse effect and generating heat because of gravity still compressing a planet. You seem to think that this is one and the same … do you?

Stay in wonderland Kenneth or try to understand how the mechanisms work. It’s not that hard, promise.

19. Kenneth:

Let’s review. You wrote a post that cited favorably several papers that advocated what can be called the “atmospheric pressure effect”. These papers argue against the mainstream “radiative greenhouse effect”, so we can call these competing theories.

The phenomenon that must be explained is that the surfaces of “rocky” planets with atmospheres emit substantially more power than the planet and its atmosphere absorb from the sun. (This is more thermodynamically precise that just saying they are hotter than expected, because you can do energy conservation calculations, as energy is an extensive property and temperature is just an intensive property.)

Let’s look at some of the papers you cite:

NZ2017: “Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure… A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition.”

Jelbring 2003: The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ as a Function of Atmospheric Mass: “it is shown that GE [the greenhouse effect] can be explained as mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravity field… The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part of a planetary GE [greenhouse effect] depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.”

So these are all talking about planets with definite surfaces and without any significant internal source of power. This means they are not discussing Jupiter and Saturn, which are gas giants and still have significant internal sources of energy.

They also are rejecting the idea that the radiative properties of the atmosphere can explain this phenomenon. (You apparently do not share this opinion, at least not completely. But I was reacting to the papers.)

So in looking at these theories with my training in thermodynamics, I start how my professors taught me, with a basic 1st LoT energy balance analysis. We’ll use the Earth as an example. The surface emits about 500 W/m2 through radiative, conductive/convective, and evaporative means, averaged over the surface. However, the Earth system only absorbs about 240 W/m2 from the sun, again averaged over the surface. These values are known through measurements to within a few percent, so the difference cannot be measurement error.

What physical effect can bring the surface into (at least approximate) energy balance? These theories reject the idea that “downwelling longwave infrared radiation” can do it, as the radiative greenhouse effect argues.

In that case, what else could? I find it telling that none of these papers do any of this analysis. If it is atmospheric pressure/mass as these papers claim, then the only possibility is mechanical work. Certainly, the weight of the atmosphere provides a downward force on the surface. But as we (including Pierre) keep pointing out, unless this force causes motion, there is no work, and therefore no power transfer.

And remember that this must be an ongoing continuous power transfer — about 250 Joules per square meter every second. Andy’s claim that this could be the “strain energy” from the springiness of the surface shows he just does not understand the difference between energy and power — a one time increase from the initial application of a force, versus an ongoing continuous significant transfer.

(By the way, I only mentioned my educational credentials after Andy taunted me by saying “I must admit that I am ASTOUNDED by your extreme base level IGNORANCE. !! BIZARRE doesn’t even start to cover it. !!!!!” Even Pierre said that Andy “shows an astonishing level of ignorance of basic physics.”)

Now, with the APE theories completely unable to make the energy transfers to and from the surface even come close to balancing out, that is quite simply the end of the story. They cannot be correct, whatever else they say. This is the beauty and the power of the fundamental thermodynamic analysis I was fortunate enough to learn.

You claim these theories do “seem to have at least some merit in explaining some of the patterns we see with planetary atmospheres.” I’m sorry, but if they blatantly fail the most basic of tests, they have no merit whatsoever.

You say: “Gravity/pressure doesn’t work the same way in your living room as it does surrounding Mars.” What??? Of course it does! Gravity is universal in effect. These theories that you cite approvingly say that it is the weight of the atmosphere on the surface that leads to higher temperatures. More weight, increased temperature.

Now, in the comments, you do allow room for the radiative properties of the gases, unlike the papers you cite. For a given atmospheric composition with some radiatively absorbing gases, more weight of the atmosphere causes more absorption, which means more “resistance” to radiative power transfer from the surface to space. This is standard “greenhouse effect” theory, not APE.

Some other quick points, as I am running out of time now.

You say: “There are gaping holes in the idea that CO2 is a planetary climate control.” This is a VERY different proposition from the idea that the presence of the radiative greenhouse effect leads to planets having significantly higher temperataures than they would without it. H2O, not CO2, is the primary “greenhouse gas” on earth, and there are so many other compensatory mechanisms that that proposition may be partially or even totally false.

You go on to say: “You can’t even provide physical, real world evidence that CO2 can heat the ocean.” Oh, Kenneth, please don’t tell me that you have fallen for the canard that because longwave infrared is absorbed in the top few microns of the water, it can’t cause an increase in the thermal energy of the water. We know from repeatable laboratory experiments that water absorbs 98-99% of the LWIR radiation on it, which means it adds the energy in that radiation.

It’s like arguing that because solar radiation is absorbed in the top few microns of a rock, it cannot add thermal energy to the rock, so rocks in the desert sun do not get hot.

You want physical, real world evidence? Shine a longwave IR laser (10.6um wavelength) down onto some water. You can make it boil. Plenty of people have done this.

Also, Mars used to have a significant atmosphere, and of course it had no more planetary mass than it does now. Then it lost its magnetic field, which allowed the solar wind to strip most of its atmosphere away. So your planetary mass/atmospheric pressure correlation is even more tenuous than it seems at first glance.

Enough for now. Many other things I need to do.

20. Chatbot EdBo blathers:

We do NOT espouse a “CO2 greenhouse effect”. We DO espouse a greenhouse effect, with CO2 being just one of the gases that can absorb thermal radiation from the surface.

What a crock! This is what you believe, that CO2 is the “control knob” dominating the climate.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

I don’t mind being disagreed with, but do stop your lying.

And, as I’ve posted before, the “feedback” from water vapor is negative, not positive, contrary to the claims in that NASA propaganda piece – as even simple experiments and analysis clearly demonstrate.
https://youtu.be/Y2K1uHvfaek

1. yonason:

Your mind-reading skills are as lousy as your scientific comprehension. What makes you think you know that “this is what [I] believe”.

As for my supposed “lying”, decorum keeps me from expressing what I think of you…

1. “What makes you think you know that “this is what [I] believe”.” – Chatbot-EdBo

Because that’s what you are defending.

21. Warmists and the IPCC state that humans emit 10 GT 0f C equivalent in CO2 emissions on an annual basis. But anthropogenic CO2 is not emitted in batches of 10 GTC every new year’s day, but continuously at a rate of 0.41GTC per day, or to be more to the truth, 0.000000285 GTC per second.

The total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and hydrosphere is 38,000 GTC. The daily anthropogenic emissions are 0.41 GTC which constitute just 0.0000634% of the total Carbon in the hydrosphere and atmosphere.

Anyone who believes that this anthropogenic insignificance can cause any changes to our incontrollable climate is a fool.

1. Hey Pete, why not go all the way and calculate it per nanosecond?

The total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and hydrosphere is 38,000 GTC.

Most likely even more, but what does it matter what amount of carbon is solved in the oceans? For the radiative greenhouse effect, the CO2 (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere are important. And those 10 GTC per year or 0.41 GTC per day are adding to the concentration (after natural absorption) around 2-3 ppm per year (link).

Anyone who believes that this is insignificant has a problem with math …

22. In my http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html presentation I went thru the undergraduate level computations showing that the notion that Venus’s surface temperature can be explained by some electro-magnetic , ie : spectral filtering , effect was quantitatively absurd .

Since then , it’s become clear that gravitational energy , which is inexcusably left out of the total energy balance equations is the explanation for why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops , ie : their orbital gray body temperatures .

The entire GHG paradigm is without quantitative testable physical foundation .

1. I can’t see how Gravity can create energy,it is the effect of it that cause energy to be measurable.

1. @sunsettommy 22. August 2017 at 3:36 AM

I’m having trouble with that myself.

I am able to accept that as energy enters an atmosphere, gravity and convection distribute it through the system. If it enters a transparent Earth-like atmosphere, heating it from the bottom, resulting in subsequent troposphere cooling as it expands and rises – or entering an opaque Venus-like atmosphere, heating from the top, and resulting in warming as it is compressed by gravity and descends.

But in the absence of added heat, I don’t see gravity creating it. But since that is a debate that hasn’t been definitively settled yet, as best I can determine, I’m not ready to commit to either camp yet.

It also seems to me that if there were a strong absorption of radiation by the atmosphere, that would make any “adiabatic” lapse rate impossible, since there would be a constant influx of heat, contrary to the adiabatic assumption, which gives such a good approximation of the actual lapse rate. I don’t doubt that there may be some radiative energy transfer by CO2 and H2O, but I think it’s a safe bet the warmists have a lot of it wrong. And, even if they don’t, judging by what awful people many of them are, they would be the LAST ones we would want to deal with any problems that might present.

1. Yonason: The adiabatic process in question is not heat transfer at the boundaries, nor radiative heat transfer by the atmosphere, but rather it is convection, which happens rapidly enough that the rate of energy exchange with the environment is negligible compared to the rate of work done in compressing the falling gases (or work released as rising gases expand). Adiabatic lapse rate is constraint on the vertical temperature gradient. If the gradient exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate, convection will work to redistribute energy so as to force it back to the limit. With no energy input, eventually the atmosphere would stabilize to an isothermal profile. Energy can only be exchanged with entities outside the atmosphere via conduction (from or to the surface) or radiation; convection is a redistribution mechanism.

1. ScottM

“With no energy input, eventually the atmosphere would stabilize to an isothermal profile.”

I’m leaning toward the latter (though not completely sold yet).

As to the former, where is the energy initially introduced into the parcel of air. And it has to be only initially, because a constant influx violates the adiabatic assumption, and would give a different profile, …wouldn’t it?

Not sure I see where we disagree.

2. To have a true adiabatic process, you’d need a material with zero emissivity, surrounded by a material with zero conductivity. In reality, the adiabatic assumption is always violated.

In nature, we have processes that are approximately adiabatic, such as convection. The atmosphere is heated at the bottom, radiatively and conductively, and cooled at the top, radiatively. In between, it is rising and falling. The expansion when rising happens fast enough that it is approximately adiabatic, and the compression when falling happens fast enough that it is approximately adiabatic. The constant influx is smaller than the work of expansion or contraction, so the adiabatic assumption is maintained (approximately).

Without energy input and output, though, convection would have to stop once the adiabatic profile is achieved. And from there, internal redistribution of heat would, over time, lead to an isothermal profile, resembling the stratosphere more than the troposphere.

2. Wait, you developed a model “to calculate the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated opaque colored ball”, and then applied it to a composite object consisting of an opaque ball surrounded by a *non-opaque* atmosphere, and then feigned surprise when your model didn’t match reality?

In terms of ranking models by accuracy, from best to worst, it goes like this: GCM, 2-dimensional model, 1-dimensional model, single layer model, your model.

3. Wait, you developed a model “to calculate the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated opaque colored ball”, and then applied it to a composite object consisting of an opaque ball surrounded by a *non-opaque* atmosphere, and then feigned surprise when your model didn’t match reality?

In terms of ranking models by accuracy, from best to worst, it goes like this: GCM, 2-dimensional model, 1-dimensional model, single layer model, your model.

1. The comment above on models was meant as a reply to Bob Armstrong; seems it isn’t getting threaded properly on the web page.

1. Indeed ScottM you are commenting on Bob Armstrong’s comment.

Counting down you are sub-threads 3 and 4, with just Kenneth Richard 22. August 2017 at 2:53 AM, and sunsettommy 22. August 2017 at 3:36 AM before you.
I know it’s hard to see (and it often loses me) on this blog due to the vertical spacing of the sub-sub-thread replies cascading down.
But you are only the third and forth (a repeat comment) to Bob Armstrong comment.

1. Yes I realized that later; somehow I misread the indentations.

23. I have a compressor for producing compressed air for spraying and tool drive. Yes, the comressed air gets hot durig compression, but cools after that within a few minutes, without no dedectable reduction in pressure – according to the limits of the gauge. This is the observational refutation of a handicraft worker.

Added heat is a by-product of compression, but it follows the laws of physics – entrophy. The additonal temperature will distribut through any available channel. The pressure remains (with a shlight decrease due to lower temps) only if it is confined.