Textbook Details Robust Planetary Theory
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.
“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”.
“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.
“The analysis indicates that the average surface temperature of the Earth is determined by the solar constant, the precession angle of the planet, the mass (pressure) of the atmosphere, and the specific heat of the atmospheric mixture of gases.”
“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.”
Adiabatic Theory: Textbook Science
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:
“The anthropogenic impact on global atmospheric temperatures is negligible, i.e., 5%.”
“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
“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.”
“Observations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.”
“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.”
“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 “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
“Here, using a different approach, 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. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part of a planetary GE [greenhouse effect] depends on its atmospheric surface mass density. Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere.”
“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
“As Sorokhtin et al. (2007) mention, until recently a sound theory using laws of physics for the greenhouse effect was lacking and all numerical calculations and predictions were based on intuitive models using numerous poorly defined parameters. In order to investigate the phenomenon they devised a model based on wellestablished relationships among physical fields describing the mass and heat transfer in the atmosphere. This model uses a general approach for obtaining analytical solutions for global problems and can be further refined to incorporate additional parameters and variables for examining local problems.”
“Their model was based on the observation that in the troposphere (the lower and denser layer of the atmosphere, with pressures greater than 0.2 atm) the heat transfer is mostly by convection and the temperature distribution is close to adiabatic. The reasoning for this is that the air masses expand and cool while rising and compress and heat while descending.”
“Basic formulae describe among others, the heat transfer in the atmosphere by radiation, the atmospheric pressure and air density change with elevation, the effect of the angle of the Earth’s precession and the adiabatic process. For the adiabatic process the formula considers the partial pressures and specific heats of the gases forming the atmosphere, an adiabatic constant and corrective coefficients for the heating caused by water condensation in the wet atmosphere and for the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere.”
“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
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L82YMAuhjvw&feature=youtu.be
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!
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 …
How substantive and persuasive a “rebuttal”.
Have you figured out how to explain why Venus and Mars have surface temperatures +447 degrees C warmer and -75 degrees C colder (respectively) than Earth despite both having 950,000 ppm CO2 atmospheres (compared to Earth’s 400 ppm) without using (a) distance from the Sun or (b) atmospheric pressure gradients (Venus 92X denser, Mars 100X thinner) as determinants of planetary temperatures?
I don’t need to figure that out, I know it because I understand the greenhouse effect. And why would temperature not depend on the distance from the Sun and the composition of the atmosphere?
What’s physically impossible is that pressure is causing a permanent increase in temperature in an open system like the atmosphere of a rocky planet but I see where this belief comes from and it is fun to watch you guys rallying behind this concept as a possibility to question the radiative greenhouse effect 😉
Why expect a rebuttal? Even some of the quotes you put up here are clear pseudo science, no need to actually read those papers (as can probably not be done with a straight face).
You have yet to even answer the question, despite being asked about 15 times. All you do to “answer” it is write that you understand how the greenhouse effect works. That’s nice. So then why not answer the question?
OK, so answer this question, please.
According to the theory, the 33 K greenhouse effect is caused by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – when CO2 concentrations are 280 ppm. So explain why it is that the CO2 greenhouse effect is significantly responsible for as much as 20% of the 33 K of the heat in the atmosphere when CO2 levels are 280 ppm (6.6 K), but when CO2 concentrations are doubled to 560 ppm, the temperature increase only amounts to 1.2 K (IPCC). That’s quite a dropoff in temperature forcing, isn’t it? The first 280 ppm causes 6.6 K of heat, the next 280 ppm causes 1.2 K. So the higher the concentration, the (much) weaker the forcing.
I think I’ve learned not to expect one from you…especially anything of substance. Your “rebuttal” in this case was, well, look at the .jpg, it says that this is a textbook about oil and gas production, so anything written here is “pseudoscience”. That’s ad hominem. That’s what many commenters here write about your beliefs re: CO2 heating the ocean, or CO2 warming the atmosphere (that they’re pseudoscience, akin to religious belief). Do you find it substantive when they write that about what you believe to be true?
“…I understand the greenhouse effect.” – chatbot_SebH
hahahahahahahahaha
But you can’t provide a shred of scientific evidence to prove it.
Sorry, SebH, but you CANNOT “understand” it, if you can’t show with reliable reproducible data that it works the way you claim that it does. You have never done that. But don’t feel bad. You aren’t alone. No one has.
yonason,
SebastianH understands the greenhouse effect, which as Gavin Schmidt even says, is a “thought experiment”. Of course he can’t “prove it” or demonstrate that it “works”. The 33 K greenhouse effect is just a explanation of what is thought might possibly be true. SebastianH apparently thinks it’s more than that: hard science.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a “thought experiment” than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.
Lovely video on a number of problems with warmism, some real gems on the models. A fun watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA
@Kenneth Richard 11. August 2017 at 4:03 AM |
Yup! Gotta start somewhere, after all, as long as one realizes it’s just a first approximation.
To bad that SebH doesn’t realize the he doesn’t so much “understand” as believe, based on his ability to faithfully regurgitate the simplistic pseudo-science narrative in his warmist catechism.
PS, obviously the adiabatic lapse rate is a much better approximation, so I was being a tad ASPE in my comments on that. 😉
Kenneth,
Because it is pointless to give you an answer with an elaborate explanation when you are actively trying to avoid to understand how the mechanism works. That’s why am telling you that you really need to learn how the greenhouse effect works. Your question will answer itself when you accomplished that.
Yes of course! Haven’t you learned anything about what the doubling of CO2 does? The effect is logarithmic. The feedbacks might not be logarithmic though.
I was specifically referring to the list of papers in the blog post when writing the term “pseudo science”. Why are you constantly using the “you made up this and that, that I never said” (not a literal quote!!!) defense and then proceed and make up stuff I didn’t say?
@yonason:
Even if there were no evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect, that should not stop you from being able to understand what it is supposed to do. Instead, commenters here regularly argue against something they don’t seem to understand.
@Kenneth again:
You write this
and then bring this quote to prove your point
That says it all. You have no clue what it is supposed to do. Do you really believe the lapse rate exists just by itself? Without any contribution by radiative effects? Do you really believe it starts somewhere in the atmosphere and causes the temperature to increase downwards?
P.S.: Most AGW proponents know that 33K is just a baseline you get from the S-B-law. Do you know in which direction that figure changes when you look at the influence of the greenhouse effect in more detail?
So then why not answer the question?
Why do you use this strange excuse for avoiding answering every time? Do you find it an effective evasion tactic? Why is your ability/willingness to answer a question stipulated on your perception of my understanding of “the mechanism”? Why not just answer the question anyway? It makes it appear as if you are running away defensively.
33 K is a thought experiment that attempts to explain planetary temperatures. It is no less theoretical and no more “hard science” than the adiabatic theory described here. They’re both models. One is just more popular than the other. Popularity doesn’t make one more “right” than the other.
As I said: because it is pointless. The information about the energy budgets of Mars and Venus (and Earth) is out there. Find it, learn how the greenhouse effect works, apply it to that information and then you might really understand. You wouldn’t believe anything I told you anyway and bring up further ridiculous out of context quotes of why it seemingly all contradicts itself in your mind.
I am not evading here … just taking the route with less work and repetition involved.
You wish … the radiative greenhouse effect is not just a thought experiment. However, that belief should not stop you from trying to understand how it works before arguing against it, shouldn’t it? 😉
I find this rather amusing.
The 33 K greenhouse effect is precisely a thought experiment. Gavin Schmidt even acknowledges it. But you go ahead and contend that it’s “proven physics” anyway.
”
Nope, its even worse..
Its an unproven load of anti-science bollocks.
Chatbot SebH writes…
There you go AGAIN with one of your strawmen, chatbot. I know what it’s supposed to do, but just won’t believe it without proof. You are incorrigible!
It’s called optical depth, and it is vastly different between Venus and Mars (with Earth having an intermediate optical depth). It’s a function not of percentage but of total quantity of the absorbing gases.
There, that’s not so hard, is it?
With a 100 times thinner atmosphere, the 950,000 ppm CO2 Martian atmosphere would have the equivalent of a 9,500 ppm CO2 atmosphere on Earth. So there is a much higher concentration of CO2 molecules in Mars’ atmosphere compared to Earth’s. And yet Mars is still -75 degrees C colder than Earth.
“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?
The atmospheres of Mars and Venus both have about 950,000 ppm to 960,000 ppm CO2 (95%, 96%).
https://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html
Mars: “has a thin atmosphere that is 95 percent carbon dioxide.”
https://www.universetoday.com/14146/atmosphere-of-venus/
Venus: “the atmosphere of Venus…is made up of 96% carbon dioxide.”
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.
What you have just done (perhaps without realizing it) is explain why the “greenhouse effect” is actually the atmospheric pressure effect, and why parts per million (0.000001) variations in atmospheric gases on planets are inconsequential in determining the planetary temperature relative to the gravity/density of the planet’s atmosphere.
Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times denser than Earth’s. That’s the primary reason why it’s so much warmer on Venus than on Earth (in addition to its proximity from the Sun).
Furthermore, according to the IPCC, the “greenhouse gas effect” is predominantly due to H20, not CO2.
That’s one of the reasons why they acknowledge that CO2 can only cause a 1.2 K increase in temperature when doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, but H2O feedbacks are alleged (“believed” is the word they choose) to cause an additional 3 K (or more) of warming (the ECS value). I say this because the H20 “greenhouse gas” effect does not exist on Venus. 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?
You certain are chasing your own wind, aren’t you.
Let’s see some empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
No, he didn’t … stop misinterpreting even the simplest of sentences, Kenneth!
Seriously? Are you really asking this with a straight face?
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.
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?
Straight face.
Um, isn’t CO2 supposed to be the 2nd-most important GHG in the 33 K S-B “thought experiment” after H20? Methane, for example, is said to be something like 1% or less by comparison. According to Gavin Schmidt, CO2 accounts for 20% of the theoretical 33 K greenhouse effect. That’s 6.6 K when CO2 concentrations are 280 ppm, or in its non-human-disturbed state. When doubled by another 280 ppm, the temperature increase from CO2 amounts to only 1.2 K. 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?
“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.
“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. !!
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.
Define “very cold” quantitatively. Currently Venus is +462 C. How much heat would it lose with the CO2 removed? What observational evidence do you have to allow you to arrive at that value (whatever it is)? Or are you just guessing?
I ask because of the theoretical greenhouse effect of 33 K, the highest percentage of that heat that is attributed to the CO2 concentration is about 20% (6.6 K) when CO2 concentrations are 280 ppm. Doubling that value (to 560 ppm) only results in a temperature increase of 1.2 K (IPCC). In other words, the higher the CO2 concentration, the lower the increased heating effect. It’s kind of like painting a window black to eliminate transparency. Once the first two coats have been applied, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th coats have negligible impact on eliminating transparency. Following that line of thought, removing very high concentrations of CO2 from an atmosphere to moderately lower levels may only modestly affect the temperature.
Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times more pressurized than Earth’s. Do you believe this has less to do with the Venusian surface temperature than the type and concentration of gases in its atmosphere…or the distance from the Sun?
Unsubstantiated suppository driven NONSENSE.
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..
do -> did.
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.
Meant to add..
…. Taking into account incoming energy variability.
Kenneth,
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.
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?
This isn’t an answer. I’ll ask again.
Why does the first 280 ppm of CO2 heat the planet by 6.6 K within the 33 K greenhouse effect thought experiment (assuming Gavin Schmidt is correct that CO2 makes up 20% of the GHE heating), but the next 280 ppm of CO2 concentration only heats up the planet by 1.2 K? That’s a reduction by more than a factor of 5. (5 X 1.2 = 6 K)
6.6 K reduced to 1.2 K upon doubling is produced by the same forcing?
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?
3.7 W m-2 is the theoretical forcing value for doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, which yields a temperature change of 1.16 K.
How is it that the forcing value for the 280 ppm CO2 6.6 K greenhouse gas heating (20% of the 33 K thought experiment that is the basis of the theoretical GHE) is the same as the forcing value for doubling that 280 ppm concentration to 560 ppm? If 6.6 K is the baseline heat from CO2 at 280 ppm in the thought experiment, what forcing value is associated with it? And how could that forcing value possibly remain the same if doubling that same level of CO2 concentration yields a dramatic drop in temperature in this greenhouse effect thought experiment (that you apparently think is proven physics)?
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 !
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.
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
So all you’ve done is just remove the theoretical Venusian greenhouse effect temperature value from the theoretical Venusian non-greenhouse effect surface temperature value. That doesn’t make your answer any less of a guess.
But let’s go with it. So you believe that removing the CO2 from the atmosphere of Venus causes the temperature to drop by more than half (the Venusian surface temperature is 462 degrees C). I’m curious as to how this difference can be so large considering the alleged effect of CO2 for the Earth’s greenhouse effect is so much more modest, especially with higher and higher CO2 concentrations.
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s temperature is said to be 255 K; the greenhouse effect adds 33 K to the planet’s temperature per the theory/model/thought experiment.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a “thought experiment” than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.
Of that 33°C, at most 20% is claimed to be attributed to the preindustrial CO2 concentration 280 ppm. (The rest of the 33 degrees is mostly H2O, of course.) So about 6.6°C of the 33°C theoretical greenhouse effect is assumed to be delivered by CO2 at that preindustrial concentration. Now, when that same CO2 concentration is doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, the radiation models espoused by the “consensus” say the surface temperature will increase by 1.2°C from that CO2 doubling alone. Again, the first 280 ppm causes 6.6°C of the 33°C greenhouse effect, but the next 280 ppm causes only 1.2°C. The higher the concentration goes, the increasingly negligible the temperature forcing. This is what prompted Schneider and Ransool (1971) to conclude that even if we were to increase the Earth’s CO2 concentration by a factor of 8, the temperature response would be less than 2°C.
“It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2°K”
Now consider that on Venus, there is no H2O greenhouse effect. It’s nearly all CO2…which has been theorized to only be radiatively effective at producing significant heating at its lower values; the higher the CO2 concentration, the (much) weaker the effect.
With this in mind, why do you believe that removing CO2 from Venus’ atmosphere and replacing it with a non-greenhouse gas would cause the temperature to plummet from 462 K to 220 K (by -242 K!) if the CO2 influence becomes increasingly negligible at higher concentrations?
Furthermore, by claiming what you do about nitrogen (that it would make Venus “very cold” if it replaced CO2), you appear to be glossing over the fact that Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times denser than Earth’s (and Mars’ is 100 times thinner than Earth’s, where it is -60°C colder). This begs the question: To what extent do you think the atmospheric density of a planet is determinative of its temperature relative to its CO2 concentration? Does atmospheric density matter less to planetary temperatures than CO2 concentration, or more?
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.
(1) So to be clear, you’re acknowledging that the greenhouse effect from H2O and CO2 that adds 33 K to the planet’s temperature is “just that”, a thought experiment? My, that’s quite a bit different than calling it “proven physics” like you have previously. Gavin Schmidt’s words must have influenced you.
(2) That’s the Myhre (1998) modeledformula for calculating the radiative forcing value for doubling CO2 concentrations (3.7 W m-2), yielding a modeled temperature change of 1.2 K.
(3) “A forcing is a change in the energy balance (incoming vs. outgoing) from some baseline.”
Agreed. We had quite a bit of a change during the Younger Dryas…
https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386a/images/gallery-2/full-res/pp1386a2-fig35.jpg
…but yet CO2 concentrations barely moved. How odd.
(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?”
The lowest CO2 values suggested for the planet are 180 ppm, not 140 ppm. So 180 ppm would have to be the baseline. Doubling 180 ppm to 360 ppm (reached in 1995) would only cause a temperature change of 1.2 K (according to the modeled, non-real-world results). This makes it even worse for you. Because if 180 ppm causes 6.6 K of the 33 K greenhouse effect in the thought experiment, and doubling that 180 ppm only causes 1.2 K more heating, increasing the CO2 concentration becomes even less important in determining planetary temperatures. Especially since the planet warmed up by +10 K from the end of the Pleistocene to the beginning of the Holocene, and CO2 could therefore only theoretically have contributed a few tenths of a degree at most to that.
Yes, I realize that the models say that it’s the same forcing (3.7 W m-2) for each doubling, but that doesn’t explain the dramatic dip from 6.6 K baseline (180 ppm) to 1.2 K (360 ppm). Your thought experiment has some rather large inconsistencies, among other problems. But that’s probably not new information.
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?
I wrote “the Venusian surface temperature is 462 degrees C” Kelvin vs. Celsius. I mistakenly used 462 K instead of C later on, failing to convert. My error.
But 740 K (actually 730 K) is even worse. Scott M believes removing CO2 would cause a 510 K drop in temperatures (730 to 220 K). He got that by subtracting 510 K from 730 K from this source. No observational evidence. Just pure conjecture for this replace-CO2-with-nitrogen thought experiment. Thought experiments are fun exercises, but they don’t replace real-world measurements.
Only 80% does. That’s hardly “almost all”. (Venus has an albedo of 0.8 vs. the Earth’s 0.3.) The other 20% of the 2643 W m-2 received is not reflected but absorbed. And with so much solar heat energy absorbed and then contained by the 92-times-denser atmosphere (an atmosphere that therefore doesn’t allow the absorbed heat to escape nearly as easily as on the 92-times-thinner Earth atmosphere), Venus is therefore much hotter than Earth significantly because its atmosphere traps the absorbed heat from the Sun 92 times better than the Earth’s atmosphere does.
Where are you getting this value?
Venus’ absorbed heat has a very good insulation towards space significantly because it has an atmosphere that is 92 times thicker/heavier/denser than Earth’s, which is far more effective at trapping heat than greenhouse gas molecules. Why do you keep on glossing over the atmospheric density difference? Your side routinely talks about the 100 times thinner (than Earth’s) Martian atmosphere as an explanation for why Mars is so much colder than Earth (-60 C), but you will not mention the 92 denser Venusian atmosphere in stating the reasons why Venus is so much hotter. It’s the double standard that exposes your bias.
On your latest reply in this thread (reply to the other one in spam folder?):
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.
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.
I have not written that it’s the “density alone”.
Correct. So the density of the atmosphere is determinative of the extent to which radiatively gaseous molecules can absorb and re-emit LW radiation. On Mars, where the atmosphere is 95% CO2 but 100 times thinner than Earth’s, the radiative gases can’t be as effective trapping heat as they can be on Earth, which has a 100 times thicker atmosphere but 99% of its gases are non-radiative nitrogen and oxygen. Therefore, Earth’s heat-trapping properties can be said to be determined more by the thickness of its atmosphere than by the greenhouse gas concentrations when comparing Earth to Mars.
Why do you keep on glossing over the atmospheric density difference [between Mars and Earth and Venus]?
It’s well more than “half” the story, but even if it was only half the story, with a 100 times thinner atmosphere than Earth, Mars’ much colder temperatures are therefore significantly determined by its thin atmospheric density.
Atmospheric density is one of the “two main reasons” that Mars is colder than Earth. This is what I have been saying all along. Why do you disagree?
https://www.universetoday.com/14705/how-cold-is-mars/
There are two main reasons that Mars is colder than Earth: it is farther from the Sun and it has an atmosphere that is too thin to retain heat.
https://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html
Mars’s atmosphere is about 100 times thinner than Earth’s. Without a “thermal blanket,” Mars can’t retain any heat energy.
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
Yes, and since Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s with 95% CO2, even if we divided its 950,000 ppm CO2 by 100, we’d still get 9,500 CO2 molecules for Mars for every 400 CO2 molecules for Earth. And yet Mars is -75 degrees colder than Earth (-60 C).
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. !!
A list for which you have no reply just an Ad hominem.
How sad.
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.
They are firmly blinkered…
Yes, “ACC devotees” are about as close-minded and non-skeptical as can be.
Well, are they funded by oil companies or not?
They are Ph.D. university professors. They write textbooks and scientific papers. Who do you think pays their salaries, and on what evidence do you base that argument?
Why can’t you move beyond ad hominems?
I am just asking. Are they funded by oil companies or not? Why react like that?
Research grants can be paid for by private entities, you know? And it is a valid question about authors who have published nothing but oil and gas related books/papers. It’s their topic of research, so if skeptics can insinuate that AGW proponents are somehow paid for their scientific output, why is that a problem when asking who pays for oil and gas related research? Especially if they include a graph like this: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CO2-Emissions-and-Global-Temperatures-Non-Correlation-Robertson-Chilingar-2017.jpg
Again, they’re Ph.D. university professors in geological/engineering departments with expertise in heat transfer physics who have authored 12 textbooks, 70 books, and published 575 scientific papers between them. Why are you assuming that they must be suspect?
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)
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:
Radiative Equilibrium or Radiative Poppycock?
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 in the link)
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.
(Chart in the link)
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.”
(Chart in the link)
More here in the link:
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/archives/Radiative%20Equilibrium%20or%20Radiative%20Poppycock.pdf
Wow. TSI ratio of 15:1,368, and the planetary temperature is just 15 degrees C different…because of the atmospheric pressure gradient.
And yet many still believe that 0.000001 changes in a planet’s atmospheric CO2 concentration are the main determinants of planetary temperatures…because they’ve been taught that all other non-CO2 explanations are “ridiculous” and “denier”.
Real science doesn’t care about “consensus”.
And pseudo science doesn’t care about anything? 😉
So you skeptics now believe that there is some chosen height in each atmosphere from where the temperature increases downwards? Are you sure that it is not the other way around?
I find it funny how the author of sunsetttommy’s paper seems to be aware of the pseudo science status of his ramblings: “How such heating is accomplished is a matter of conjecture at this stage of our understanding. […] But by whatever means atmospheric pressure due to gravity generates heat by itself […]”
Perhaps you should actually read about these models rather than pivoting to ad hominems first, then making up wording of your own in an attempt to marginalize. That would be the more above-board approach. Are you capable?
—————————————
Florides and Christodoulides, 2009
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Christodoulides/publication/23226792_Global_warming_and_carbon_Dioxide_through_sciences/links/0fcfd50fd4db9a04f6000000/Global-warming-and-carbon-Dioxide-through-sciences.pdf
The adiabatic theory of the greenhouse effect
As Sorokhtin et al. (2007) mention, until recently a sound theory using laws of physics for the greenhouse effect was lacking and all numerical calculations and predictions were based on intuitive models using numerous poorly defined parameters. In order to investigate the phenomenon they devised a model based on wellestablished relationships among physical fields describing the mass and heat transfer in the atmosphere. This model uses a general approach for obtaining analytical solutions for global problems and can be further refined to incorporate additional parameters and variables for examining local problems.
Their model was based on the observation that in the troposphere (the lower and denser layer of the atmosphere, with pressures greater than 0.2 atm) the heat transfer is mostly by convection and the temperature distribution is close to adiabatic. The reasoning for this is that the air masses expand and cool while rising and compress and heat while descending.
I read them and understand what they mean … do you? btw, the part you quoted from my response was a question. Do you care to answer?
Do you think that this process can be used to increase heat content in anything? You haven’t understood the adiabatic lapse rate either, have you? If this were physically possible you could easily construct a perpetuum mobile.
“I read them and understand what they mean ”
ROFLMAO
Stop the comedy act, seb
You have proven you have NO IDEA. !!
“You haven’t understood the adiabatic lapse rate either, have you?”
You most certainly haven’t got the vaguest clue, seb
Heck, you can’t even produce any science to back up the most basic FARCE of your little anti-science AGW religion.
CO2 warming.. EMPTY, NOTHING !!!
Assertions such as this bereft of any scinetific principles and explanation are easy to make, but carry no weight. Please enlighten us how to make this machine. I am sure that many would like to know.
Sorry that you have no clue what you are talking about. Your understanding of basic Fizzics seems to be basically non-existence.
You are passed any hope of ever learning…
…. because YOU DON’T WANT TO.
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.
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.
In addition to the distance from the Sun, gravity/atmospheric pressure can explain the temperature differences between planets, or why Earth is +15 C, Mars is -60 C, and Venus is +462 C.
The gravity/pressure “constant” keeps planetary temperatures relatively stable over eons.
As for explaining why oceanic temperatures (0-1000 m) fluctuate by +/- 2 degrees C over the course of 200 years on Earth, that is likely due to insolation variances.
Bova et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071450/abstract
Rapid variations in deep ocean temperature detected in the Holocene
The observational record of deep-ocean variability is short, which makes it difficult to attribute the recent rise in deep ocean temperatures to anthropogenic forcing. Here, we test a new proxy – the oxygen isotopic signature of individual benthic foraminifera – to detect rapid (i.e. monthly to decadal) variations in deep ocean temperature and salinity in the sedimentary record. We apply this technique at 1000 m water depth in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during seven 200-year Holocene intervals. Variability in foraminifer δ18O over the past 200 years is below the detection limit [a change in ocean heat cannot be detected in the past 200 years], but δ18O signatures from two mid-Holocene intervals indicate temperature swings >2 °C within 200 years.
Not arguing with any of that, but I think the mistake here is mislabeling the process as adiabatic, when it isn’t.
See also here…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
NOTE – I hate to be using Wikipee, but they’ve got that right.
Addition or loss of heat from the system isn’t allowed; but every day heat is added and every night heat is lost.
Changes of state aren’t allowed; but water is a major contributor to earth’s climate, and large amounts of it are constantly evaporating and condensing into and from the atmosphere.
They keep using that word. I don’t think they know what it means.
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).
Yes, I’ve never really understood why there is such a drive to quickly dismiss theoretical models that don’t align with the theoretical models that are more popular, such as the 33 K greenhouse effect. The adiabatic theory is no less a model than the 33 K greenhouse effect model, which as Gavin Schmidt himself says, is “more of a ‘thought experiment’ than an observed state.”
So why are we insulting one another with ad homs when all that’s being done here is comparing one “thought experiment” with another? It’s not like this is hard physical science.
You haven’t understood lots of things, but this is about models that contradict known (and proven) physics. The lapse rate is an effect not a cause for anything.
And there it is a again … Mr. Schmidt isn’t saying that the greenhouse effect model is a thought experiment. You totally misunderstood that sentence … the 33 K figure is the result of a thought experiment, not the effect.
The 33 K greenhouse effect is a theoretical construct, a “thought experiment”, not “proven physics”.
Correct. And the 33 K figure is the basis of the theoretical greenhouse effect.
I was thinking about basic laws of thermodynamics when writing “known (and proven) physics”. And no, the greenhouse effect is not a theoretical construct. I don’t know why you think that what Gavin Schmidt writes means anything like that.
No, it is the difference from observed average surface temperatures and what temperature the surface would be at according to the S-B-law without a greenhouse effect (and same albedo, etc). This is a good baseline, but not the whole story. If you’d try to understand what the greenhouse effect is and how it works, you will eventually “get it”.
So H2O and CO2 causing nearly all of the 33 K of heat in the greenhouse effect is not a theoretical construct? It’s been observed in the real world?
Do you know what a theory is, SebastianH? It’s an even higher standard than a hypothesis…and a hypothesis requires observational, real-world evidence. And the 33 K greenhouse effect (with CO2 contibuting 6.6 K of that heat) is purely an assumption about what might possibly explain planetary heating. And we won’t even mention the problem of how it can be contended that CO2 concentration changes cause net heat changes in the oceans when that has also never been observed (or measured) in the real world either.
Your lack of skepticism is quite revealing.
“You haven’t understood lots of things, but this is about models that contradict known (and proven) physics”
No seb , we are NOT talking about the CHIMP5 models.
Proven physics…..
ROFLMAO
Where is your PROOF , seb
it has been conspicuously ABSENT from the very beginning !!
Your ideas about physics come from FANTASY LAND.
Indeed, if I haven’t been driving, the air in my tires has the same temperature as ambient.
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?
Venus’ surface temperature is 462 degrees. Earth’s is 15 degrees. Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times denser than Earth’s, and it is significantly closer to the Sun. Not sure what you are referring to that is “roughly the same”. (Added a zero…Earth’s CO2 concentration is 0.04%, not 0.004%.)
Have you read what saboga wrote and quoted? Re-read it and maybe it becomes clearer …
Saboga has an interesting definition for “roughly the same” … Venus is about 50 K hotter at the height with a pressure of 1 bar than Earth is at 1 bar (surface).
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.
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.
From https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chemical_Principles/Gas_Laws_and_the_Kinetic_Theory
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.
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.
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.
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….
I think that was an attempt to smear and marginalize.
It failed miserably.
It failed because Gravity is already everywhere. It changes when there is more or less mass in a given area.
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.
Well stated, Brett. 🙂
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
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.
Define “very cold” quantitatively. Currently Venus is +462 C. How much heat would it lose with the CO2 removed? What observational evidence do you have to allow you to arrive at that value (whatever it is)? Or are you just guessing?
Do you think Venus would be the same temperature or even hotter when the CO2 would be replaced by an equal mass of an inert gas like nitrogen? Can you explain the mechanism that causes whatever your answer might be?
I don’t know what the Venus temperature would be with the CO2 removed and replaced with an inert gas. This is a thought experiment that is not based on an observed state, just as the Earth’s 33 K greenhouse effect is a thought experiment (it assumes surface temperatures would be 255 K without an atmosphere instead of 288 K with an atmosphere). Thought experiments (What would the Earth’s temperature be if it didn’t have an atmosphere?) don’t have real-world physical measurements. That’s why your presumption that the 33 K greenhouse effect is “proven physics” is regarded as presumptuous at best.
The temperature of Venus is mostly determined by its distance from the Sun and its atmospheric density – 92 times heavier than Earth’s. The constitution of the atmospheric gases is much less determinative of planetary temperatures than those two parameters.
Venus’s temperature on its “dark” side is pretty much the same as on the “sunny” side.
Only the pressure gradient could maintain that.
The thought experiment is still not what you think it is. It’s hard to argue with someone who is unwilling to understand that the 33 K value results from calculating Earths temperature from the S-B law and comparing that with the observed surface temperature. It has nothing to do with assuming Earth having no atmosphere. The 33 K value is a good baseline. When you go into detail you’ll discover that Earth is not only 33 K warmer than it would be without a greenhouse effect, the effect is much greater.
And that’s where you and the list of pseudo science papers in the blog post are wrong. You can’t look at an effect and say it is the cause. Another thought experiment for you: let’s say you could alter the surface temperature in a large area by heating the ground. What will be the temperature gradient over that area? Do you think the surface got warmer because the gradient starting point at some “startheight” changed? Or is the gradient maybe starting from the surface and the temperature (due to the lapse rate) at each height is determined by the surface temperature and not the other way around? What do you think?
The Earth without an atmosphere is a thought experiment. The 33 K difference between 255 K and 288 K is the thought experiment resulting from the assumption that the Earth’s surface would be 255 K with no atmosphere. You can continue to deny that this is a thought experiment and a model and a theory, but that doesn’t make the 33 K greenhouse effect “proven physics”.
https://www.chemedx.org/blog/chemical-connections-climate-change
Thus Earth is 33 K warmer than what would be expected if there was no atmosphere.
https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a “thought experiment” than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
“This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth’s Surface would have if it didn’t have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth’s surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.”
http://oregonstate.edu/bmm/sites/default/files/announcements/Climate_Master_2009_CT_05Jan09.pdf
“If no atmosphere, Earth’s temperature would be 255 K”
https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527410988_c01.pdf
With no atmosphere, the Earth’s surface temperature would equal the radiative equilibrium temperature. If the Earth had an albedo of 0.3 without an atmosphere, then the surface temperature would be 255 K. Because the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation, the Earth’s surface temperature is 288 K. The difference, 288−255 K=33 K, is the greenhouse effect.
———————————–
The temperature of Venus is mostly determined by its distance from the Sun and its atmospheric density – 92 times heavier than Earth’s.
Isn’t it interesting that those on your side use the atmospheric density difference between Earth and Mars when explaining why Mars is -75 C colder than Earth despite having an atmosphere with 950,000 ppm CO2, but when it comes to the Venus, the 92 times denser (than Earth) atmosphere isn’t mentioned. For example:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
“The enormous greenhouse effect of 510 K (=730-220) on Venus is due to high levels of CO2 in its thick atmosphere. Mars has a much weaker greenhouse effect because it’s atmosphere is much thinner than that of the Earth.”
The double standard is striking. Venus is hot because of its 96% CO2, not because its atmosphere is 92 times thicker than Earth’s. Mars is cold not because it has 95% CO2 in its atmosphere, but because of its 100 times thinner atmosphere. It’s almost amusing to see the bias.
Andy, you don’t think 700 km/hr winds have anything to do with that? That would mix the temperatures pretty well. Or the fact that only a fraction of the radiation from the surface is emitted from the top of the atmosphere, and the rest is redirected back into the system?
Andy, no, Earth does not have the CO2 of Venus replaced by nitrogen and oxygen. You could think of it as Venus’s atmosphere, minus about 99.9% of its CO2, and with some nitrogen and oxygen and water vapor and a few other trace chemicals (totaling about 1/90 of the mass of Venus’s atmosphere) added back in.
I’d say that made a bit of difference. But *not* because of pressure. See my comment below explaining why pressure *cannot* explain surface temperature.
Does the 100-times thinner atmosphere (than Earth) on Mars, with its 95% CO2 greenhouse effect, have anything to do with why Mars is -75 C colder than Earth?
Apparently you disagree with this:
https://www.universetoday.com/14705/how-cold-is-mars/
There are two main reasons that Mars is colder than Earth: it is farther from the Sun and it has an atmosphere that is too thin to retain heat.
Since you believe (as stated in your “proof”) that the greater the atmospheric density, the cooler the atmosphere, one would assume you also believe that the lesser the density, the warmer the atmosphere. So why doesn’t Mars cooperate with your “proof”, Scott M?
And if you do agree that Mars’ 100 times thinner atmosphere has something to do with its much colder temperatures (despite 950,000 ppm CO2 greenhouse effect), why do you not believe that Venus’ 92 times denser atmosphere has something to do with its temperature (along with its 960,000 ppm CO2 greenhouse effect)? Why the double standard?
ROFLMAO.
And what do you think cause those winds, bozo !!
Ah, the wonders of…carbon dioxide.
“Venus’s temperature on its ‘dark’ side is pretty much the same as on the ‘sunny’ side.
Only the pressure gradient could maintain that.”
Andy, I’m sorry to inform you that you have stepped into a pile of your own b.s.
For, whenever pressure enthusiasts like yourself are confronted with the reductio ad absurdum argument that a planet with a heavy atmosphere similar to Venus, but positioned in interstellar space far from any star, would (by their pressure-only conjecture) be creating a continuous outflow of radiation because the pressure maintains a high surface temperature, and that this is a violation of conservation of energy, they always back-pedal by claiming it only works if there is sufficient insolation. (The math *still* doesn’t work for them, but hey, at least they dodged this contradiction.)
But you are now saying that pressure works fine to keep the temperature up on the night side of Venus, where the insolation is zero.
You can’t have it both ways, but you are screwed either way.
If pressure causes elevated temperature, then either it works in the absence of sunlight, and you violate the first law of thermodynamics, or it doesn’t work in the absence of sunlight, so you can’t attribute Venus’s hot night-time temperatures to pressure.
“And what do you think cause those winds, bozo !!”
Aw, did somebody get triggered???
No, just ROFLMAO at you base-level ignorance of all things to do with energy and the atmosphere.
And yes, you do seem to have been triggered into revealing just how incredibly little comprehension you have of anything to do with atmospheric physics.
And seb floats off into FANTASY land, yet again.
CO2 makes an immeasurable difference to atmospheric temperatures.
If you have empirical proof otherwise, produce it.
Earth’ atmosphere has that CO2 replaced by nitrogen and oxygen
It makes NO DIFFERENCE.
At the same pressures Venus and Earth are within a degree or so of what they should be relative to their distances from the Sun.
https://s19.postimg.org/zg2p7il83/venus_blog_112210_b.jpg
The SLIGHT variation around 300-600mb is due to the cloud layer.
Interesting way of comparing the temperatures at various pressures but do you think Venus is just 17.6% (that 1.176 factor in your image/table) nearer to the Sun than Earth?
Let’s look at the Venus fact sheet: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
The only thing with a factor of 1.176 between Venus and Earth is the mean orbital velocity.
Seb shows he has ZERO UNDERSTAND of the S/B relationship.
Nothing unusual about that.
Seb seems to have a Fantasy understanding about just about everything.
Pressure gradient sets the temperature..
GET OVER IT, seb.
I see none of you wanted to take on my proof that a denser atmosphere must be a cooler atmosphere, other factors being equal, choosing instead to respond to stuff posted farther up-thread (and so your responses are out of place here). I can understand the reluctance to take on the proof; you’ve all invested a lot in believing the opposite of what physics tells you.
So if a thinner atmosphere is a warmer atmosphere, which is the logical consequence of your “proof” that a denser atmosphere is a cooler atmosphere, why is Mars’ -75 C colder than Earth despite having a 100 times thinner (which means warmer) atmosphere than Earth and 950,000 ppm CO2 in its atmosphere compared to the Earth’s 0.04%?
Wow, Kenneth, do you not know what “other factors being equal” means? Read the proof. Venus’s atmosphere weighs more than Earth’s, which weighs more than Mars.
My proof stands; yours is not a counterexample because the other factors are not equal. In fact, no counterexample exists, as long as the ideal gas law holds, because the proof follows from the ideal gas law by mathematical necessity. Sorokhtin’s statement that greater density implies higher pressure and higher temperature lies in tatters, and your attempt to rescue it has failed.
Um, Scott, all other factors are NOT equal. So basically your “proof” is merely a thought experiment. Thought experiments aren’t proofs.
Mars atmosphere is not denser than Earth’s atmosphere; it’s 100 times less dense. And yet the denser atmosphere (Earth) is a warmer atmosphere, not a cooler atmosphere, even though you have claimed to have proven the opposite.
Yes, and the much thicker atmospheres are warmer. Your “proof” says the thicker atmospheres are cooler. And yet you write that “Sorokhtin’s statement that greater density implies higher pressure and higher temperature lies in tatters”. It would not appear to be lying in tatters if the denser atmospheres are the warmer atmospheres in reality when you have claimed in a thought experiment (“all other things being equal”) that the thicker atmospheres are the cooler atmospheres. Your thought experiment violates reality. So how is it a proof?
It is hard to see you completely ignoring what ScottM writes and just make up your own story of what is happening.
You really think that this is what he has written? That’s just wow …
KR: “Mars atmosphere is not denser than Earth’s atmosphere; it’s 100 times less dense. And yet the denser atmosphere (Earth) is a warmer atmosphere, not a cooler atmosphere“
You are (again) replying to this thread without seeing the whole thread, are you? That would explain a lot and why you don’t understand what ScottM has written or what it is that he is referring to.
Here is a link to the first post in the thread: https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/10/new-engineering-textbook-asserts-the-impact-of-co2-emissions-on-climate-is-negligible/comment-page-1/#comment-1226053
Maybe that makes it clearer for you what “a denser atmosphere must be a cooler atmosphere” means.
He’s referring to a thought experiment in his “proof” that “a denser atmosphere must be a cooler atmosphere”; hence his comment that he is assuming that “all other things equal”.
All other things are not equal. Mars does not have a denser atmosphere than Earth. It has a two orders of magnitude less dense atmosphere than Earth. Thought experiments are not “proofs”.
So the statement “a denser atmosphere must be a cooler atmosphere” doesn’t apply. Is it so hard to understand what he wrote in the first post on this thread?
“Sorokhtin’s statement that greater density implies higher pressure and higher temperature lies in tatters, ”
ROFLMAO..
Oh really Scott.!
Sorry child-mind, it is your base-level comprehension that is in tatters !!
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.
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.
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”!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you really think buildings would collapse without an energy source?
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.
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?
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.
I must admit that I am ASTOUNDED by your extreme base level IGNORANCE. !!
BIZARRE doesn’t even start to cover it. !!!!!
It’s not transferring heat energy; it’s containing it more effectively or less effectively based on atmospheric density.
Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s. Therefore, the heat from the Sun is lost to space much more readily and easily than for Earth despite the fact that Mars’ atmosphere is 950,000 ppm CO2 compared to the Earth’s 400 ppm CO2.
Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times denser than Earth’s. Therefore, the heat from the Sun that is absorbed on Venus cannot escape as easily as it can for Earth’s atmosphere.
Why would you think heat transfer might occur by putting barbells on a chair, Ed?
Sit in your car at noon on a cold day and keep all the windows open by 1 cm.
Now sit in your car at noon on a cold day and keep all the windows open by 30 cm.
Notice a temperature difference? Why? Because leaving the windows open by 1 cm allowed less heat to escape, whereas opening the windows by 30 cm allowed more heat to escape. The heat energy wasn’t transferred by the windows. The “density” of the escape routes (the difference between 1 cm and 30 cm) is what determined the temperature.
https://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html
Mars’s atmosphere is about 100 times thinner than Earth’s. Without a “thermal blanket,” Mars can’t retain any heat energy.
Kenneth:
In any introductory thermodynamics course, the first thing you learn is how to perform “energy balance” calculations on a system in accordance with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, conservation of energy. In steady-state conditions, energy in must balance energy out.
The earth’s surface has 500 W/m2 average power out, but we only get 240 W/m2 average power in. What makes up this huge difference? The APE people claim that it is the weight of the atmosphere.
So I went with that idea — of course, I was being sarcastic about the barbell weights, but that is the logical ramification of the APE argument; I was just showing how silly that is.
The only mode of heat transfer the earth/atmosphere has with the rest of the universe is radiative, so only radiative insulation is going to make a difference. A transparent atmosphere (e.g. N2 and O2 alone) cannot be a “thermal blanket” as the earth’s surface will simply allow the thermal radiation from the surface to pass through diretly to space.
To use your car analogy, the 30cm window opening is akin to a transparent atmosphere, permitting a lot of power to escape to ambient. The 1cm window opening is akin to an atmoshpere with lots of radiatively absorbing gases, permitting less power to escape to ambient for a given temperature, and requiring a higher car temperature to reject as much power as the car is absorbing from the sun.
I repeat the key point: Because the earth system can only transfer power to the rest of the universe through radiative means, radiative properties dominate.
And the “radiative properties” of a greenhouse gas like water vapour is far less influential in determining the temperature than direct solar irradiance modified by angle and albedo…and the density of the atmosphere that allows more or less heat to escape.
No, it’s akin to an atmosphere that is extremely thick (Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times thicker than Earth’s). The 30 cm window opening is akin to an extremely thin atmosphere (Mars atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s). Both Mars and Venus have 950,000 ppm CO2 atmospheres.
Why isn’t Mars warmer than it is with 950,000 ppm CO2…if radiatively absorbing gases are more determinative of temperature than its extreme atmospheric thinness?
Kenneth, do you think that 950000 ppm CO2 on Mars and Venus should amount to the same greenhouse effect? Or asked differently: do you think that 950000 ppm CO2 in both atmospheres means that both atmospheres contain the same amount of CO2?
No. (a) Distance from the Sun and (b) thickness of atmosphere predominantly determine the amount of heat retained at the surface.
No. Mars’ atmosphere is much thinner than Venus’ atmosphere. Therefore, more heat escapes with fewer heat-absorbing atmospheric qualities on Mars.
I didn’t ask what determines retained heat at the surface, Kenneth. I asked if you think that if the greenhouse effect were real that the same concentrations should result in the same greenhouse effect? Because it sounds like that when you repeatedly ask why Mars is colder than Earth or Venus.
And I didn’t ask whatever the last paragraph is an answer to either. But it is a great answer:
So what is the mechanism? What are heat-absorbing atmospheric qualities?
As I’ve answered multiple times now, NO, I don’t think the same heat-trapping effect occurs on Mars vs. Earth if they had the same number of CO2 molecules. You keep on insisting that that’s what I have written when I have not.
I’m not asking why. Mars is colder than Venus and Earth for these two main reasons. Do you agree or disagree with universetoday.com?
https://www.universetoday.com/14705/how-cold-is-mars/
There are two main reasons that Mars is colder than Earth: it is farther from the Sun and it has an atmosphere that is too thin to retain heat.
I agree with universetoday.com … nevertheless, the heat that is retained (yes, even on Mars) is retained because the radiative greenhouse effect exists.
Any news on what the mechanism for retaining heat is? How can density retain any heat? Or do you agree with the authors from your list of papers (in the blog post) that it is gravity that is doing this? AndyG55 seems to think this is the case, what about you?
What are the heat absorbing qualities of an atmosphere?
Because of the greenhouse effect. Without it the density of an atmosphere just means that is has a higher heat capacity but that doesn’t increase temperatures it only smooths temperature variations.
it’s containing it more effectively or less effectively based on atmospheric density.
No, because of the atmospheric density. The thinness of Mars atmosphere (100 times thinner than Earth’s) is why Mars is much colder than Earth despite having 950,000 ppm CO2 compared to Earth’s 400 ppm CO2 (and an atmosphere with less than 1% greenhouse gases compared to Mars’ 95% greenhouse gases).
Why do you disagree with this obvious statement?
https://www.universetoday.com/14705/how-cold-is-mars/
There are two main reasons that Mars is colder than Earth: it is farther from the Sun and it has an atmosphere that is too thin to retain heat.
Umm, Kenneth, the source you cite talks specifically about the greenhouse effect (radiative absorption). They make it clear that when they say its “atmosphere…is too thin to retain heat”, they are saying it does not have enough optical thickness (radiative absorption to “retain heat”.
Ed, the reason why Mars doesn’t have enough optical thickness is because its atmosphere is too thin to allow more radiative absorption. It’s the chicken before the egg. The thickness of the atmosphere is the chicken. The radiative absorption capabilities of the atmosphere are the egg. In other words, the thickness of the atmosphere is the temperature-determinative factor more than the gaseous makeup of the atmosphere is the determinative factor for Mars vs. Earth. The same principle holds true for Venus vs. Mars, with both planets having 95% CO2 in their atmospheres.
You seem to be confused, Kenneth. The amount of heat that can be retained is determined by the amount of greenhouse gases. The amount is the product of greenhouse gas concentration (A) and the density of the atmosphere (B). Both A and B are equally important.
It’s not just density that enables an atmosphere to retain heat. Without a radiative barrier or insulation, it’s impossible.
Why are you not able to see this? It’s like you are ignoring physics on purpose here.
Not confused. Why do you insist on adding these little barbs?
The amount of heat-absorbing gases is determined by the thickness of the atmosphere. Mars’ atmosphere has 95% (950,000 ppm) CO2. Earth’s atmosphere has 0.04% (400 ppm) CO2, and contains 99% nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%) instead. Because Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s, if we divide 950,000 ppm by 100, we still get a concentration of 9,500 ppm CO2 on Mars for every 400 ppm CO2 on Earth. And yet Mars is 75 C colder. The atmospheric density is what significantly determines the amount of heat absorbed (in addition to the distance from the Sun).
B is the determinant of A. The thinner the atmosphere, the smaller the heat-absorbing qualities of the atmosphere.
I have not written that it is “just” density, nor have I implied that an atmosphere’s thickness is the ONLY factor. Stop making up thoughts, attributing them to me, and then claiming I’m “confused” and “ignoring physics on purpose”. You’re not “winning” arguments by making up your opponents’ positions.
Great, and now please describe the physical mechanism that makes the atmosphere absorb heat relative to its density. Let’s see what you’ve got.
Well, on Earth, it’s the H2O that is predominantly responsible for allowing the atmosphere to retain more of its heat in its 100 times denser atmosphere than Mars. Do you agree?
Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014
As shown graphically in Figure 9, on average, each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by approximately 23 molecules of water vapour at ground level. This ratio is constant until the condensation temperature is reached at approximately 1500 metres altitude [12]. Condensation changes the water vapour into water droplets thereby reducing the ratio and releasing heat, some of which then radiates to space. If the warming effect of water molecules and CO2 molecules were the same, then the contribution of CO2 would be (1/22.7) = 4.4% of that of water vapour. But from the previous section, water molecules are 1.6 times more effective at warming than CO2 molecules. Using this value and the ratio of 22.7:1, the contribution of CO2 to warming of the atmosphere is approximately (1/22.7)/1.6 = 2.8% of that of water vapour. As water vapour is approximately 96% of the total RF of all of the GHG, the contribution of CO2 is approximately 4% less than this, i.e., 2.69%. If the average RH were 60%, the contribution of CO2 would be ((1/27.4)/1.32) x 0.96 = 2.65%. For practical purposes, these values are the same as the 2.7% obtained by the quadratic model.”
“An independent method estimating the world average ratio of water vapour molecules to CO2 molecules gives the same result, i.e., CO2 is responsible for approximately 2.7 % of the total RF of all of the GHG. Each of these two independent methods is sufficient by itself to prove CO2 is a much smaller contributor to global warming than has been previously thought. Another important finding by both methods is that, on average, water vapour accounts for approximately 96% of the current global warming. Therefore, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere control atmospheric
temperature.’
And by what mechanism are water vapor and other multi-atom-molecules doing that? Is that not the radiative greenhouse effect? What do you think would happen to an atmosphere if it would not contain greenhouse gases that are able to retain the heat?
I responded to this question with a single paper (of which I could provide you with many more). Why did you just ignore what’s written here and then ask the very same question?
I’ll ask you again: Do you agree that H2O is by far the most effective heat absorbing element in the Earth’s atmosphere, responsible for anywhere from 75% (NASA) to 97% (Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014, below) of the theoretical greenhouse effect? Yes or no? If so, how much of the heat for the theoretical 33 K greenhouse effect can be attributed to CO2? 20%? 6.6 K? More? Less? And if you agree it’s around there (6.6 K of the 33 K) for 280 ppm CO2 “baseline”, why does the doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm amount to so little additional heating – just 1.2 C? That’s a rather un-alarming temperature change from all that extra CO2, don’t you think? Why do you believe that a mere 1.2 C of warming – the highest amount that can be attributed to CO2 in theoretical models (Myhre, 1998), is dangerous and worth spending trillions on reducing emissions?
Finally, since Mars’ atmosphere contains more than an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules than Earth, where CO2 plays only a bit role relative to H2O, shouldn’t there be much more heat absorbed by the Martian atmosphere than there is…assuming, as you do, that CO2 is a determinative heat retention source? Why is CO2 so weak on Mars, SebastianH? Why can’t it retain more heat than it does there? Could it be because the atmosphere is so thin?
Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014
As shown graphically in Figure 9, on average, each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by approximately 23 molecules of water vapour at ground level. This ratio is constant until the condensation temperature is reached at approximately 1500 metres altitude [12]. Condensation changes the water vapour into water droplets thereby reducing the ratio and releasing heat, some of which then radiates to space. If the warming effect of water molecules and CO2 molecules were the same, then the contribution of CO2 would be (1/22.7) = 4.4% of that of water vapour. But from the previous section, water molecules are 1.6 times more effective at warming than CO2 molecules. Using this value and the ratio of 22.7:1, the contribution of CO2 to warming of the atmosphere is approximately (1/22.7)/1.6 = 2.8% of that of water vapour. As water vapour is approximately 96% of the total RF of all of the GHG, the contribution of CO2 is approximately 4% less than this, i.e., 2.69%. If the average RH were 60%, the contribution of CO2 would be ((1/27.4)/1.32) x 0.96 = 2.65%. For practical purposes, these values are the same as the 2.7% obtained by the quadratic model.”
“An independent method estimating the world average ratio of water vapour molecules to CO2 molecules gives the same result, i.e., CO2 is responsible for approximately 2.7 % of the total RF of all of the GHG. Each of these two independent methods is sufficient by itself to prove CO2 is a much smaller contributor to global warming than has been previously thought. Another important finding by both methods is that, on average, water vapour accounts for approximately 96% of the current global warming. Therefore, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere control atmospheric
temperature.’
It’s not the same question. I am asking that to verify that you seem to agree that it is the radiative greenhouse effect that retains the heat. I am not interested in lengthy quotes from obscure papers (we had a Lightfoot discussion before, I won’t go there again).
That’s just the result of the forcing without feedbacks. And the fixed forcing for each doubling of CO2 concentration shouldn’t surprise you if you understand what the GHE is.
Different topic. The resources to learn what certain increases in temperature mean are out there.
Oh and it is not just a change of 1.2 °C we are looking at: http://imgur.com/a/lckXJ … that would require massive CO2 emission reductions yesterday.
Of course, it is because the atmosphere of Mars is thin. What you don’t seem to understand is that it is the same greenhouse effect on Mars, Earth and Venus. Try to understand how it works and you’ll see that there are no contradictions that you are imagining here. Density plays a role too, but it is not what causes heat to be retained as you have correctly stated above, but seem to somehow imply (in the comments and by posting that list of papers in the blog article).
Until you get that we will continue to run in circles.
Unbelievable. How many times am I going to have to answer this? The dense H20 molecules in the atmosphere prevent some of the surface heat from escaping as easily as it would without the H2O present. The theoretical greenhouse effect on planet Earth – and nearly all of the 33 K extra heat in the “no atmosphere’ thought experiment – is predominantly (75-97%) due to H2O. CO2 plays a bit role. That’s why even the models of CO2 radiative forcing only yield a paltry 1.2 degrees temperature change upon CO2 reaching 560 ppm. The “dangerous” warming of 3, 4, 5 degrees C is believed to occur because of, not surprisingly, H20.
Furthermore, the atmospheric density of Earth is what creates the opportunity for H2O to exist on and around the planet. Too thin an atmosphere (like on Mars) prevents H2O from absorbing some of the escaping heat. That’s why I have been pointing out to you: that it’s the atmospheric thickness that is determinative – the chicken that comes before the egg.
Also with regard to atmospheric density, or pressure, this:
http://sciencing.com/difference-between-thick-thin-atmospheres-12302390.html
“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.”
why does the doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm amount to so little additional heating – just 1.2 C?
Um, yes, and the “feedbacks” mechanism that hypothetically causes (or is “believed” to cause, as the IPCC puts it) temperatures to rise to dangerous levels of 3 C and up is…H20. There it is again. CO2 can’t even cause dangerous warming on its own in the models. The dangerous warming is believed to result from H2O. CO2 can’t even cause more than a few Kelvin in the 33 K greenhouse effect no-atmosphere thought experiment; the H20 does the bulk of the heating…in the models. So again, why are you so worked up about CO2 since it only has a tiny effect on the planet’s temperatures (according to models)? Shouldn’t you be worrying more about…H2O?
Why is CO2 so weak on Mars, SebastianH? Why can’t it retain more heat than it does there?
THANK YOU! You finally admitted that the atmospheric density is determinative of the extent to which heat can be retained in a planetary atmosphere. Good for you. It only took about 25 times of trying to get you to answer.
Again, it is not a “no atmosphere thought experiment”. And you correctly noticed that you have to account for all greenhouse gases (including CO2). However, you’ve been only comparing CO2 when writing about Mars, Venus and Earth’s relative strength of greenhouse effects.
Because it is the gas (concentration) that we directly influence with our emissions. We don’t have a direct influence on water vapor concentration. It has so far been only an effect of temperature (as has CO2 concentration been, before the age of industrialization).
But it isn’t the density that determines how much heat can be retained. That would be equal to claiming that the mass of an object determines the force when accelerating said object. Is that so hard to understand?
How ironic that the very same person who keeps on telling me that I “don’t understand” the greenhouse effect doesn’t even know that the 33 K greenhouse effect is derived from a thought experiment of an Earth without an atmosphere. You apparently think it’s “proven physics”. Here, let me supply you with a tiny sampling of the quotes again.
https://www.chemedx.org/blog/chemical-connections-climate-change
Thus Earth is 33 K warmer than what would be expected if there was no atmosphere.
https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a “thought experiment” than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
“This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth’s Surface would have if it didn’t have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth’s surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.”
http://oregonstate.edu/bmm/sites/default/files/announcements/Climate_Master_2009_CT_05Jan09.pdf
“If no atmosphere, Earth’s temperature would be 255 K”
https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527410988_c01.pdf
With no atmosphere, the Earth’s surface temperature would equal the radiative equilibrium temperature. If the Earth had an albedo of 0.3 without an atmosphere, then the surface temperature would be 255 K. Because the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation, the Earth’s surface temperature is 288 K. The difference, 288−255 K=33 K, is the greenhouse effect.
why are you so worked up about CO2
But if the gas concentration that we contribute to with our emissions is only responsible for 3-20% of the theoretical greenhouse effect, and substantially increasing CO2 concentrations contributes increasingly smaller and smaller effects (nearly all of the theoretical GHE difference CO2 can theoretically contribute has already happened), it still doesn’t make a lot of sense to get worked up about CO2, spending trillions on intermittent energies and implanting cement and steel wind turbines into pristine landscapes and ocean fronts that kill wildlife (especially bats) by the millions per year, endangering their existence. Insisting that developing countries use wind and solar only hampers the development of their economies. Poor people across the world are routinely being harmed by the “green” emphasis on renewables, which only serves to drive up prices and make people energy poor. Tens of thousands of people in developed countries die each year because they can’t afford to heat their homes due to the skyrocketing energy costs from renewables. Why is this a good trade-off for trying to affect a change in CO2 concentration if CO2 concentration only theoretically contributes but a tiny percentage to greenhouse effect heat retention?
We also can theoretically contribute to methane concentrations, and methane is a far more potent GHG. So why do we never read your commentaries about how important it is to control our methane emissions? What’s the reason for your silence on methane?
Yes, it is.
The atmospheric density of Mars is too thin to allow an H2O GHE. And you’ve previously acknowledged that H2O accounts for at least 75% of Earth’s theoretical GHE (and it’s likely more like 97%). So why do you think the fact that the thinness of Mars’ atmosphere doesn’t allow H2O molecules to absorb heat is inconsequential to its -75 C colder (than Earth) average temperature…if the H2O GHE accounts for the vast majority (75-97%) of the theoretical 33 K greenhouse effect (thought experiment) here on Earth and the 3-5 degrees C of future dangerous warming alleged to occur by climate models?
The 950,000 ppm CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere isn’t keeping the planet warmer than it is…why? What’s the reason 950,000 ppm CO2 has such a relatively inconsequential effect on Mars, but yet you simultaneous say that the 950,000 ppm CO2 atmosphere of Venus is a main reason for its 462 C average temperature? What’s the key difference between Mars and Venus with regard to the effect that 95% CO2 atmospheres has? Is it not the thickness/thinness of their atmospheres?
Thanks for the quotes Kenneth. Try to read them before you make up stuff!
“the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo” … exactly that.
Some people continue to write that it (33 K) would be the theoretical temperature difference without an atmosphere, but that is not correct. You should know how this value is derived. It is just the difference between the observed average surface temperature and the blackbody temperature of Earth with the same albedo as it has now. Nothing more, nothing less. It should be obvious why this is a “thought experiment” … because the albedo wouldn’t be the same without any atmospheric absorption and other more complicated reasons. The 33K figure is therefore just the lower limit for the size of the greenhouse effect.
The change isn’t tiny at the end (http://imgur.com/a/lckXJ). Deciding whether or not it is a good idea to do something trying to mitigate the temperature/climate change is a subject of opinion. You can be skeptic about the efforts, etc and I won’t call you a denier or misinformer for this.
But you do by posting a list of pseudo science like the one in the blog post and trying to defend that nonsense while seemingly not understanding how the greenhouse effect works in detail, earns you those titles.
Homework for you: find out the forcing from the increase in methane emissions and how long lived methane in the atmosphere is.
You don’t need water vapor to be present for a greenhouse effect. Any radiation absorbing gas results in a greenhouse effect.
Of course it is keeping the planet warmer than it would be without radiation absorbing gases. Please check you sources …
You don’t understand it, do you?
F = m * ais the mass in this equation determining the resulting force or is the acceleration determining the resulting force or is it a combination of both?A thicker atmosphere with the same greenhouse gas concentration means that more greenhouse gas molecules are between the surface and space. Therefore more heat gets retained. It doesn’t work without greenhouse gases.
Despite you mentioning H2O as a greenhouse gas you seem to be convinced that it is the pressure/density itself that is causing the heat to be retained (by what you write in your replies and the list of papers in the blog post). You haven’t presented a physical mechanism how this should be possible without greenhouse gases. Can you do that or not?
Um, SebastianH, they continue to write that because the difference between 288 K and 255 K is routinely said to be the difference between Earth with and without an atmosphere. I provided about 5 quotes on that list. That was just the first 5 in my search terms (“288” “255” “33” “Earth” “no atmosphere”). I could have listed many dozens more if I was so inclined. There are pages and pages of commentaries from scientific sources advocating for the greenhouse effect that all say the same thing: 33 K is the difference between an Earth with an atmosphere and an Earth without an atmosphere. The Earth has an atmosphere. The Earth without an atmosphere is therefore a thought experiment.
If this blog article about the textbook with a detailed description of adiabatic theory is “nonsense”, why did you write that it is a general “rule” for planets (that you can list some exceptions to) that “the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be“? That’s almost exactly what this blog post is about: textbook science on adiabatic theory as it relates to atmospheric density. You here and elsewhere call it “nonsense” and claim that those who agree it has merit are “deniers” and “misinformers”, but just a few posts ago you agreed that the gravitational pull of planets determining the thickness or thinness of an atmosphere is a general “rule” of planetary conditions!
So why do we never read your commentaries about how important it is to control our methane emissions?
Exactly! Methane emissions have little to no effect on planetary temperatures. We agree. Curbing emissions is therefore an inconsequential pursuit. We also seem to agree that H20 is the dominant greenhouse gas, responsible for the vast majority (75% to 97%, you say the former) of the 33 K greenhouse effect, and we humans effectively have no direct control over the H20 content in the atmosphere. We also agree that the models say that doubling CO2 by itself to 560 ppm will lead to just 1.2 K of temperature increases, and the only means by which the models say temperature rises will reach dangerous levels (up to 6 degrees of warming) is via H20. So we generally agree about what the models say about CO2 warming vs. H20 warming and the influence of both gases within the theoretical greenhouse effect. We obviously don’t agree about just how important it is to mitigate emissions so as to prevent this modeled 1.2 K of warming. You believe 1.2 K of CO2 warming is dangerous and worth spending trillions to mitigate. I believe that the modeled 1.2 K of additional warmth from CO2 is not only not dangerous, it’s beneficial. During the LIA, droughts, hurricanes, floods, severe weather, crop failures, shorter growing seasons, more early deaths…were all far more common than they are now. Why would we want to go back to that?
Yes! In other words, the thicker atmosphere determines the extent to which the greenhouse gas concentrations can absorb heat. More GHG molecules are contained in thicker atmospheres than thinner atmospheres. 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. The difference between what a 95% CO2 atmosphere can do on Mars vs. what a 95% CO2 atmosphere can do on Venus comes down to atmospheric density. With a thin atmosphere, Mars’ 95% CO2 atmosphere can’t contain its heat well at all. With a thick atmosphere, Venus’ 95% CO2 atmosphere can retain its heat quite well. Atmospheric thickness is the determinant.
1) I provided you the correct quote from your list of quotes. That’s what the thought experiment is and it is a thought experiment because it assumes the albedo would not change. The greenhouse effect itself is no thought experiment. How often does this need to be repeated for you?
2) Why do you invent that I wrote that there is some kind of rule? There isn’t … higher gravity doesn’t generally mean that there is a thicker atmosphere. A planet’s ability to contain an atmosphere depends on much more than just gravity.
3) The greenhouse effect isn’t just 33 K … that is the lower limit determined by the thought experiment. If it were just 33 K we would see a higher average surface temperature on the Moon.
4) “I believe that the modeled 1.2 K of additional warmth from CO2 is not only not dangerous, it’s beneficial.” And that is perfectly ok. We disagree on that topic and I have no problem with that. The problem I am having with your argumentation is that you constantly confuse causes of/and effects, units, etc and it looks like you don’t fully understand the mechanisms involved. Case in point you vehemently defending the validity of the papers listed in this blog post.
5) “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.” That not at all what you have been saying and what the papers listed are saying. But since you said it now, I think you got it.
As long as you don’t think that atmospheric composition has nothing to do with how much heat can be retained. A thick Venus atmosphere consisting of transparent (to LW radiation) gases would not have the same effect as the current GHG rich atmosphere. The surface would directly radiate towards space without anything in the atmosphere being able to retain heat.
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.
You studied physics at MIT, and yet you thought you could warm up a chair by putting barbells on it?
Did I really need to add a tag?
thats a /sarc tag…
“You studied physics at MIT, and yet you thought you could warm up a chair by putting barbells on it?”
But Kenneth thinks he can warm up a planet by having an atmosphere sit on its surface.
Are you being INTENTIONALLY DUMB??
“You studied physics at MIT, and yet you thought you could warm up a chair by putting barbells on it?”
Huh? I didn’t write that. Earth’s 100 times thicker atmosphere than Mars means that less radiative heat from the Sun escapes to space than on Mars even though Earth has an atmosphere of non-radiative gases whereas Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2. The thinner atmosphere retains less heat. That’s a significant reason why Mars is colder.
Kenneth:
These “atmospheric pressure effect” papers you cite claim that the radiative properties of the atmosphere are irrelevant, and that it is simply the atmospheric pressure that controls the surface temperature (for a given insolation).
You say that “Earth’s 100 times thicker atmosphere than Mars means that less radiative heat from the Sun escapes to space”. Do you really think that a thick transparent atmosphere (e.g. just N2 and O2) would “mean that less radiative heat…escapes to space”, or are you just describing the “greenhouse effect”?
Ed,
Mars’ atmosphere is made up of 95% greenhouse gases. Earth’s atmosphere is made up of <1% greenhouse gases. And yet Mars is 75 degrees colder than Earth on average. Could it be, then, that the reason why Mars is so much colder than Earth be connected to its 100 times thinner atmosphere, which, like the 30 cm open windows in a car, allows more of the absorbed heat from the Sun to escape to space relative to the 1 cm open windows (like on planet Earth)? Do you believe that this statement is wrong about the two main reasons why Mars is colder?
https://www.universetoday.com/14705/how-cold-is-mars/
There are two main reasons that Mars is colder than Earth: it is farther from the Sun and it has an atmosphere that is too thin to retain heat.
By the way, I honestly did not realize you were employing sarcasm earlier with the barbells/chair comment. I am not unaccustomed to reading comments like that that were meant to be serious. I didn’t think the atmospheric thinness of a planet like Mars significantly determining its temperature would be viewed as an outrageous concept, so much so that it should be subjected to ridicule.
Kenneth:
The mass density of the earth’s atmosphere is so much greater than that of Mars that even with the much lower percentage of absorptive (“greenhouse”) gases, the physical density of these absorptive gases is greater on earth than it is on Mars.
It is this greater density of absorptive gases, and the resulting greater “optical thickness” (a concept that you need to become familiar with) that causes more resistance to radiative power flows on earth than on Mars.
Do you really believe that an atmosphere that is totally transparent to the radiation emitted by the surface (as an N2 + O2 atmosphere would be) would in any way inhibit the radiative power transfer from the surface to space? If so, what is the physical mechanism?
The papers you cite claim that it is the weight of the atmosphere that keeps the surface warmer than it otherwise be. My sarcastic example of trying to warm my chair with barbell weights was intended to show how ridiculous those claims are. You agreed that my example was ridiculous — so will you agree that those claims are ridiculous as well?
If the atmosphere of Mars contains 95% CO2 (950,000 ppm), and the CO2 molecules are spaced apart 100 times less closely than they are on Earth, would this not imply that the atmosphere of Mars contains the Earth equivalent of 9,500 CO2 molecules to the Earth’s actual 400 CO2 molecules since we’re dividing 950,000 ppm by 100?
But let’s look at what you wrote again: “The mass density of the earth’s atmosphere is so much greater than that of Mars…” Stop. Indeed it is. Why is this fact about Earth’s 100 times thicker atmosphere not considered a significant factor in determining its temperature? Why have you repeatedly just glossed over the atmospheric thickness of Mars relative to Earth in your attempts to exclaim that it’s the radiative gases, and not the atmospheric thickness, that is determinative of the planet’s temperature?
I’ll ask you again. Do you agree or disagree that the atmospheric thickness is one of the two main factors in determining the temperature of Mars relative to Earth? In other words, will you argue that the radiative gases of Earth vs. Mars are more of the determinant of the difference in planetary temperatures, or do you agree with universetoday.com that atmospheric thickness is more determinative than radiative gases?
https://www.universetoday.com/14705/how-cold-is-mars/
There are two main reasons that Mars is colder than Earth: it is farther from the Sun and it has an atmosphere that is too thin to retain heat.
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 !!!!!
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?
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. !!
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?
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.
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.
So, you DENY that the chair exerts a force to hold you up against gravity.
That is truly BIZARRE !!!
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.
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.
A little exercise for you Ed (literally)
Take a brick and hold it steady in your hand with your arm out horizontally.
Get back to me in 20 minutes and tell me you haven’t expended any energy or done any work.. 😉
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.
So, its “Strain energy” agreed. 🙂
To resist a force, you MUST apply another force.
Where does that force come from in the chair?
Pierre, if you can access my email
I am quite prepared to show my creds to you, only !
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“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. 😉
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
“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.?
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.
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?
Wow, Ed. You’re not helping yourself here.
Kenneth:
Andy said that “It [static pressure] most certainly does [transfer energy to the surface.”
I want to see him do the calculations.
Can you do them?
I’m on the edge of my seat wondering if either of them has the chops to calculate it.
Force acting downwards is about 785N, force acting upwards is the same.
Yes there is a FORCE ACTING UPWARDS.
Who woulda know. !!!
With enough info about the chair, you can calculate the deflection.
And dodo either of you two really think the air is stationary ?
Not ever done kinetic theory of gasses ?
Or did you skipped out on basic physics and statics like Ed obviously did.
is in moderation for some reason.
Andy:
This discussion is about an ongoing power transfer from a weight force. You are claiming that weight force produces this.
This is very different from a one-time transfer creating a deflection and increasing the “spring tension” elastic potential energy — “strain energy” as you call it.
What is the steady state power transfer from me to the chair due to my mass of 80 kg in earth’s gravity?
Start here, Scott..
You have A LOT to learn !!
https://engineering.purdue.edu/~aprakas/CE474/CE474-Ch2-WorkEnergyMethods.pdf
Andy:
You need to start by understanding the difference between energy and power.
Particularly the difference between a one-time change in the energy of an object, and an ongoing constant power transfer.
Until you understand the difference, you are completely confused.
You need to start understanding a bit of basic physics , Ed
You still think a chair holds you up without applying any force.
REALLY. !!
Andy — You say: “You still think a chair holds you up without applying any force.”
Never said that! What I did claim is that a chair holds you up without transferring power to you?
When will you understand the difference between force and power???
So, little mind….
…. where does that force come from.
“This discussion is about an ongoing power transfer from a weight force.”
So you think that the chair only applies an opposite force for, what.. one second?, one millisecond.
What happens after that?
Does the force holding you up just magically disappear?
If not, where does the force, and the energy to apply that force, come from?
Come on Ed…. enquiring minds want to know your deepest fantasies.
“where does the force, and the energy to apply that force, come from?”
Very strange……
No-one seems to want to answer this question.
Surely it can’t be that difficult. 😉
@Ed Bo 12. August 2017 at 9:06 AM …writes…
Oh, we understand, alright. The more power Leftists have, the more nonsense they try to force down our throats.
Never got up to strain energy calculations, I take it Ed.
You should have attended classes a bit more.
Never got up to understanding the difference between energy and power, I take it, Andy.
Your ignorance is profound, Ed.
Andy:
Do you really think that the “strain energy” you keep prattling on about represents an ongoing power transfer?
Keep posting, showing you know NOTHING, Ed. 🙂
Your MIT education seems to have been a monumental waste of time.
You’re making up up your own layman junk science definitions. – P Gosselin
Exactly this … AndyG55, either you are the best troll the world has ever seen or you have no clue. Which one is it?
You don’t own a mirror. ??
I have consistently not asserted that the relative thickness or thinness of a planet’s atmosphere is radiatively transferring heat. The relative thickness or thinness of a planet’s atmosphere is determinative of its (mostly) stationary temperature because the radiative heat from the Sun is either retained more (Earth) or less (Mars) due to the grade to which the heat is contained or trapped by atmospheric density. The gaseous concentration in the planet’s atmosphere is less determinative than the atmospheric thickness or thinness.
Mars’ 95% greenhouse gas atmosphere is colder than Earth’s <1% greenhouse gas atmosphere because Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner, not because Earth has a stronger greenhouse gas effect.
Kenneth:
You keep saying that “the heat is contained or trapped by atmospheric density” without regard to the composition of gases in the atmosphere.”
What is the mechanism by which transparent gases can “contain or trap” the radiated energy from the surface if they are not absorbing this radiation?
It’s not “without regard” to the composition of gases. I’ve mentioned many times that Mars atmosphere is 95% greenhouse gases vs. the Earth’s <1% greenhouse gases. The thickness or thinness of the planet's atmosphere (Mars being 100 times thinner than Earth's) is more determinative of Mars much colder temperature than the makeup of its gaseous concentrations, radiative or inert.
Simple question:
A * B = CWhich is more determinative of the size of C, A or B?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/despite-high-levels-of-co2-mars-is-cold/
Mars has a mean surface pressure of 600 pascals, compared with Earth’s 100,000 pascals. In other words, the atmospheric pressure on Earth is about 150 times higher than Mars.
Mars has 0.95 mole fraction CO2, compared to 0.0004 on earth. The concentration of CO2 in Mars atmosphere is more than 2,000 times higher than Earth.
So lets do the math for Mars and Earth.
Mars : 600 pascals * 0.95 = 575 pascals (partial pressure of CO2)
Earth : 100,000 pascals * 0.0004 = 40 pascals (partial pressure of CO2)
The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is 14X larger than earth, yet Earth is much warmer. Now use your brain and figure out the connotations.
Hint : It is the pressure, not the CO2
It is a simple question, why do you evade the answer?
It doesn’t work that way and if you had tried to understand what the greenhouse effect is you’d know that.
Or to make it clearer, it doesn’t work that way because CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.
So … what is more important for the size of C? A or B?
Kenneth:
One important thing to keep in mind is that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, and that it has a much broader absorption spectrum than CO2. It is also present in much higher concentrations in the hotter parts of the earth — the tropics and particularly over the tropical oceans.
But for a given gaseous composition, the optical thickness (which determines the “resistance” to radiative transfer from surface to space) is directly related to the surface pressure. This makes it very easy for the unwary to draw wrong conclusions as to causality.
These papers you cite are arguing that the radiative properties of the atmosphere are irrelevant. At least you seem to be backing off a bit from those radical claims.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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 !!!
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.
A “spring” you say.
So you do know just a tiny amount about strain energy.
Well done 😉
“I have taught this stuff to both undergraduates and graduates at a top university”
Those POOR students !!!
🙂
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?
hmmm.. seems we have a non-response. !!!
Force – is – not – work.
Nothing is more stupid than a stupid person insisting he’s clever.
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.
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.
This is essentially what you are saying
https://s19.postimg.org/cczctepyr/arm.jpg.
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.
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?
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.
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!
Yep profound ramifications.
Applying a force without expending energy of some sort.
Novel. and wonderful !
“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.
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)?
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!
“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.
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?
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???
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 !
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?
” and it is not expending any energy.”
roflmao..
Its just a “magical” force.. isn’t it Ed.
I found the kind of chair AndyG55 is talking about 😉
http://www.immobilo.de/ratgeber/files/redaktion/treppenlifte/lifta_treppenlift_avantgarde.jpg
“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.?
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 😉
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”.
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?
Where does the force come from seb
This MAGIC force resisting gravity.
You mean you really don’t know !! WOW !!!
Don’t mix the terms energy and force as if they were equal, AndyG55.
Comprehension issues again, seb ??
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.
Ed,
I’ve already congratulated you on being able to create a force out of nowhere.
WELL DONE !!!!
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…
I know its not magical..
Its you who seems to think it creates a force from nowhere.
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?
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.
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.)
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?
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 🙂
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:
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 😉
He didn’t say that it’s the pressure/density “itself” or “alone”. But the pressure/density is what determines the capacity or extent to which the atmosphere can retain heat. On Mars, the atmosphere is so thin (so little pressure) that even though the atmosphere has the equivalent of a 9,500 ppm CO2 concentration on Earth (950,000 ppm/100), the heat cannot be retained more than a negligible amount. The lack of atmospheric density is the culprit. The atmospheric density/pressure is the determinant of the extent to which heat-absorbing molecules can do their job.
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:
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?
I’ll repeat. Mars has the equivalent of 9,500 ppm CO2 in its atmosphere if we were to reduce the concentration (950,000 ppm) by two orders of magnitude to reach the equivalent of Earth’s (Mars’ atmospheric thickness is 1% of Earth’s.) And yet despite so many CO2 molecules in its atmosphere, the planet can’t contain the heat because the atmosphere is so thin and un-pressurized (very low gravity) that the heat cannot stay contained. Therefore, the atmospheric density and gravitational pull is the determinant of the extent to which the heat absorbing molecules in a planetary atmosphere can do their job.
Mercury has a very thin to non-existent atmosphere and low gravity (38% of Earth’s). Therefore, any heat-absorbing molecules in the field surrounding its surface cannot do their job and contain the heat. This is why Mercury’s temperatures vary so much (melting hot when the Sun shines on its surface directly, frigidly cold when it doesn’t). Pressure/density/gravity determines the extent to which heat-absorbing molecules can contain heat on Mercury.
Comparing Mars to Venus, for example, which both have 950,000 ppm CO2, the density of their atmospheres determines to the extent to which existing heat-absorbing molecules can do their job. Mars’ gravity and atmospheric pressure is very low/thin; Venus’ gravity and atmospheric pressure are high/thick. Hence the difference (along with solar irradiance) between their two average temperatures: +462 C vs. -60 C.
This is true for rocky planets. Moons are not planets.
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.
Because they’re not equally important. Mars demonstrates that 950,000 ppm CO2 isn’t effective in a thin atmosphere. Earth’s H2O atmosphere (the most dominant heat absorber by far) wouldn’t have H20 in it if not for the atmospheric density that allows the H20 not to freeze, as it does on Mars.
At the top of the atmosphere, 1,000 km above Jupiter’s very cold gaseous surface, temperatures reach 725 degrees C. Jupiter has no greenhouse gases. So what causes that level of heat at that location, SebastianH?
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.
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.
This discussion about how gravity functions in our living rooms or on chairs on the Earth’s surface has really veered off course. The discussion was originally about pressure as it related to planetary atmospheres, not what a barbell does to a chair in New Jersey.
http://sciencing.com/difference-between-thick-thin-atmospheres-12302390.html
“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.”
Whew! Thanks, Richard. I was wondering when someone would call out the chatbot for it’s attempts to distract us from the topic at hand.
Kenneth Richard writes
Whew! Thanks, Kenneth. I was wondering when someone would call out the chatbot for it’s attempts to distract us from the topic at hand.
I can list you several planets and moons that are not following this “rule”.
AndyG55 brought up the chair that needs energy to support the weight of a person and you posted a list of papers saying that gravity provides the energy needed (through the mass of the atmosphere pressing downward) for the lower atmosphere to be warmer than it should be. This discussion is about that nonsense and trying to get AndyG55 to present some calculation to confirm what we all have seen here in the comments … him being confused about even basic physics.
So far this has been a perfect example of Pigeon Chess.
In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be
Great. Before you do so, provide a list of the planets that DO follow this general “rule”.
Then, explain the principle underlying why it is that the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere such that it works for the planets that follow this general “rule”. You’ve called this “rule” a bunch of “nonsense” that is akin to believing in magic. Now you’re acknowledging that this “nonsense” is a general “rule” of planetary conditions.
So then, after you’ve explained why the gravity “rule” for planets that says “a planet with weak gravity will tend to have less mass and allow more atmosphere to escape into space”, explain why you think that because planets generally follow this gravitational-pull-determines-atmospheric-density “rule”, it is nonetheless justifiable to equate agreement that this “rule” has merit with peddling “nonsense” akin to Creationism or Flat-Earthism. Why the flagrant inconsistency?
We’re (I’m) not talking about chairs in a living room in Tokyo. We’re talking gravity as it relates to planets and atmospheric density. Chairs have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was brought up to be a diversion. It continues to be such. Stay on topic.
http://sciencing.com/difference-between-thick-thin-atmospheres-12302390.html
“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.”
Kenneth:
The mass of Venus is ~80% that of Earth. The atmospheric pressure of Venus is 90 times (9000%) that of Earth.
It’s not so simple; there are other factors involved.
Yes, Ed. Might the atmospheric pressure of Venus vs. Earth have something to do with why Venus temperatures average 462 C and Earth temperatures average 15 C? Could there be a connection?
Do you agree or disagree with the emboldened quote here?
http://sciencing.com/difference-between-thick-thin-atmospheres-12302390.html
“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.”
Ed Bo 14. August 2017 at 3:02 AM | writes…
The term “IN GENERAL” in the “In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be,” that Kenneth quoted, already implies that “there are [sometimes] other factors involved.”
I.e., he’s already communicated that idea, so your restatement of it as a criticism of him adds nothing.
And you want us to believe you are clever?!
Actually, Venus’ gravity is 91% of Earth’s, which means they’re both following the general rule that higher gravity planets (Venus, Earth) have thicker atmospheres, and low gravity planets (Mercury, Mars) have thinner atmospheres (38% of Earth’s). And yes, there are other factors involved (of course). No one had suggested it was so simple.
Ed, as you wrote, was just trying to pull one of his barbells-on-a-chair diversions with this comment.
You don’t get it Kenneth, do you? Read the papers you listed in your blog post! They are saying that it is the mass of the atmosphere pressing down that causes higher temperatures. Putting a weight on a chair is the exact same thing and a valid example of why this theory is ridiculous.
And you “general rule” falls apart with Venus and Titan. Venus has a lower gravity than Earth and a much thicker atmosphere. Titan has a very low gravity and a 1.5 times thicker atmosphere than Earth.
Both exhibit the very same greenhouse effect that Earth has. Why do you keep thinking that the radiative greenhouse effect somehow can’t explain those different surface temperatures? Why do you think that it is gravity (or pressure/density) that is defining how warm a surface is, despite sometimes writing that “there are other factors involved (of course)”. Those other factors aren’t additive, they all work together (multiplicative) to result in what we can observe. And that’s what you don’t seem to understand or don’t want to have to be true … at least it looks that way.
AndyG55’s and yonason’s understanding of physics is a different story, but they didn’t post that list of pseudo science papers up there.
You don’t get it Kenneth, do you? Read the papers you listed in your blog post! They are saying that it is the mass of the atmosphere pressing down that causes higher temperatures. Putting a weight on a chair is the exact same thing and a valid example of why this theory is ridiculous.
And you “general rule” falls apart with Venus and Titan. Venus has a lower gravity than Earth and a much thicker atmosphere. Titan has a very low gravity and a 1.5 times thicker atmosphere than Earth.
Both exhibit the very same greenhouse effect that Earth has. Why do you keep thinking that the radiative greenhouse effect somehow can’t explain those different surface temperatures? Why do you think that it is gravity (or pressure/density) that is defining how warm a surface is, despite sometimes writing that “there are other factors involved (of course)”. Those other factors aren’t additive, they all work together (multiplicative) to result in what we can observe. And that’s what you don’t seem to understand or don’t want to have to be true … at least it looks that way.
AndyG55’s and yonason’s understanding of physics is a different story, but they didn’t post that list of pseudo science papers up there.
Kenneth:
In your post, you cited multiple papers that claimed that the simple fact of atmospheric pressure on the surface of a planet leads to a higher temperature that would be present without the atmosphere, regardless of the composition of the atmosphere.
It occurred to me that if this were true, then other sources of pressure on a surface should lead to higher temperatures as well. So I brought up the example of barbell weights on a chair, which would increase the downward pressure on the chair’s surface. I facetiously said that I expected it would increase the temperature of the chair.
You immediately and correctly realized that this was complete nonsense (even if you did not realize at first why I posed this example). But if the “atmospheric pressure effect” papers are correct, the weights on the chair would indeed increase the temperature of the chair.
So rather than being off topic, my fanciful example was a direct challenge to the APE theories, disproving them by a reducto ad absurdum.
In subsequent comments, you seem to have shown that you believe that radiative absorption by some gases (a.k.a. the “radiative greenhouse effect”) is involved, which separates you from some of the papers, but still believe the pressure effect (rather than increased optical thickness) explains the difference between planets.
That’s assuming that the gravity on the surface of planet Earth functions exactly the same way as it does in the atmospheres of the planets like Jupiter, where gravity is 318 times greater than on planet Earth. The gravity of planets and how pressure pertains to atmospheric thickness (and thus to relative planetary average temperatures) is what is being discussed here. The gravitational pull of barbells on a chair in Nantucket is not what’s being discussed here. It was and is a tendentious diversion, and nothing more. You’ve successfully hijacked the comment section.
You don’t understand, do you? Something pressing the chair down is the same thing as the atmosphere pressing down on the surface. If the latter one generates heat (like your list of papers and AndyG55 say) that you sitting on a chair should do the same. And it also would enable us to build a Perpetuum mobile …
This thread is the first time that AndyG55 wrote something concrete and he showed us that he is confused about even basic physics and can’t distinguish between energy and forces. That’s what these threads here at the bottom are about … trying to get him realize that he is wrong.
And no … gravity doesn’t determine the amount of atmosphere a planet/moon can hold. How do you explain the dense atmosphere on Titan or the much denser atmosphere of Venus compared to Earth albeit both having similar gravity?
We’re not talking about chairs on the surface of the Earth. It’s not the “same thing”. We’re talking about the relative pressure/density values for planetary atmospheres, and whether or not there is evidence that the higher the atmospheric density or pressure on a planet’s surface, the greater the capacity for it to contain heat vs. lose heat. That has nothing to do with chairs.
And again, you and Ed are making up straw men. The atmospheric pressure (again we’re not talking about barbells pressure) is not “generating” heat. It is assisting with the containment of the heat that has been generated by the Sun. The higher the pressure (and the thicker the atmosphere), the more easily the heat is retained rather than lost. The lower the pressure (and the thinner the atmosphere), the more easily the heat is lost rather than retained. This is why the whole barbells-on-a-chair analogy is an irrelevant diversion. The pressure contains existing heat on planetary atmospheres, not on chairs in living rooms. This is not heat generation.
Interestingly, on Venus, there is a virtually constant temperature of 462°C for most of the planet (due to its atmospheric density that allows so little heat to escape). But this temperature drops down to 380°C at the highest points on the planet – the Maxwell Monte mountains, which are up to 11 km high, or where the gravitational force drops. (Venus’ gravity is quite similar to Earth’s: 91%) At these locations where there is less gravity, the atmospheric pressure is cut in half – 92 bar down to 45 bar. So the temperature drops…by -80 degrees C. If there was no connection between gravity, atmospheric pressure, and a planet’s temperature, why does Venus’ surface experience an 80°C drop in temperature at the locations where gravity and atmospheric pressure are reduced? And if a reduction in gravity and atmospheric pressure cause temperatures to drop, would this not imply that Venus’ higher atmospheric pressure (92 bar vs. 1 bar for Earth) is a determinant of its ability to retain heat? Of course it is.
https://www.universetoday.com/22551/venus-compared-to-earth/
Venus’ surface temperature experiences little to no variation, owing to its dense atmosphere, very slow rotation, and very minor axial tilt. Its mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F) is virtually constant, with little or no change between day and night, at the equator or the poles. The one exception is the highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, where atmospheric pressure drops to about 4.5 MPa (45 bar) and the temperature drops to about 655 K (380 °C).
On Earth, gravity/pressure is also quite connected to temperature (of course). There is permanent snow cover on mountains in Arizona in the very same locations that sea-level temperatures reach 48°C (118°F) during the summers. What is the reason why snow can exist year-round on AZ mountains? Could it be that, like on Venus, the lesser the gravity (mountain peaks), the lesser the atmospheric pressure and ability to retain the heat?
You seem to know that, but not AndyG55 and the authors of some papers in that list you posted 😉
You forgot to mention that this depends on the atmospheric composition namely the amount of greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases, the atmospheric density does nothing to retain heat. You got that right in another comment, so try to be consistent 😉
And there you destroy all hope I had for you. It’s not the pressure that is containing anything. Same as it is not the mass that results in a force … it the acceleration of a mass.
You are just describing the lapse rate. A lapse rate can not exist without gases that absorb/emit radiation. The temperature gradient from the lapse rate doesn’t start at some height in the atmosphere, it starts from the surface. The surface temperature is determining the temperature at a certain height, not the other way around. That is the main mistake of the “adiabatic” greenhouse effect theory (you should really google what adiabatic means, that’s not a good name for what followers of that theory believe is happening).
No that could not be the case. As an exercise, please calculate the gravity at a height (above sea level) of 5 km, 10 km and 100km, assuming the gravity at sea level is 9.81 m/s². You’ll be surprised …
Low gravity = Thin (Low Heat-Absorbing) Atmospheres: Mercury, Mars
High gravity = Thick (High Heat-Absorbing) Atmospheres: Earth, Venus
Saturn
“Saturn radiates more than twice as much heat into space as it receives from the sun. Much of the heat is caused by the gravitational compression of the planet”
Could there be a connection?
http://sciencing.com/difference-between-thick-thin-atmospheres-12302390.html
“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.”
So you put Earth and Venus in the same category regarding the thickness of the atmosphere? Interesting. What about Titan? Thick atmosphere (150% the surface pressure of Earth) and low gravity.
Come on, you had it in another comment. You recognized that it is the composition and how many of those molecules are in the atmosphere that results in the varying abilities of atmospheres to retain heat. Why are you reverting back to claiming it is the thickness itself again?
I am curious what physical process is generating the additional heat on Saturn? What do you think gravitational compression means in this case?
Why asking these open questions? Could there be spaghetti monster deity causing all this? Seriously, try finding out what gravitational compression means above and you’ll know that there is no connection. Or is the Earth system shrinking too?
P.S.: How often will you quote that paper? You have been given plenty of examples. Gravity doesn’t alone determine how thick an atmosphere gets. Nothing is as simple as you often like to put it.
I put Earth and Venus in the same category because they both have similar gravity — much higher than both Mars and Mercury. Venus is closer to the Sun and has developed a much thicker atmosphere than Earth over time. The thicker atmosphere allows the heat absorbing molecules in its atmosphere to contain more heat than they would if its atmosphere was thinner, or similar to Mars. The high density/pressure is why Venus’ average surface temperature is almost invariable across the planet…except for the highest elevations, which are 80-some degrees colder.
Titan is a moon.
I haven’t said that gravity alone determines how thick an atmosphere gets. The constitution of its gases also contributes.
Kenneth:
You say: “Saturn radiates more than twice as much heat into space as it receives from the sun. Much of the heat is caused by the gravitational compression of the planet.”
For the smaller, rocky planets, the planet/atmosphere system radiates almost exactly the same amount of power into space as it receives from the sun. Our fundamental issue in this post is why the surface emits so much more than this, with competing explanations of the radiative greenhouse effect and the atmospheric pressure effect. But neither theory claims that it can cause the planet to emit more to space than it receives from the sun.
If a planet like Saturn is emitting much more than it receives from the sun, it must either have a separate ongoing power source, or it is cooling. In the case of Saturn, it is probably cooling. And yes, the energy likely comes from its INITIAL gravitational compression.
But heat from gravitational compression is a one-time effect, which does not continue. The earth has a trivial added heat flow from its interior — less than 0.1 W/m2. There is some disagreement as to whether any of this is left over from its initial compression, as there is also tidal friction and radioactive decay.
Saturn is so much larger that it still has not had time to reject all the thermal energy generated from its initial compression of formation. So this “heat source” is significant, unlike with earth.
Well, then one would think Saturn would be perpetually cooling. It isn’t. Temperatures reach 400 K at the poles (upper atmosphere), and they can’t be explained by greenhouse gases (absorbed sunlight). So another “rule” violation for the greenhouse effect.
Smith et al., 2007
https://search.proquest.com/openview/cba4766420ef04f09227ccf861784a90/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569
The upper atmospheres of the four Solar System giant planets exhibit high temperatures that cannot be explained by the absorption of sunlight. In the case of Saturn the temperatures predicted by models of solar heating are 200 K, compared to temperatures of 400 K observed independently in the polar regions and at 306 latitude. This unexplained ‘energy crisis’ represents a major gap in our understanding of these planets’ atmospheres. An important candidate for the source of the missing energy is the magnetosphere, which injects energy mostly in the polar regions of the planet. This polar energy input is believed to be sufficient to explain the observed temperatures, provided that it is efficiently redistributed globally by winds, a process that is not well understood. Here we show, using a numerical model, that the net effect of the winds driven by the polar energy inputs is not to heat but to cool the low latitude thermosphere. This surprising result allows us to rule out known polar energy inputs as the solution to the energy crisis at Saturn. There is either an unknown—and large—source of polar energy, or, more probably, some other process heats low latitudes directly.
The low-altitude flow is energetically the more important because the density of the atmosphere decreases with increasing altitude. Thus the dynamical coupling between low and high latitudes is dominated by a steady flow of gas—and therefore energy—away from low latitudes and into the polar regions. This acts both to enhance convective cooling of low latitudes, and to heat the polar region. The flows themselves arise because of small force imbalances in the thermosphere.
(Let’s see if this comment ends up in the right place, as some of the “Reply” links have disappeared.)
Kenneth:
You say: “Well, then one would think Saturn would be perpetually cooling. It isn’t.”
I’m talking (as are others) about a very slow cooling process that is taking billions of years. We have only been monitoring temperatures for few years, way too short a time for us to notice any difference.
But the most basic of thermodynamics analyses says that if the planet is radiating more to space than it is receiving from the sun, either it must have an internal source of thermal energy, or its internal energy must be decreasing.
(By the way, I have tried to post a detailed reply defending my interpretation of Maxwell’s and Feynman’s analyses of the “gravito-thermal” effect. It doesn’t even make it into moderation.)
Well that would obviously be undetectable if the rate of cooling is that slow. As would a warming taking billions of years to occur. So essentially your conjecture lacks any cogency. And you have yourself said that this is “way too short a time for us to notice any difference”. So why even bring it up? Saturn’s atmosphere heats up to 400 K near the poles, and this is not explained by solar irradiance or heat-absorbing gases. So the theory you espouse doesn’t work on Saturn. How, then, should you be complaining that the APE theories aren’t working if your own explanations aren’t working any better – and perhaps worse?
That still doesn’t explain why Saturn’s observed atmospheric temperatures reach 400 K. The GHE doesn’t apply. Again.
I’ll go look for your reply in the surfeited spam bin. You probably used a link or word that WP doesn’t like.
“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.
“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.
—————————————————-
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
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!)
“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.”
I answered you.
You DID NOT comprehend.
Not my fault.
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).
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?
“force isn’t created from nothing,”
Well where does the force that counters the weight force due to gravity come from ?
WAITING. !!
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?
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.
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???
YAWN!
You have proven that YOU DON’T.
Stop your mindless attention seeking !!
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.
Don’t project from yourself onto others AndyG55 …
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.
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.
So Andy, you think Maxwell and Feynman were complete id**ts who didn’t understand high school physics?
Ed,
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?
http://jupiter-information-site.weebly.com/jupiters-temperature.html
At the top of the atmosphere [Jupiter], temperatures can reach as high as 725°C (1,340°F), over 600 miles (1,000 kilometers) above the planet’s surface.
Matcheva and Strobel, 1999
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103599961511
Heating Jupiter’s thermosphere by viscous dissipation of upward propagating gravity waves is evaluated with correct formulations of total energy conservation and the total wave induced vertical energy flux. … The large sensible heat flux associated with dissipating gravity waves generates net heating of the lower regions and net cooling of the upper regions of wave dissipation due to energy redistribution. The transition from net heating to net cooling occurs at the level of constant wave amplitude. … [G]ravity waves must deposit their energy high in the thermosphere with peak heating occurring near ∼500 and ∼1000 km with near saturation amplitudes at very high altitudes (>1100 km).
Schubert et al., 2003
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103503000782
Acoustic waves and gravity waves heat and cool the atmosphere in fundamentally different ways. Though the amplitudes and mechanical energy fluxes of acoustic waves are poorly constrained in Jupiter’s atmosphere, the calculations suggest that dissipating acoustic waves can locally heat the thermosphere at a significant rate, tens to a hundred Kelvins per day, and thereby account for the high temperatures of Jupiter’s upper atmosphere. It is unlikely that the waves detected by the Galileo Probe were acoustic waves; if they were, they would have heated Jupiter’s thermosphere at enormous rates.
O’Donoghue et al., 2016
The temperatures of giant-planet upper atmospheres at mid- to low latitudes are measured to be hundreds of degrees warmer than simulations based on solar heating alone can explain. Modelling studies that focus on additional sources of heating have been unable to resolve this major discrepancy. Here we report that the upper atmosphere above Jupiter’s Great Red Spot—the largest storm in the Solar System—is hundreds of degrees hotter than anywhere else on the planet. This hotspot, by process of elimination, must be heated from below, and this detection is therefore strong evidence for coupling between Jupiter’s lower and upper atmospheres, probably the result of upwardly propagating acoustic or gravity waves.
Hickey et al., 2011
Gravity wave heating and cooling of the thermosphere [Jupiter]: Sensible heat flux and viscous flux of kinetic energy … The faster the wave is, the greater the heating in the upper thermosphere can be.
Funny EdBo should mention Feynman.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/feynman-explains-how-gravitational.html
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.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/debunking-myths-strawmen-about-gravito.html
Debunking Myths & Strawmen about the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect & Radiative Greenhouse Effect
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
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/neutralising-radiative-imbalances-within-convecting-atmospheres/
Slowly but surely I’m beginning to see what’s going on, no thanks to the distractions of the chatbots.
Hockeyschtick manages to get this issue 100% backwards, in a jaw-dropping way. Let’s look at what Feynman and Maxwell actually said:
From http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
“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.
Oops, it’s “Stephan Wilde” not “Steven..”
Sorry. ;o)
….”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.
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!
No, it’s not the “weight alone” that determines the temperature of a planet, and the connection doesn’t fall in line perfectly. Again, of the first 4 planets, the higher gravity planets (Earth, Venus (91% of Earth)) have much thicker atmospheres than the low gravity planets (Mars, Mercury, 38% of Earth). Mercury effectively has no atmosphere at all, and Mars’ isn’t much denser. The correlation’s not perfect, of course, especially with Venus’ atmospheric density being less proportional to its gravity, but taken the 4 rocky planets together, the general rule is discernable, such that:
But for Mars, the CO2 greenhouse effect explanation doesn’t work too well, especially if CO2 is considered an especially strong greenhouse gas (which I assume you believe it is). With 950,000 ppm CO2 on Mars atmosphere, even at 1% of the Earth’s thickness, the concentration should heat the planet much more than it does. That would be the equivalent of 9,500 ppm on Earth if reduced by two orders magnitude to match Earth’s density. So the fact that Mars is still so cold despite the quantities of CO2 in its atmosphere suggests that (a) CO2 isn’t as potent a heat-absorbing gas it’s modeled/assumed to be, (b) the lack of gravity/pressure/density are far more determinant of planetary temperatures than assumed, and/or (c) the greenhouse effect explanation has some rather problematic holes in it.
On Earth, the GHE is predominantly H2O, making up 75% to 97% of the theoretical 33 K difference between 255 K and 288 K. CO2 is only modeled to cause 1.16°C of additional atmospheric warming when doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. H2O does all the “dangerous” stuff (according to models, anyway), in addition to making up the bulk of the theoretical 33 K. Even the most oft-cited analyses insist that the GHE on Earth is predominantly due to H2O, not CO2. And since the Earth is a water planet, and 93% of the Earth’s heat energy exists in the oceans (and just 1% in the atmosphere), and since CO2 IR cannot penetrate past the micrometer layer to heat the water, there are some other rather fundamental problems with assuming that CO2 controls the Earth’s planetary temperature.
This leaves Venus as the only planet that follows along with the CO2 GHE modeled expectations. So you have one planet that fully cooperates with your espoused theory.
Your “closer to home” example has nothing to do with the relative constitution of the atmospheres of planets. Gravity/pressure doesn’t work the same way in your living room as it does surrounding Mars. That’s why it was, and always has been, a baiting mechanism. It worked. You got people to talk about barbells on chairs rather than the atmospheres of planets as you touted your MIT credentials.
Jupiter’s atmosphere heats up to 725 C without greenhouse gases (and minimal sunlight); scientists have concluded the heating is due to magnetic and gravitational forces that operate at the TOA. Jupiter’s gravity is higher than Earth’s, and Earth can’t even get close to 725 C despite being much closer to the Sun. You’re getting bogged down with concerns that a gravity explanation isn’t consistent across the board (“the lapse rate is wrong”)…and with chairs. But in doing so, you are failing to consider that the determinant of Jupiter’s (and Saturn’s) very high atmospheric temperatures is not due to the theory you espouse as truth for planetary heating: the theoretical CO2 greenhouse effect absorbing solar radiation. Do you deny that Jupiter and Saturn’s high atmospheric temperatures don’t support the GHG theory of climate? Assuming you don’t, why do you not have a problem with that? Why are you so concerned about exposing APE as “ridiculous” with barbell analogies, but at the same time you fail to notice that all but one of the planets do not provide solid support for your own presuppositions?
Do the APE theories have some inconsistencies? Yes. Do they fit every planet perfectly? Not even close. 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.
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:
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
I see. So bringing up the effect of gravity waves on planets as it relates to very high atmospheric temperatures with no greenhouse gases in the comment section of an article about the pressure/density/gravity of planets and its connection to atmospheric temperatures in the absence of a traditional GHE influence … is a “big distraction”, but talking about barbells on a chair in a living room is not a distraction. Yikes, I think you’ve got it backwards, SebastianH.
Indeed.
Matcheva and Strobel, 1999
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103599961511
Heating Jupiter’s thermosphere by viscous dissipation of upward propagating gravity waves is evaluated with correct formulations of total energy conservation and the total wave induced vertical energy flux. … The large sensible heat flux associated with dissipating gravity waves generates net heating of the lower regions and net cooling of the upper regions of wave dissipation due to energy redistribution. The transition from net heating to net cooling [in the atmosphere] occurs at the level of constant wave amplitude. … [G]ravity waves must deposit their energy high in the thermosphere with peak heating occurring near ∼500 and ∼1000 km [where temperatures reach +725 C] with near saturation amplitudes at very high altitudes (>1100 km).
OK, can’t pass this one up.
Sure looks like Jupiter’s lapse rate in the troposphere is negative.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Structure_of_Jovian_atmosphere.png/1280px-Structure_of_Jovian_atmosphere.png?1502780871131
Just like everybody else here.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/AllPlanetsT.jpg
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.
Arg, you again commented somewhere in the middle of the thread with your moderator powers …
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:
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.
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.
There are gaping holes in the idea that CO2 is a planetary climate control. You can’t even provide physical, real world evidence that CO2 can heat the ocean, and the ocean is where 93% of the heat in the climate system resides! The oceans have warmed by just 0.09 C since 1955, which is 6 times slower than what has been found to occur naturally, with no CO2 perturbation.
Just 1% of planetary heat exists in the atmosphere where all this arguing about chairs is supposed to be relevant. To be the control agent for the climate, CO2 must be the dominant control on the OHC. And you have nothing to back up your beliefs that it is. The climate models aren’t working. The atmosphere has only warmed by 0.1 C in 20 years, with 40 ppm of CO2 growth. Even the models say that water vapor exerts dominant control on the Earth’s theoretical GHE (75%-97% of the 33 K). Even doubling CO2 to 560 ppm is only hypothetically supposed to cause 1.2 K of warming. The dangerous warming is modeled to be due to H20, not CO2. No holes in it? The holes are colossal.
Your you-don’t-understand-it “rebuttal” is the weakest of defenses. Figure out how to prove that CO2 is what causes the oceans to warm and cool, SebastianH. That’s where it all starts.
“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.
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?
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:
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.
It doesn’t “explain everything”. It doesn’t explain Mars’ cold temperatures and 950,000 ppm CO2 atmosphere. It doesn’t explain Jupiter’s 725 C atmospheric temperatures (no greenhouse gases). It doesn’t explain Saturn’s 400 K atmospheric temperatures (no greenhouse gases). It doesn’t even explain Earth’s temperatures particularly well…the climate models are consistently failing to simulate the climate response to CO2…and CO2 has never been shown in a real-world experiment to cause oceans to heat or cool upon increasing or decreasing concentrations. It’s all models and assumptions…models and assumptions that say that even if we were to double CO2 concentrations to 560 ppm, the temperature response would only be 1.16 degrees C of added warmth. The only planet where the greenhouse effect theory seems to be consistent with expectations is Venus. So you have one planet where CO2 heating could be reasonably claimed to work as the models say it does. One planet.
In contrast, the high gravity rocky planets (Venus, Earth) have relatively thick atmospheres, and the low gravity planets (Mercury, Mars) have thin atmospheres, suggesting that gravity plays a role in the density of an atmosphere, which is consistent with atmospheric pressure explanations for planetary temperatures and this quote:
http://sciencing.com/difference-between-thick-thin-atmospheres-12302390.html
“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.”
Far from “explaining everything”, the CO2 greenhouse effect explains one planet (Venus) well. One planet is not “everything”. And so we remain skeptical…and will continue searching for better explanations.
I don’t want to be called a “denier” because I am vehemently opposed to bigotry in all forms, and the use of the term “denier” is frequently used in connotation with those who deny the Holocaust occurred. I’ve asked you to refrain from using that term probably a dozen different times, and yet you continue to use it anyway. If you insist on name-calling in an attempt to marginalize those who disagree with you, I would ask (and have already asked many times) that you choose a different word. No matter how many times I ask for you not to use bigoted language, you do it anyway. sod was banned for 24 hours for using bigoted language here…and he hasn’t been back since (of his own choosing – it was a 1 day ban). Pick a different word, SebastianH. I find that word offensive. Bigotry is never acceptable here.
It does. The greenhouse effect on Mars is exactly what it is supposed to be.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t explain Mars’ cold temperatures and 950,000 ppm CO2 atmosphere.
Oh, I see. So I should just take your word for it. The Earth equivalent of 9,500 ppm CO2 on Mars isn’t capable of doing what 400 ppm does on Earth, and this is in accordance with what would be expected. Got it.
It doesn’t explain Jupiter’s 725 C atmospheric temperatures (no greenhouse gases).
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? Could there be a connection between Jupiter’s atmospheric pressure that is 10 times as high as Earth’s?
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?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/10/jupiter-emits-67-more-radiation-than-it.html
Warmists claim gravity cannot be the cause of any so-called “greenhouse effect” (or the “gravito-thermal greenhouse effect”) on Earth, Jupiter, nor any other planet, yet overwhelming observational evidence for every planet in our solar system (with adequate observational data – 8 planets at this point) clearly demonstrates that surface and atmospheric temperatures are a sole function of gravity/mass/pressure and independent of greenhouse gas concentrations.
In the case of Jupiter, a gas planet composed almost entirely of the non-IR-active, non-greenhouse gases hydrogen and helium, there is no solid planetary surface nor greenhouse gases to allegedly “trap” solar radiation, yet Jupiter has an “internal heat source” that causes a thermal enhancement (“gravito-thermal greenhouse effect”) resulting in emission of 67% more radiation than it receives from the Sun. The only possible explanation of this is gravity, not radiative forcing from the Sun nor greenhouse gases, and hence the mass/pressure/gravity gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Helmholtz, Feynman, US Std Atmosphere…the HS greenhouse equation is corroborated on 9 planets.
Likewise, the ice planet Uranus has recently been observed to have storms at the top of the atmosphere radiating at blackbody temperatures hotter than required to melt steel. In addition, “the base of the troposphere on the planet Uranus is 320K, considerably hotter than on Earth [288K], despite being nearly 30 times further from the Sun. The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 320K at 100 bars pressure, despite the planet only receiving 3.71 W/m2 energy from the Sun. By the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, a 320K blackbody radiates 584.6 W/m2. This is 157.5 times the energy received from the Sun, due to the atmospheric temperature gradient produced within a planetary gravity field. The temperature at the base of the troposphere is determined by the ideal gas law PV=nRT, where pressure from gravity and atmospheric mass raise the temperature at the base of the troposphere from the equilibrium temperature with the Sun of Uranus of 89.94K to 320K, regardless of the atmospheric mixture of greenhouse gases.”
Once again, the only possible explanation of both of these phenomena on Uranus is the Maxwell et al gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, thus bringing the number of planets for which very strong evidence exists to a total of ten
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…
Read and understand this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth#Atmospheric_sciences
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.
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)?
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!
I never claimed it could. The CO2 greenhouse effect explains one planet’s heating well (Venus) (although that planet has high gravity/pressure, which can explain it too). The gravity/pressure effect explains at least 6 planets well. Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury…even Earth.
Chemke et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071279/abstract
“The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate [Earth] is missing.
Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.”
“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.”
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 …
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.
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.
And isn’t it interesting that a CO2 greenhouse effect cannot explain why atmospheric temperatures reach 725 C and 400 K on those planets, but gravitational forces can. For that matter, isn’t it interesting that the high gravity rocky planets (Venus, Earth) have relatively thick atmospheres, whereas the the low gravity planets (Mars, Mercury) have very thin atmospheres, which follows the general rule that says, “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.”
The CO2 greenhouse effect theory that you espouse as truth doesn’t work effectively (in an explanatory way) on Mars either. Mars has the atmospheric Earth equivalent of 9,500 ppm CO2 concentration of heat absorbing gases when controlling for Earth vs. Mars atmospheric density (950,000 ppm/100 – Mars’ atmospheric density is 1% of Earth’s and its gravity is 38% of Earth’s). Mars’ atmosphere should be much warmer than it is (-63 C) considering it has such a high concentration of CO2.
On Earth, H20 is said to make up 75% to 97% of the greenhouse effect. Others have it as even more. By comparison, CO2 plays a bit role–even in future (modeled) projections of doubled CO2 values (1.16 C upon reaching 560 ppm).
And CO2 variations don’t explain paleoclimate temperature variations either. For example, between 80,000 and 20,000 years ago, Northern Hemisphere temperatures rose by 5 to 10 C within a matter of decades (only to gradually return to previous ranges about 100 years later). These fluctuations in temperature (which far exceed the 0.05 C per decade rate of warming since 1850 (IPCC)) were accomplished without any fluctuations in CO2, which remained steady at 180 ppm throughout each warming and cooling phase.
14,700 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere warmed by 4-5 degrees C in a matter of decades again, and again with no CO2 fluctuation.
And then, of course, it is well established that ocean outgassing of CO2, causing atmospheric CO2 to rise from 180 ppm (glacials) to 300 ppm (interglacials) occurs 500 to 1,000 years after the surface temperatures rise, indicating that CO2 flux is more of an effect than a cause of warming. And we all know that climate models have failed to simulate the 0.3 C of warming per decade that has been predicted. CO2 as an explanatory mechanism for Earth’s atmospheric temperature variations would appear to have several shortcomings — especially since this is a water planet and the oceans (93% of the Earth’s heat energy) generally must be heated before the atmosphere (1% of Earth’s heat energy) can be heated.
So as I have said previously, the only planet you have left that has the CO2 greenhouse effect theory solidly working to explain planetary temperatures is Venus. Neither Mars nor Earth work particularly well. So you have one planet out of the first 6 from the Sun to uphold the CO2 greenhouse effect theory you regard as truth. As a skeptic, I need more than one planet.
Do you think it’s possible that we don’t fully understand the process involved here? Or do you think this has all been settled? I don’t. I’m open to ongoing investigation. (You’re not, obviously, despite having only one planet follow the CO2 greenhouse effect model as theorized out of the first 6.) For example, we don’t really understand why Jupiter’s and Saturn’s atmospheres get so hot at certain heights (1,000 km) and not others (their surfaces are cold), other than the gravity waves explanation that seems to have gained popularity. I’m not satisfied with the CO2 greenhouse effect explanation. Having only one planet solidly following its precepts isn’t enough for me.
As I wrote, I’m talking about CO2 specifically. Cite a real world experiment in which airborne CO2 itself was varied in volumes of ppm (0.000001) over a large body of water and caused a heat change when it was raised or lowered. What are the physical measurements of that heat change when actually using CO2 in the experiment? Do you have any? No, you don’t. You’re just making assumptions about what CO2 can do by substituting LW for CO2 and claiming they’re equivalent. They’re not. Clouds dominate over CO2 in both SW and LW. Even RealClimate.org had Peter Minnett cite an experiment using clouds (not CO2) and found that the temperature gradient for the skin layer affected by clouds (LW) was a negligible 0.002 K. And you think 0.002 K can compete with SW radiation to control ocean temperatures when shortwave can directly heat the first 20-30 meters of the ocean? Even RC had to conclude that “the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100 W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4 W/m2)” Clouds and CO2 are not equivalent, Ed. Cite real-world evidence (with actual physical measurements from an experiment that shows CO2 heats or cools water bodies when raised or lowered in volumes of 0.000001. And then try to justify why you believe CO2 and its 1.8 W m-2 total forcing accumulated since 1750 controls ocean temperatures more than direct (albedo-altered) shortwave does.
CO2 molecules spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 (353 ppm) isn’t the same thing as an IR laser. Nor is the extra 1.8 W m-2 of modeled CO2 radiative forcing since 1750. Try again. This time actually use CO2 in your real-world experiment that shows how much CO2 heats or cools water.
Perhaps the expansion of heat capacity with a denser atmosphere, and not work, could be explanatory.
Chemke et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071279/abstract
The Thermodynamic Effect of Atmospheric Mass on Early Earth’s Temperature … “Observations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.”
“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.”
Kenneth:
I am disappointed, and frankly astounded, at your fundamental confusions and your mistaken conflations of different ideas.
You keep talking about the “CO2 greenhouse effect [we] espouse”, and you continue to compare the densities of CO2 in the Martian and Earth atmospheres to the relative magnitudes of the elevated surface temperatures as if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas on earth.
You do this despite repeatedly acknowledging that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth, with common concentrations of 10,000 ppm, and much broader absorption spectra than CO2. Yet still you continue to do the comparison with Mars as if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas on Earth. No wonder you can’t make the numbers work out! Don’t you realize how foolish this makes you look?
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.
You also continue to confuse the effects of static pressure with those of dynamic compression. This is key. The act of dynamic compression can and does cause heating. When the planets formed by gravitational compression, they got incredibly hot as the gravitational potential energy converted to (falling) kinetic energy and then into thermal energy as the matter stopped. Remember that this was a one-time effect.
If you compress the air in a bicycle pump, it gets hot from the dynamic compression. If the gravito-thermal theory were correct, it would stay hot. But it doesn’t. It cools down over the next few minutes.
For planets, this cooling is over millions or billions of years. The bigger the planet, the longer it takes to cool. Mars has cooled enough that it no longer has a molten iron core, and so no magnetic field any more. The loss of the magnetic field allowed the solar wind to strip away the thick atmosphere it once had.
The larger Earth still has a molten iron core producing a magnetic field that protects our atmosphere from the solar wind, but the power flux density from the core is so low now (<0.1 W/m2) that it can be ignored in surface and top-of-atmosphere energy balance calculations.
The much larger "gas giant" planets are still cooling significantly, such that they emit significantly more power (~2x) than they receive from the sun. This leads to very different thermal properties.
The "atmospheric pressure effect" tries to deal with the steady state effects of statice pressure. Even accepting it as valid, it in no way explains what we see on these giant planets. It predicts a negative lapse rate of (-g/cp), but we see positive lapse rates instead.
Also, you continually confuse the LEVEL of the greenhouse effect with its sensitivity (derivative, or rate of change). This is a classic error of the innumerate.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, you cannot bring the surface of the Earth even close to energy balance without the additional power flux from the downwelling longwave infrared radiation of "greenhouse gases". If you think the pressure from the atmosphere on the surface provides this additional power flux to increase the temperature of the surface, then you must also believe that barbell weights increase the temperature of a chair. (It is a completely valid comparison.)
Now, sensitivity, as to small changes in CO2 concentration, is a completely different issue. If it leads to more cloud cover, you change the other side of the energy balance. If it leads to increased tropical thunderstorms, you get more of a "heat pipe" to the upper atmosphere that can fully or even overly compensate.
You say: "Cite a real world experiment in which airborne CO2 itself was varied in volumes of ppm (0.000001) over a large body of water and caused a heat change when it was raised or lowered."
OK, two can play that game. Please cite a real world experiment in which the atmospheric pressure was varied in ppm over a large body of water and caused a heat change when it was raised or lowered. (I'll wait…)
The orbital variations of the Milankovitch cycles are the most likely explanation for our glacial cycles. This is not at all incompatible with the greenhouse effect, but a separate causal factor.
I'm probably at least as skeptical as you are that there is a high climate sensitivity to additional CO2. But when your analyses ignore the most basic principles of physics and thermodynamics, you just permit the alarmists to portray skeptics as scientific know-nothings. I hate getting tarred with that brush.
Oh sheesh. Enough with the self-aggrandizing condescension. These kind of comments are so sophomoric.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas on Earth. But for Mars and Venus, it is a CO2 greenhouse effect in particular, as CO2 makes up 95-96% of their atmospheres’ gases. And then for Earth, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt assesses that both he and the IPCC agree that human CO2 is 110% responsible for global warming since the mid-20th century, discounting the role of H2O in their past and future sensitivity attributions as only a “feedback” to the CO2-induced warming. I assume you know this. So why would you here portray it as an egregious mischaracterization in referencing a CO2 greenhouse effect when the 3 planets in question are routinely claimed to be regulated by one particular greenhouse gas – CO2 – and not another (H2O, NH4, etc.)? Do we have ECS estimates for water vapor forcing? No. We have TCS and ECS estimates for CO2 forcing. For all intents and purposes, when people refer to the greenhouse effect, they’re referring to CO2 from human emissions…and the CO2-dense atmosphere on Venus that allegedly causes “runaway” warming. You know all this, of course. So why did you veer off on this word-choice tangent? Was this just another of your attempts to show off how superior you are?
What GHGs are considered more dominant than CO2 on Venus and Mars? Do you agree or disagree that, for Earth, CO2 is commonly referred to as a forcing, but H2O is a feedback? If you agree, why, again, would you find it so heinous that I referred to it as a CO2 greenhouse effect in particular?
So, since the Earth is a water planet, meaning 93% of the heat in the climate system resides in the oceans (0-2000 m), and not the atmosphere (1%), balancing the heat energy in the Earth’s climate system with LW has to be predominantly accomplished by the elicitation of heat generation/absorption in the ocean depths, not the atmosphere. In other words, as mentioned previously, “the atmosphere can’t warm until the oceans do” (Ellsaesser, 1984). So on Earth, for the greenhouse effect explanation (288-255 K = 33 K) to be explanatory, greenhouse gases must radiatively absorb the heat losses from within the oceans (primarily), and not the atmosphere, so as to contain the heat in the climate system. And herein lies the problem for the greenhouse gas explanation for the Earth’s radiative energy balance. We have no real world experiment or physical measurements that indicate greenhouse gases heat the ocean, or contain the ocean heat. It’s all surmised. Presupposed. Assumed.
I asked you for an example of a real-world experiment using CO2 (or methane, or even water vapor) that demonstrates how much heating or cooling a ppm (0.000001) variation in concentration causes in a body of water. What response did I get? Well, IR lasers can make water boil. Ed, CO2 molecules spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely in the atmosphere today than they were in 1990 does not cause them to function just like IR lasers do when it comes to heating up the ocean – or water bodies in general. It’s another of your barbells-chair examples that just doesn’t apply. The greenhouse gas/CO2 explanation for keeping this water planet’s energy balance in equilibrium (when CO2 levels were 280 ppm) comes down to whether or not greenhouse gases can and do absorb heat within the ocean, not the atmosphere. And what real-world evidence do you have that this is what’s happening on Earth? So far, nothing.
So you acknowledge that you have no real-world evidence or physical measurements from a controlled experiment to support your belief that CO2 concentration changes cause net heat changes in water bodies. Considering 93% of the Earth’s energy balance is in the oceans (0-2000 m), why do you dismiss this salient lack of evidence as inconsequential? Shouldn’t an apologist for the greenhouse gas explanation for Earth’s energy balance be able to support his beliefs with something other than the callow “OK, two can play that game” response?
I can’t cite such an experiment. Atmospheric pressure can’t readily be varied in a real-world controlled experiment.
On the other hand, we could test the effects of varying CO2 on the temperature of a body of water by placing identical tubs of water in each of two identical glass buildings side-by-side in an open field, pumping 1,000 ppm CO2 into one glass building and leaving the other at ambient (400 ppm) and then measuring the temperature differences between the two water bodies. What do you think the results would show? Do you even want to know?
Or do you just prefer to ignore the 93% vs. 1% heat capacity difference between the ocean and atmosphere and continue to talk about the atmosphere as the Earth’s “heat gate” rather than the ocean with its orders of magnitude greater density and capacity to absorb solar heat…and to proceed as if it’s the atmosphere that keeps the oceans warmer than they would be rather than the other way around? Because that’s what apologists for the GHG explanation for containing the Earth’s heat are asking me/us to believe. And I’m too much of a skeptic to just believe anyway.
The Sun heats the water. Albedo modifies the amount of absorbed SW radiation, such that changes in cloud cover, for example, are far more influential in determining ocean heat content than any parts per million changes in an atmospheric gas. Variations in SW absorption (as determined by changes in TSI itself or albedo changes) are by far the most influential factor in determining the Earth’s oceanic temperature, and therefore its atmospheric temperature and radiative balance at the TOA.
Here is a paper that cites two real-world experiments showing that SW forcing overwhelms LW in determining water temperature. This would not support your position that greenhouse gases are responsible for maintaining this water planet’s energy balance. Since you have no real-world evidence to back up your beliefs that GHGs maintain the Earth’s energy balance that you can offer, do you find it ironic to be simultaneously claiming that an atmospheric pressure explanation lacks real-world (barbells-chair) verification? For me, the GHG explanation for the Earth’s temperature has fundamental flaws, especially the CO2-IR-heats water scenario I am asked to believe in. Obviously, you have no problem at all with maintaining your GHGs-heat-water-and-keeps-the-planet’s-temps-in-balance position without real-world evidence. Why not be more humbly skeptical of your stances? Will you acknowledge that GHGs explanation has significant explanatory flaws, or will you continue to proceed as if those flaws are not worth tackling?
——————————–
Irvine, 2015
Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156
[I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface.
What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.
It is established physics that the oceans are opaque to the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs while short wave solar radiation readily transports energy to a depth of many meters. Long wave GHG radiation is quickly returned to the atmosphere and, eventually, space as latent heat of evaporation as is demonstrated in “Appendix 1”. If established, this fact can only lead to the conclusion that a Radiative flux imbalance at the TOA caused by increasing GHGs will likely be restored to balance more quickly than a similar sized flux imbalance caused by changes in solar radiation. It follows that climate sensitivity to changes in GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than for similar changes in solar forcing.
Where water is free to evaporate, test “A” shows that back radiation from GHGs will have a negligible effect on the heat content of that water. Test “B” shows that nearly all the energy from an increase in back radiation from GHGs is returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of evaporation. It follows that any Radiative flux change at the TOA will likely be restored more quickly if it is caused by a change in GHG forcing than if it is caused by a change in solar forcing.
Kenneth:
This is pointless. You keep conflating different issues (like level and sensivity — or value and derivative, if you prefer), and bringing in irrelevant side topics.
I point out your error in comparing the LEVEL (amount) of warming from the GHE effect on Mars, which is virtually all from CO2, to the level of warming from the GHE effect on earth, which is mostly from H2O, by comparing the relative densities of CO2 on the two planets.
You respond with assertions about the SENSITIVITY (derivative) of warming on earth to increases in CO2 (and the sources you cite believe most of the warming comes from a knock-on increase in H2O. And, I repeat, I am NOT arguing that CO2 is the “control knob” for the earth’s temperature
You had asserted that LWIR could not increase the temperature of the ocean. I pointed out direct experimental evidence that this was completely false. You responded that these experiments did not source their LWIR from CO2 in the air. Seriously?
The US Air Force has spent decades and millions measuring the radiative properties of gases in the atmosphere at different concentrations to ensure the proper operations of systems like heat-seeking missiles. They have very precise measurements of the increase in emissivity of LWIR from small increases in CO2 (and H2O) concentrations.
In the lab, it is easy to vary a LWIR source in small increments into water. As expected, the more LWIR into the water, the higher the temperature (other things being equal, of course). This is so obvious it is not even considered an interesting finding, but rather just a good demonstration for students.
You respond to all of this by saying that shortwave radiation from the sun is more effective at heating water than LWIR. Once again, you are arguing against a point that I never made. This keeps indicating to me that you do not have any kind of firm grasp of the underlying concepts.
You say: ” The greenhouse gas/CO2 explanation for keeping this water planet’s energy balance in equilibrium (when CO2 levels were 280 ppm) comes down to whether or not greenhouse gases can and do absorb heat within the ocean, not the atmosphere. ”
All I can say is “Huh?” Are you really trying to say that people are claiming that CO2 dissolved in the ocean is the source of the greenhouse effect.
I could go on, but I will just repeat my fundamental point that basic thermodynamic analysis says that there is a huge mismatch between the power emitted from the earth’s surface and the power the earth absorbs from sunlight. The greenhouse effect, both in theory and practice (measured DWLWIR) can explain this. The “atmospheric pressure effect” fails miserably in both theory (force without distance does not provide any power transfer) and practice (static pressure alone never heats up anything).
Since this is so pointless, I bid you adieu now.
Yes, seriously. You have conflated LWIR = parts per million changes in CO2. CO2 molecules are today spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990. The “experimental evidence” for increasing or decreasing water temperatures with 0.000001 changes in CO2 concentrations does not come from a controlled real-world experiment with CO2 and water temperature. If you think it does, cite the real-world experiment that excludes all other LWIR influences besides CO2. Obviously, you cannot, but apparently you think that if you write “Seriously?” this is convincing enough proof that this evidence exists.
And by the way, I did not write…”You had asserted that LWIR could not increase the temperature of the ocean.” I have made no such assertion. I did write that there is no real-world observational evidence that CO2 (which is not the equivalent of LWIR, as you apparently believe) is a cause of increases or decreases in water temperature. You’ll need to control for the other sources of LWIR, isolate the CO2, and demonstrate that it is the CO2, and not, say, clouds, that are the source of the water temperature change. My experiment suggestion involving enclosed glass buildings (one with 1,000 ppm, the other with 400 ppm CO2) and identical tubs of water could potentially provide such information. How much warmer would the 1,000 ppm CO2 building water be than the water in the 400 ppm CO2 building? What do the controlled experiments that you claim exist say?
You have written that H2O in its gaseous form is the Earth’s greenhouse control knob for the Earth’s ocean temperatures (“the GHE effect on earth, which is mostly from H2O“). So if the Earth’s ocean heat content increases, to what extent is a change in the Earth’s water vapor concentration responsible relative to a change in other factors that modulate Earth’s temperature?
Great! So what is the physically measured effect of CO2 emission on water temperatures? How much warming or cooling does +/- 0.00001 (10 ppm) changes in atmospheric CO2 alone cause in water bodies? How much warming or cooling do changes in H2O gas cause in water bodies? Measurements of emissivity aren’t enough. I’m asking for measurements of cause-effect, not generalized assumptions. And yet the latter is all you have. Show me the cause-effect measurements from a controlled real-world experiment using CO2 change and water temperature change. Obviously, you can’t produce any measurements of cause-effect. Hence the blustering.
To what extent do you believe CO2 does control the Earth’s temperature? <5%? <25%? What source are you using to calculate this attribution percentage?
SebastianH, who says you are "spot on" with everything you write, thinks that CO2 is primarily responsible for the net changes in ocean heat content and air since the 1950s. Is he wrong? If so, why?
The “measured DWLWIR” includes all the sources of DWLWIR, not isolating the ppm CO2 concentration change to determine its effects on water temperature when varied. Again, you very wrongly equate DWLWIR with CO2, as if they are the same thing. Therefore, I had asked you to provide real-world experimental evidence demonstrating to what extent DWLWIR is defined by CO2. You didn’t do so. You just repeated the equivalency. (“In the lab, it is easy to vary a LWIR source in small increments into water.”) Since you have avoided answering these questions and instead feigned indignation that I would even dare ask you to distinguish between LWIR from CO2 and other sources, I will assume this means that you know you have no such experimental evidence, but would rather not admit this.
+1
He has that problem with confusing values and their derivative all the time and you are spot on with the rest of your points. Thank you for putting this analysis into more fluent English than I ever could.
He will most likely reply with arguing that using proxies in experiments that show LW radiation warms water is just a “model” and we really can’t know that CO2 causes warming in the oceans without directly measuring it. It is really pointless sometimes, but I have not given up hope that he one day will see the kind of mistakes in his chain of arguments against AGW and will look back wondering how he could get this so wrong in the first place.
So you agree that Earth’s ocean and air temperatures (and glacier melt and sea level rise and extreme weather events…) are not controlled by CO2 concentration changes? If so, how long have you agreed with this?
Why is it true, SebastianH, that for you and Ed Bo there literally is no need for actual real-world physical measurements from a controlled experiment involving CO2 variations and their elicitation of water temperature changes for you both to believe what you do about CO2 variations causing heating or cooling in water? How is it scientific to just believe that something is true without real-world physical evidence? Why is it too much to ask you and Ed to back up your claims/beliefs scientifically?
@Kenneth Richard writes
Yeah, not something you’d expect from such a highly trained professional as he claims to be.
A typical Kenneth reply … you don’t get the points being made and instead emphasize how important it is that we would need to exactly quantify how much of the greenhouse effect on Earth is caused by CO2. But what is the argument here Kenneth? Let’s say the downwelling LW radiation from CO2 makes up only 5% or 10% or 20% or whatever … how does that change that it is the greenhouse effect that is causing the surface warming? Remember, your original argument was that it is static pressure that causes the surface warming.
The LW radiation absorbing and emitting properties of CO2 have been measured extensively. Pointing a spectrometer up to the sky reveals the radiation emitted from CO2. What happens in bodies of water when subject to changing LW radiation has been measured extensively. And you keep arguing that because you can’t measure directly what a change in CO2 concentration does to the back radiation and that change does to heat content in the ocean the greenhouse effect of CO2 can only be small (because 90+% of the heat content is in the oceans)?
Don’t you see how desperate that argument is? Is all other data based on proxies also wrong? Your thermometer measures temperature with the expansion of a fluid. Is the concept of a thermometer wrong because it doesn’t directly measure the temperature and displays it to you?
You didn’t understand that either. The attribution of responsibilities and why one can say that human emissions are 100% responsible for the increase in CO2 concentration or why it is ok to say that the CO2 forcing is big enough to have caused most of the heat content change.
It’s the same concept as the paper you linked to that said change in solar irradiance caused a forcing that can explain global warming. You have some variable that changes by X and some other variables A, B, C, D, etc that are responsible for the change. If X is +10 and A = +15, B = -20, C = +11 and D = +4 than you can say that A is completely responsible for X changing by +10 and C is also completely responsible for X changing by +10. Both cause 100% of the increase because if neither of them happened there would be no increase. Got it?
So when CO2 forcing over 50 years averages to 0.5 W/m² of additional input and the heat content change is exactly what you would expect from a 0.5 W/m² input increase, then that forcing is 100% responsible. Simple math. That doesn’t mean that an SW forcing of 0.5 W/m² doesn’t do anything. Is that so hard to understand?
I think you misunderstood that sentence from Ed Bo. In fact, I think you missed the whole point he is making. You are confused by basic concepts and base your arguments on these misunderstandings. That makes discussing with you so difficult. And because your fallback is always something like (paraphrasing here) “I am a skeptic I don’t need to explain how things really work, I just point out that I don’t think they work the way you say they do” you feel safe from everything your critics write.
Learn how the mechanisms work! Then you would not get the idea that two greenhouses filled with varying amounts of CO2 could possibly confirm the effect. Those greenhouses would need to be very big … so big that you can simulate the entire atmosphere in it.
I’ll repeat my question from above. Do you consider a thermometer to be wrong because it doesn’t directly measure temperature (expansion of a fluid which is a proxy for temperature in a closed system)?
Those assertions about back radiation causing heat content increase in a any surface material are backed up scientifically. While it would be great to be able to directly measure something you can as well live with measuring the components of a mechanism and infer what’s happening from that. It doesn’t make it less scientific. This happens all the time in science.
P.S.: Back up your claim why static pressure causes surface temperatures to be warmer than they should be scientifically. What is the physical mechanism that is able to do that?
No, that’s not it (again). I don’t mind if you and Gavin say it’s 20% or if Lightfoot and Salby have it at 2% or less. Those are all guesses any way. I’m not arguing with models.
The root of my skepticism is centered around ocean heat content changes, and to what extent CO2 has to do with influencing that. The atmosphere only accounts for 1% of the heat in the climate system, or water planet. Heat absorption from the Sun predominantly happens in the ocean, not the atmosphere. So greenhouse gases absorbing heat in the atmosphere vs. oceans absorbing heat is no contest. That’s why OHC is where it’s at for climate.
You and Ed apparently believe that 0.000001 changes in CO2 concentration are responsible for causing net heat changes in the ocean. Great. Support this belief with evidence. That’s what I need to have quantified. Because if CO2 concentration changes can’t affect ocean temperatures by more than a negligible amount, then the entire humans-control-climate collapses. But we don’t know whether it’s negligible or sizable. Why? Because we have no real-world observational evidence from a controlled experiment that shows CO2 concentration variations in volumes of 0.000001 cause net heat changes in the ocean…let alone dominate over all other influences to function as the OHC control knob.
The atmospheric pressure of a planet definitely impacts its surface temperature. Mars’ atmosphere has 1% of the density that Earth has, and its gravity is 38% of Earth’s. Both gravity and pressure are significant reasons why Mars averages -63 C and Earth 15 C.
Show me the cause-effect measurements [for a controlled experiment with CO2 concentration variations and their effects on water temperature].
Sigh. The sky isn’t the ocean, SebastianH. The sky contains 1% of the Earth’s heat. The oceans contain almost all the rest.
No, that’s not my argument. Instead of making up your own version, why not use my quoted words (that I actually wrote) instead?
I consider it ironic that you find it “desperate” of me to ask you to support your beliefs about how much CO2 concentration heats water when varied in volumes of 0.000001. Why is asking for real-world physical measurements so appalling to people like you and Ed? Why is not having anything more than assumptions about what you believe to be true acceptable?
Yes, I got it that you have just rendered attribution meaningless with apologetics. The Sun is 100% responsible for climate change because if it didn’t happen there would be no increase in temperature. CO2 is 100% responsible for climate change because if it wasn’t there there would be not increase in temperature. How insightful.
And when surface solar radiation nets +12 W m-2 of extra forcing for the 1920-2005 period (Ohmura, 2009), and that forcing value easily overwhelms the alleged 0.5 W m-2 over the overlapped period attributed to CO2 by modeling, then we can know that surface solar radiation is 100% responsible. Simple math…and ever so logical.
What you just wrote has no resemblance to anything I’ve written before, “fallback” or otherwise. No matter how many times I ask you to stop making up fake arguments/thoughts and dishonestly claiming I wrote them, you will perpetually concoct straw man arguments anyway. It’s the debating tactic of cheaters…as my philosophy professor used to say.
How ironic coming from someone who refuses to answer questions about the mechanisms that caused Greenland to cool and gain mass for 60 years while CO2 emissions were exploding, or the mechanism explaining why CO2 rose by 16 ppm during the Little Ice Age and yet it didn’t warm, but cooled dramatically. As soon as I ask you for the mechanism that caused past warming and cooling events (or glacier melt or sea level rise), you refuse to answer. It’s obvious why you do, of course.
There are actual physical measurements available with a thermometer that can be extrapolated. We have no physical measurements available that show HOW MUCH change CO2 causes in ocean waters (or water bodies in general) when varied in volumes of 0.000001…so assumptions without observational evidence have to be employed. That’s a chasm of a difference.
Greater atmospheric mass allows for a greater atmospheric heat capacity, and thus more warming is enabled. This isn’t really controversial.
Chemke et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071279/abstract
“Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.”
“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.”
Almost every paper you quote from uses models to get to their conclusions … sigh
That you even try to compare those …
We do know that … do you think the models for the temperature increase in the last decades ignore the oceans? Probably, since you also think that they ignore solar irradiance changes and everything else you bring up that could be responsible for global warming.
You know, this also works the other way … when you finally find out that CO2 concentration changes indeed result in back radiation changes and back radiation changes cause buildup of heat in surface materials, your whole chain of arguments against man made climate change collapses. Or will you then still try to convince yourself that the concentration increase is not man made? 😉
Not really. Mars had a different atmosphere in the past, gravity isn’t determining the mass of an atmosphere. And pressure is only relevant because it is one variable in determining the greenhouse effect (see optical depth equations). But your argument (see papers in your post) is that it is static pressure that causes warming. It can’t and you can’t describe the mechanism that should make this work. Instead you mentioned Saturn and Jupiter … completely missing the point :/
Are you serious with that reply to what I wrote? The level of your reluctance towards understanding the greenhouse effect must be higher than I thought …
It’s not. You not understanding that you can infer something from measuring something similar is appalling.
I didn’t expect you to reply any different. I wonder why you refuse to understand this … when person A gives you 10 apples and person B gives you 15 apples, but you give away 7 apples to person C and 8 apples to person D, you end up with 10 apples in your hands. Now who is responsible for you having 10 apples in your hands? A or B or both?
If that were the case, yes. But since the OHC increase only requires a forcing of 0.5 W/m² you’d have to explain where the other 11.5 W/m² went to. Can you? Or is that (again) no net forcing for the whole surface of the planet like you so often use in your arguments?
You often write that you don’t claim anything, you merely give people scientific papers that offer different explanations than the established consensus. You do that everything someone (mostly me) asks you how you think whatever that paper says would work.
First, that is a different kind of mechanism. The mechanisms I want you to understand are the basics of physics and climate science, not how local climate becomes what it is. Besides, I offered you an explanation, but you seem to have ignored it or not noticed it.
I explained that one to you. Any progress in understanding this mechanism on your side? It’s for the same reason that doesn’t make you go in the other direction when you decrease you speed by de-accelerating. Also in those times CO2 concentration changes were mostly an effect of temperature (sea surface). That changed with us emitting large amounts of CO2 since the beginning of the industrialization though …
By now I often do ignore your requests because they have already been answered before and you ignored it or didn’t understand the answer (sometimes on purpose i think). There really should be some kind of FAQ for you with a repository of answers people have given to you so you can stop repeating your questions here … I’d say skepticalscience.com comes pretty close to that, but you guys consider what they write a fake anyways, right? Well, then you have to live with us becoming bored by having to answer the same questions again and again …
No, it is more or less the same thing. We found out the fluids expand when temperature varies, therefore we can use that as a proxy to actually measuring the temperature.
You should really read the paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309217978_The_thermodynamic_effect_of_atmospheric_mass_on_early_Earth%27s_temperature_EARLY_EARTH_ATMOSPHERIC_MASS) and try to understand the models used. From their paper: “Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity with mass, which decreases the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.“
You know … that second part IS important.
I am curious why you chose to quote this particular paper? It is only using models and it clearly shows that the greenhouse effect increases with more mass. They even have graphs in there showing the change in ice line latitude relative to CO2 partial pressure.
I don’t know why you think that this paper supports your claim the pressure/gravity causes higher surface temperatures or that it described the physical mechanism. It describes how the greenhouse effect increases with mass change.
Kenneth, this was a good example of why you need to understand the mechanisms (the physical ones). It would enable you to understand what papers are really about. Don’t just quote from papers you selectively read and ignore key sentences because they don’t fit your narrative 😉
[…] if CO2 concentration changes can’t affect ocean temperatures by more than a negligible amount, then the entire humans-control-climate collapses. But we don’t know whether it’s negligible or sizable.
No, we don’t. We have no physical measurements from a real-world experiment that establishes how much 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 cause changes in ocean heat. Therefore, we don’t know if the effects of changing the CO2 concentration is negligible or sizable.
How much of a change? What are the physical measurements? What is the heat change effect (cooling?) of lowering CO2 ppm levels by -0.00001 on water bodies? What do the controlled experiments say? Once again, you have nothing…but you say you “know” anyway.
Your analogies have no connection to what’s going on here (again). If CO2 only causes 0.0001 K changes in ocean heat content when for every 0.00001 (10 ppm) it is increased or decreased (and you and I have no idea how close these values are to reality, since we have no measurements), then the impact of CO2 concentration on water bodies is negligible. Therefore, if the ocean heat content increases, and only a tiny fraction can be traced to CO2 changes, then the notion that CO2 is the climate’s (and oceans’) control knob collapses. So again, it all comes down to establishing the real-world temperature/heat impact of raising or lowering CO2 over a body of water.
Can you explain why the 12 W m-2 of forcing from SSR should be dismissed as a factor? Or why the Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity (relative to the centennial-scale solar minima during the LIA) should be dismissed as a factor? Or why cloud-cover reductions should be dismissed as a factor? Or why volcanic forcing (significantly reduced volcanic activity in the modern era relative to the LIA) should be dismissed as a factor? Or why high geothermal activity in the critical zones of the Earth should be dismissed as a factor? Why, when talking about temperature-forcing factors, do you only consider one modeled factor, and dismiss all the others in your rendering of attribution?
or the mechanism explaining why CO2 rose by 16 ppm during the Little Ice Age and yet it didn’t warm, but cooled dramatically.
So amusing. Yes, I am quite aware that the peer-reviewed scientific literature almost unanimously attributes the reduced temperatures of the Little Ice Age to solar forcing, namely a reduction in solar activity (Sporer, Maunder, Dalton, the 1890-1910 minimum, etc.) and to a reduction in surface incident solar radiation via higher volcanic activity. Hundreds of papers have affirmed this just in the last few years alone. You know this. So instead of responding honestly to my questions about the mechanism causing the LIA cooling, you have decided to continue to focus on the alleged 0.21 W m-2 increase in CO2 forcing during the 1450-1900 period (CO2 increased) and try to explain that that is the reason temperatures dropped. You just can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that solar and volcanic forcing were responsible.
No idea what this sentence means.
We know the amount of back radiation (it is measurable) and we have a pretty good understanding of how much energy evaporation, etc transport away from the ocean surfaces. And we can measure the OHC. So what do you think is the unknown variable here?
Because it is the thing that we are influencing. We aren’t responsible for any of the other things you listed.
I think you should sleep more Kenneth. That is not what I explained, I didn’t even mention CO2 causing anything. CO2 concentration changes in the Holocene before industrialization are more of less an effect of temperature change. And it’s pointless to discuss this with you until you understand how the CO2 concentration is connected to temperature (as a cause) and how the CO2 concentration affects temperature when this balance is disturbed (by human emissions or otherwise).
It’s not amusing anymore.
P.S.:
You do that every time someone (mostly me) asks you how you think, whatever that paper says, would work.
Quantified physical measurements from a real-world, controlled experiment revealing how much heat change occurs in a body of water when airborne CO2 concentrations are varied by + or – 0.000001. Not clouds. Not H20 gas. CO2. We don’t have this data. Therefore, any conclusions are rooted in speculation and assumption.
Why, when talking about temperature-forcing factors, do you only consider one modeled factor, and dismiss all the others in your rendering of attribution?
But if the “thing” we are influencing has a dubious to negligible impact on water temperature relative to those other variables, what does it matter if we influence it? We contribute to sulfur emissions. Why do we not worry about that with regard to climate?
Great. So if CO2 didn’t “cause anything” through 1900, will you finally admit that low solar activity and high volcanic activity (increasing albedo, which led to less solar radiation absorbed by the oceans) were the primary cause of the temperatures plummeting from Medieval Warm Period (900 – 1200 CE) to Little Ice Age (1450-1900)?
As I’ve pointed out, that explanation doesn’t work for the last millennium’s temperature decline, as CO2 rose as temperatures fell from the MWP to the LIA. Also, the global 8.2 K event had temperatures fall and then rise by about 3 degrees C over a 150-year span while CO2 levels remained steady. The Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the Dark Ages period that preceded it, and CO2 levels didn’t change from one epic to the other either. Ocean heat content (0-1000 m) fluctuated by 2 degrees C in 200 years during the Mid-Holocene (Bova et al., 2016), and yet CO2 concentrations didn’t reflect those variations. So it’s highly likely that our reconstructions of CO2 levels during the Holocene are way off base. Hundreds of proxies indicate that Holocene CO2 levels fluctuated by 100s of ppm and were much higher than today. This would make the most sense considering sea levels were at least 2 meters higher than now and temperatures were multiple degrees warmer during the Early to Mid Holocene.
I have no idea what you’re even talking about.
It has no “dubious to negligible impact”. You keep quoting that Irvine experiment that is supposed to show that evaporation is compensating for any back radiation change. So let’s assume that this is really what is happening (at least for the smallish changes due to CO2 concentration increase). That means the energy from the back radiation stays in the atmosphere. Is the atmosphere warming like that would be the case?
And we are worrying about other gases too, but you are doubting the effects of CO2 concentration increases, aren’t you? Not sulfur.
I didn’t write that “CO2 didn’t cause anything” and why do I have to admit what you say happened? Have I said that CO2 caused the temperatures to decrease from MWP to LIA? Besides, that event wasn’t as severe globally, was it? It wasn’t 3-6 degrees warmer everywhere in MWP times than today as you’ve written in another blog post. The variations of the global temperature average aren’t that big according to http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png (yes Marcott, get over it …)
CO2 didn’t increase as temperatures fell.
Did they really remain steady?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129389/
Sigh. Since we don’t have any real-world physical measurements, we cannot affirm how much or how little the net heat impact of raising or lowering CO2 concentrations by 0.000001 over water bodies. Therefore, the claim that the impact is neither dubious or negligible, or that it’s significant and alarming, is not determinable. It therefore still remains a hypothesis, and you have made it into an unfalsifiable one at that. There is NOTHING that will convince you that CO2 is not the main cause of net ocean heat changes when varied up or down in volumes of 0.000001.
No, I’ll amusingly dismiss Marcott. And MBH98. What was the mechanism that allowed sea levels to rise to 3 meters higher than today across much of the globe during the Middle Holocene, considering those high sea levels imply much warmer ocean waters than today? Why did ocean temperatures rise and fall by 2 degrees per 200 years in the 0-1000 m layer (Bova et al., 2016) during the Holocene, which is many times faster than the modern rate?
SSTs varied up and down by 3.7°C during the last 2,700 years…
Aagaard-Sørensen, 2014
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/24/1/93.short
“The sSSTMg/Ca values increase and vary between 2.1°C and 5.8°C from ~2.7 kyr BP to the present.”
During the global 8.2 K event, temperatures fell and then rose by about 3 degrees each way within a span of 150 years (while CO2 barely budged). Compare that to the 0.05 C/decade rate of warming since 1850.
Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20thcentury portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.” — Marcott, 2013
CO2 levels were about 280 ppm in the mid-15th century (the beginning of the LIA). By 1900 (which was colder than 1850), the end of the Little Ice Age, they were 296 ppm. That’s a 16 ppm increase (+0.21 W m-2 with the conversion) while temperatures were cooling. But go ahead and attempt to support your claim that CO2 didn’t increase between the 1450-1900 LIA.
I’d say a 1-2 ppm change in 150 years is steady. You don’t?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058177/full
“We observe a small, about 1–2 ppm, increase of atmospheric CO2 during the 8.2 ka event. The increase is not significant when compared to other centennial variations in the Holocene that are not linked to large temperature changes.”
That’s the CO2 concentrations that were reconstructed from the law dome ice core:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/figures/lawdome.jpg
CO2 concentration decreased when temperatures decreased. It began to increase when mankind started to burn fossil fuels. That increase is only in (small) parts caused by increasing temperatures.
According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129389/ it was about 25 ppm.
No. It began to increase about 150 years before humans began burning fossil fuels.
http://photobucket.com/gallery/http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/Law17501875.png.html
So you’re going with the 2002 paper over the 2013 paper, which says 1-2 ppm? You have an even worse problem. The 2002 paper says the concentration declined by 25 after 300 years. The 8.2 K even lasted a total of 150 years, and it warmed by 3 degrees C during the last 70 years of that span. So, again, the temperature increased (by 3 degrees!) while the CO2 concentration decreased by 25 ppm. We have yet another incompatibility. Are you going to keep digging? You should have just taken the 1-2 ppm and your losses wouldn’t have been so deep.
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobashi_8k_QSR.pdf
A large number of paleoclimatic records over a hemispheric area show a large and abrupt climate change around 8200 years BP. However, the duration and general character of the event have been ambiguous. Here, we provide a precise characterization and timing of the event using methane and nitrogen isotopes in trapped air in an ice core. Climate change in Greenland and at a hemispheric scale was simultaneous (within ~4 years) as supported by climate model results (LeGrande et al., 2006). The event started around ~8175 years BP, and it took less than 20 years to reach the coldest period, with a magnitude of cooling of ~3.3 C in central Greenland. After 60 years of maximum cold, climate gradually recovered for 70 years to a similar state as before the event [+3.3 C within 70 years]. The total duration of the event was roughly 150 years.
And now overlay that linked graph of yours with the temperatures at that time.
Are you a special kind of master confuser or something? Your replies get more amazing with each iteration levels beyond what can be expected from a hardcore skeptic who grasps any straw just so he can claim that somehow something is wrong with how CO2 and temperatures are connected 😉 Seriously, learn how the mechanism works!
Do you think that this somehow contradicts what you call my “beliefs” too? https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gif
BTW: keyphrase in your quote is: “in Greenland”.
We have yet another incompatibility. Are you going to keep digging? You should have just taken the 1-2 ppm and your losses wouldn’t have been so deep.
Oooh. A “master confuser”. How different is this from the “know-nothing disinformer” you called me yesterday? This name-calling is really raising your status here.
Let’s take a look at your claims again. You believe that the 8.2 K event, in which global-scale temperature changes fell by 3 C (within a few decades) and then rose by 3 C (within about 7 decades) all while CO2 concentrations dropped by 25 ppm (since you prefer the 2002 paper to the 2013 paper which indicates CO2 changes of 1-2 ppm). The entire cooling-then-warming event took just 150 years to complete. And yet it is your position that CO2 fell by 25 ppm as temperatures rose by 3 degrees C (the second half of the cooling-warming oscillation). In other words, you have just acknowledged that temperatures didn’t determine CO2 levels during this phase of the Holocene…just as they didn’t coincide with the Little Ice Age cooling (temperatures declined as CO2 levels rose). You desperately try to support your beliefs with that 2002 paper, and then you realize that doing so makes your case even worse than before! Hence the name-calling, I guess.
Wow. SebastianH, did you really not realize that 8.2K has been established to have been a globally synchronous event? This has been reported since 1997 at least. In the last 20 years, many dozens of more proxies from all over the world confirm a synchronous 8.2K event. But you can go on and keep believing it only occurred in Greenland.
Alley et al., 1997
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/25/6/483.short
The synchronous occurrence of this event in local, regional, and global proxy climate records in central Greenland requires that the event also occurred in other places, thereby strengthening correlations suggested by other workers (e.g., Chappellaz et al., 1993; Gasse and van Campo, 1994). We consider it especially likely that this event correlates to (Fig. 2) cold conditions in northern Sweden (Karlén, 1976) and on the Agassiz Ice Cap, Ellesmere Island, Canada (Fisher et al., 1995); fresh, cool surface conditions in the North Atlantic (Duplessy et al., 1992; Keigwin and Jones, 1995; Bond, 1995), dry, windy conditions in the Laurentian Great Lakes and surrounding regions (Dean, 1993; Rea et al., 1994); dry conditions in broad monsoonal regions of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Tibet, and northwest India (Sirocko et al., 1993; Gasse and van Campo, 1994; Lamb et al., 1995; and references therein); and windy conditions in the Cariaco Basin, offshore Venezuela (Hughen et al., 1996).
—
Chatbot EdBo blathers:
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
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…
“What makes you think you know that “this is what [I] believe”.” – Chatbot-EdBo
Because that’s what you are defending.
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.
Hey Pete, why not go all the way and calculate it per nanosecond?
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 …
There have been no net increases in yearly CO2 emissions from humans for 4 years now (2013-2016). And yet the CO2 concentration has increased by 9 ppm. These non-corellations between yearly CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations have been ongoing for decades.
Munshi, 2017
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
A key relationship in the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that between annual fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2. The proposed causation sequence is that annual fossil fuel emissions cause annual changes in atmospheric CO2 which in turn intensifies the atmosphere’s heat trapping property. … A testable implication of the proposed causation sequence is that annual changes in atmospheric CO2 must be related to annual fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. This work is a test of this hypothesis. We find that detrended correlation analysis of annual emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 does not support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis because no evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.
There you go again. You’ve confused values and derivatives on this topic … as you always do.
When you drive your car, do you think that you won’t continue to drive forward when you stop accelerating and drive at constant speed?
That’s what you are saying here … human emissions are the constant speed and CO2 concentration is the distance driven.
No, that’s not what I’m saying (of course). Humans emissions are not constant. They go up slightly (0.1 to 0.2 GtC/yr) from one year to the next. Sometimes they decline slightly from one year to the next. Or sometimes they don’t change at all for several consecutive years.
What I am saying, and what I have said, is that there is no year-to-year correlation between human emissions and atmospheric CO2 ppm changes. You say that doesn’t matter, it’s the long-term (decades) correlation that matters in establishing that emissions are the cause of the CO2 ppm changes. But if that’s the case, then it could just as legitimately be said that a long-term (decades) increase in temperature is the cause of the CO2 ppm increase, as there is just as much a correlation between temperature and CO2 ppm as there is between emissions and CO2 ppm. But then, of course, you say that the correlation between temperature and CO2 ppm isn’t the factor that counts, it’s the correlation between human emissions and CO2 ppm that counts. You want to have it both ways.
But then, isn’t it interesting that there is a robust year-to-year correlation between temperature and CO2 ppm as well as a long-term correlation?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Temperature-Change-Leads-CO2-Growth-Change.jpg
Didn’t you write “There have been no net increases in yearly CO2 emissions from humans”?
It doesn’t really matter if it’s constant or just changing by very little. You don’t seem to understand the connection between our emissions and the CO2 concentration. It’s not directly proportional, it’s a similar connection as speed has to distance or acceleration has to speed.
Even if our emissions would decrease by 30% next year the CO2 concentration would still increase and it would still be all human emissions that caused it.
You need to understand that or you will make yourself look like a know-nothing-disinformer. That’s not helpful to your agenda of trying to disprove (great) human influence on climate change.
For the 2013-’16 period, global emissions have been flat. That doesn’t mean they are “constant”. There is a slightly different GtC/yr value in each of those years.
Isn’t it interesting that temperature changes (which precede CO2 changes) have been found to be directly proportional both in the short term and in the long-term? The correlation between temperature increasing leading to CO2 increasing is therefore explanatory for both direct, year-to-year changes and the change from recent decades. CO2 emissions–>CO2 ppm change for year-to-year timescales has no such correlation. Temperature—>CO2 ppm change is therefore more explanatory than CO2 emissions–>CO2 ppm change. Of course, since this doesn’t fit the narrative, you have decided to dismiss this.
http://www.climometrics.org/12hustso.pdf
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records [since the 1980s], whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”
Yes, it is well known that’s what you believe to be true.
In other words, unless I fall in line and believe what you believe, you will continue to call me names (“know-nothing-disinformer”, “denier”) and attempt to marginalize me. Has this been an effective tactic for you?
I am not dismissing anything here. You are the one completely ignoring the mechanisms at play here. It’s not: temperature increases and so does the CO2 concentration proportionally, but with a lag. You wouldn’t describe a graph showing speed and distance traveled this way either, would you?
Yes, and that is true for today’s CO2 concentration. You can clearly see the temperature variations in the CO2 concentration variations. But it’s wrong to interpret that as natural effects (temperature change) being responsible for the increase from 2 ppm in one year to 3 ppm increase in the next year. The 3 ppm result from nature’s inability to absorb as much CO2 as in the previous year.
Until you understand why you have to interpret it this way (humans emitting more than the amount of CO2 the concentration is increasing by), discussions about this topic with you will be quite pointless.
That’s no believe. That’s math …
You don’t have to believe anything. You just need to understand the mechanisms involved. Not understanding them is not a good argument against the results, don’t you agree?
As for effectiveness … you are very stubborn and you ignore everything that I explain to you because you don’t trust anything someone who doesn’t share your “AGW is nonsense” opinion says. And you eagerly jump on anything that could possibly help your cause without being the least bit skeptical about it. You are no true skeptic Kenneth and that’s why I feel that you can discover the truth when you finally start understanding the basic physical mechanisms like how CO2 concentration is influenced by mankind’s emissions and how the greenhouse effect works (in any atmosphere).
Correct. The temperature change happens first, and then the rate of CO2 change is the lagged effect of the temperature change. More CO2 is released as temperatures warm than when temperatures cool. This could explain why we have record of CO2 concentrations increasing as a consequence of temperatures increasing.
Flohn, 1982
“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981). … Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”
—
http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf
“Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption. Owing to the magnitude of transfers with the ocean, even a minor increase of SST can lead to increased emission of CO2 that rivals other sources.” pg. 546
“Together with the strong dependence of CO2 emission on temperature (Fig. 1.43), they imply that a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.” pg. 253
“Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546
—
Gervais, 2016
“This temperature/CO2 correlation may be tentatively explained, at least partly, by the solubility of CO2 into water which decreases with temperature, consistent with sea pH maps (Byrne et al., 2010). Warm temperature fluctuations favor CO2 release from the oceans which contain 60 times more CO2 than the atmosphere (AR5, 2013), whereas cooler fluctuations favor its oceanic capture.”
—
Ahlbeck, 2009
The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
I have not described AGW as “nonsense”. You’ve just made up another of your false accusations. With rare exception, I don’t call people names, insult them, characterize them as unintelligent. I’ll leave that for you to do. Along with the straw men and false accusations, this tactic of yours has never been particularly effective, as I’m sure that you would describe AndyG’s attempts to marginalize you as ineffective too. So you go ahead and continue to try to insert your little “digs” and insults while I try to rise above that and support what I write with scientific papers. I have quite a few to choose from.
By the way, the reason why I don’t call AGW nonsense is precisely the reason why I don’t call the gravity-pressure theory for planetary atmospheres nonsense. I’m open to reading supporting evidence for both. I am already quite familiar with AGW arguments. Nothing you write is new or unexpected. Despite your obvious imaginings that you are “teaching” me, I find your responses to be quite unsatisfactory, even hurting the cause you espouse more than helping it. If there was a real-world experiment that shows CO2 variations are significant modifiers of ocean temperatures, I would be more inclined to agree that CO2 is a significant determinant of temperature variations. I have not found this to be the case, especially when considering the serious incompatibilities with paleoclimate data (as the 21.08.17 post attests to). So I continue to search for better explanations than what’s available. The CO2 GHE explanation for climate change (and ocean heating) is unsatisfactory, but I do not reject it out of hand…nor do I call it “nonsense”. Agnosticism is my home.
—
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1024856014060104#page-1
Causes of the heating and qualitative estimates of contributions of different factors in the global climate change remain unclear in many aspects. In still more degree, this refers to climate forecasts with accounting for anthropogenic impacts. There are many ambiguities in recent ideas about the global climate and causes of its variations. Observable correlations between long-term variations in the global temperature (GT) and CO2 content do not mean that the CO2 increase causes an increase in the global temperature. Actually observable temperature rise in the ocean also results in the increased content of CO2 in the atmosphere; therefore, such changes can be a consequence, but not a cause of global heating.
The other way around Kenneth. More CO2 is absorbed when temperatures are lower than when temperatures are warm.
Do you think that pressure/gravity is a better explanation despite it being physically impossible? And do you think that is is a better explanation because you don’t understand how exactly the greenhouse effect works (as is evident from the numerous quotes of yours and in every reply you write)?
I understand why you feel that way. As written before: learn how the mechanisms work and you’ll change your mind. There are no “gaping holes” as you are imagining.
I highly doubt an outsider would see it this way when following your comments and posts 😉
“Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”
“Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption.”
“a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.”
On why CO2 concentration is increasing like we observe:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/can-we-trust-emission-statistics
From that article:
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 .
I would be interested in reading more about gravitational energy. Can you provide an informational source?
I can’t see how Gravity can create energy,it is the effect of it that cause energy to be measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf&embedded=true
Let us return to the claim of Rahmstorf and Schellhuber that the high venusian surface temperatures somewhere between 400 and 500 Celsius degrees are due to an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect. Of course, they are not. On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypothesis is not obeyed. On the other hand, if one compares the temperature and pressure profiles of Venus and Earth, one immediately sees, that they are both very similar. An important difference is the atmospheric pressure on the ground, which is approximately two orders higher than on the Earth. At 50 km altitude the venusian atmospheric pressure corresponds to the normal pressure on the Earth with temperatures at approximately 37 Celsius degrees. However, things are extremely complex (volcanic activities, clouds of sulfuric acid), such that we do not go in details here [47].
[47] “Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profiles”, 24. Januar 2010, http://www.datasync.com/ersf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
Don’t invent facts Kenneth, the temperature at 1066 mbar (“normal pressure on the Earth”) is around 75°C in Venus’ atmosphere according to Venus Express measurements.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2007/11/Venus_polar_region_temperature_profile
You still don’t understand how the greenhouse effect works, do you?
SebastianH, that’s a copy/paste from the quoted peer-reviewed scientific paper. I didn’t invent anything. How often do you manage to get through a reply to me without concocting a straw man argument or hurling a false accusation?
You should mark quotes as such. That wasn’t obvious from your comment at all. But it doesn’t change my reply, only to whom it is addressed …
That’s no straw man or false accusation, but speaking of straws … you seem to grasp any straw that vaguely confirms your opinion. Not the least bit skeptical, Kenneth? If you’d understand the physical mechanisms you’d be very skeptical about those claims.
Well then someone didn’t really “peer review” that “reply to a comment” (as the headline says).
How about, “Oh, I’m sorry for falsely accusing you of inventing facts”. Civility would be welcome. I don’t think that would be too much to ask. Do you ever own up to it when you’ve been shown to be wrong?
I am not wrong … just accused the wrong person. Mark your quotes as such when they are so similar to your opinion/writing.
Wow. You can’t even apologize when you falsely accuse someone of writing something he didn’t, and get caught doing so. You’re even blaming me for not marking my quotes clearly enough. Yes, I’m to blame for your false accusation. Why the incivility, SebastianH? Do you treat people like this regularly in your personal life?
Those aren’t false accusations and I don’t know why it is suddenly all about you and how you feel you are being treated again? It’s just addressed to the wrong person because I didn’t do a full-text search of what you wrote in that comment on the linked website.
It’s annoying that you feel the need to play the victim card so often …
You claimed I “invented facts”. I didn’t.
I see you’d prefer that I not point it out when you fabricate and concoct made-up thoughts and phrasings. I’d suggest abstaining from doing so, then.
@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.
Pretty much exactly where I’m at. Our estimates are wildly uncertain and rooted in presumption about the actual (but not observed) physical consequences of parts per million variations on atmospheric gases on both air and ocean temperatures. Nothing has been settled. So the search continues.
Thanks. 🙂
Except that gravity can not and will not ever create heat when nothing is further compressed by it.
Kenneth,
Newcomer to this site. I have been reading up some of the links being provided here in the discussions. Cant provide a link, but one of the arguments is that without “greenhouse gases” the ability to cool the atmosphere is lost, which essentially would result in a Greenhouse scenario for the atmosphere. It is said the atmosphere would take on the temperature of the hottest exposed surface on Earth or thereabouts.
Spinning the wheel further by adding a cooling mechanism with said “greenhause gas, the temperature would become lower. With only little cooling the temperature remains higher and with more cooling gasses the temperature eventually might follow the radiative energy balance.
The only other comment I really want to make is that the discussion is missing out on the question: What is the temperature of the Earth body? There is nowhere a mention that if Earth already is 15 deg C hot and you add any Energy from the Sun and take it away with radiation, the temperature would still be 15 deg C. Similar to the fact that the Oceans provide us with a moderation in air temperature. It needs a great imbalance to change this scenario, but I understand its all balanced!
Keep up the good work. Your consistency and patience with the resident trolls amazes me!
And this return-to-equilibrium no matter how much radiant energy is “added” to the self-perpetuating cycle has been addressed previously.
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
The popular explanation of the greenhouse effect as the result of the LW atmospheric absorption of the surface radiation and the surface heating by the atmospheric downward radiation is incorrect, since the involved flux terms ( AA and ED ) are always equal. The mechanism of the greenhouse effect may better be explained as the ability of a gravitationally bounded atmosphere to convert 0 0 F P + to OLR in such a way that the equilibrium source function profile will assure the radiative balance ( 0 0 F P OLR + =), the validity of the Kirchhoff law ( ED U = S A), and the hydrostatic equilibrium ( 2 U U S E = ). Although an atmosphere may accommodate the thermal structure needed for the radiative equilibrium, it is not required for the greenhouse effect. Formally, in the presence of a solid or liquid surface, the radiation pressure of the thermalized photons is the real cause of the greenhouse effect, and its origin is related to the principle of the conservation of the momentum of the radiation field.
Since the world oceans are virtually unlimited sources and sinks of the atmospheric water vapor (optical depth), the system – depending on the time constant of the different energy reservoirs – has many ways to restore the equilibrium situation and maintain the steady state global climate. For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy flow with less water vapor available. This could increase the global average rain rate and speed up the global water cycle resulting in a more dynamical climate, but still the energy balance equations do not allow the average surface temperature to rise. The general circulation can not change the global radiative balance although, changes in the meridional heat transfer may result in local or zonal warming or cooling which again leads to a more dynamical climate.
http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Miskolczi_2015.pdf
This paper presents observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the Earth’s atmosphere. These data show that the global average clear sky greenhouse effect has remained unchanged with time.
That’s not the case. Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere can only exchange energy with its surroundings by conduction with the surface. The surface would directly radiate towards space and likewise could only exchange energy with the atmosphere via conduction.
That’s highly unlikely since the atmosphere is in contact with the surface everywhere and not only the hottest place. The atmosphere would be largely isothermal (disregarding a small surface layer) with no LW radiation absorbing gases present.
If you think that the average surface temperature would be as high or even higher without greenhouse gases then you should read more links. Without greenhouse gases the surface would radiate directly towards space and it can’t radiate more energy than it absorbs … it would be much colder on average (at most -18°C average temperature if the albedo would stay the same)
It doesn’t need that big of an imbalance if the forcing is applied over decades and centuries.
@Kenneth:
You are amazing. You have papers in your list to quote from for every topic even if they contradict each other. Shouldn’t that make you skeptic about the claims you are posting here to support one opinion or another? Or are you doing this only to show us that nothing is certain and you can find a paper supporting everything if you want to? Hmm.
What you fail to see is that returning to an equilibrium doesn’t mean that the surface temperatures are the same as before.
You’ve misunderstood. According to the papers presented, it’s the water/CO2 greenhouse effect that returns to equilibrium, or remains constant…no matter how much CO2 is “added” to the atmosphere. A constant-with-time greenhouse effect is therefore not the factor affecting change in the surface temperature, if such a change is indeed really occurring.
http://energiaakademia.lapunk.hu/tarhely/energiaakademia/dokumentumok/201406/miskolczi_greenhouse.pdf
According to the Miskolczi Greenhouse Theory, MGT, the Earth’s atmosphere has a theoretical equilibrium infrared optical thickness, Mτ , which is controlled by the radiative equilibrium, the virial, the energy conservation, and the Kirchhoff laws. He postulates, that in the water rich planet of Earth the chaotic space time distribution of the atmospheric water vapor maintains the above constant theoretical infrared optical thickness. For the whole Earth-atmosphere system, to stay at the global radiative balance the excess water vapor will precipitate out and the deficit will be supplied by evaporation from the surface and cloud top. In 2010 in his third article, [3], using different climatologic radiosonde archives and unprecedented numerical accuracy in his radiative transfer code he showed that the directly observed infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere are fully consistent with the theoretical expectations and the global average infrared optical thickness is really 1.87. In 2011 he presented new results, [4], and showed that the global average IR optical thickness remains constant while using radiosonde time series of different length. His global average clear sky greenhouse factor computed from the TIGR 2 radiosonde archive is G=127.8 W/m2.
Summarizing his work:
1. He made a quantitative theoretical statement about the equilibrium infrared absorption optical thickness of the atmosphere: 1.867561 A τ.
2. He showed with transparent state-of-the-art line-by-line radiative transfer computations and using several independent climatologic radiosonde data sets that the observed value of the optical thickness is 1.867 A τ = , which is consistent with his theoretical expectation.
3. He showed in seven different time series that the observed A τ did not change in the last 61 years while the atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by 21 %.
Anyone wishing to refute the validity of MGT will have to perform these scientific tasks:
1 – Present quantitative results based on global scale radiosonde observations resulting in a DIFFERENT infrared optical thickness.
2 – Present quantitative results showing that the long term global average A τ is NOT a constant.
3 – Present PROOFS against his theoretical equations.
So far no criticism from scientists who have the resources to reproduce the numerical results and empirical facts on which the MGT rests has appeared. Scientists at NASA, JPL, AERI, OSU, CSU, and NCAR have not spoken. Those who really understand what the MGT is and what are its consequences have chosen to be silent.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
http://energiaakademia.lapunk.hu/tarhely/energiaakademia/dokumentumok/201406/miskolczi_greenhouse.pdf
R. Spencer, [11], and R. Dorland [12] criticize the E A D = A relationship. They are not able to comprehend that in a steady state global radiation field there cannot be any accumulation of non radiative energy fluxes anywhere in the system. It seems that they are not aware of the fundamental identity of thetheoretical radiative transfer that the downward emittance from an isotropic radiation field must be exactly equal to the absorption from the same isotropic radiation field. For simplicity, in all his computations Miskolczi assumed a perfect blackbody radiator at the surface. Arguing about the 3% global average discrepancy in the E A D = A relationship, while knowing that the surface is not a perfect blackbody is meaningless.
More than 100 years ago Karl Schwarzschild wrote, [13]: “…Thus the variation of radiation E with overlaying optical depth τ can be derived only by assuming Kirchhoff’s law… ” . R. Spencer and R. Dorland are eager to communicate their beliefs about the global warming and greenhouse effect, but unfortunately the physical science is known to be quantitative, and quantitative results cannot be refuted by beliefs. Pushing the below mark write-up of R. Dorland in [12] as the refutation of the MGT will only reveal their lack of understanding of the elementary concepts of the quantitative radiative transfer.
[11] Spencer, R.; Comments on Miskolczi’s (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory.http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08
That reply should make any mathematically inclined person cringe 😉
Sorry, this theory and the person that is so eagerly defending it in your linked paper sound like those people that claim their car can run on water or that they found a cheap way to implement cold fusion. It’s obvious nonsense written in an unnecessary offensive language
Assuming that they “oppose it [the MGT] for ideological reasons” is just another conspiracy theorists wet dream.
Good night, I’m out …
A highly substantive rebuttal, SebastianH. I guess there is no need to address the challenges posed to fully demonstrate the offensive “nonsense” that is a conspiracy theorists’ “wet dream”.
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.
ScottM
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.
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.
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.
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.
The comment above on models was meant as a reply to Bob Armstrong; seems it isn’t getting threaded properly on the web page.
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.
Yes I realized that later; somehow I misread the indentations.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/10/new-engineering-textbook-asserts-the-impact-of-co2-emissions-on-c… […]
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.