CO2 Climate Sensitivity So Low It’s ‘Impossible
To Detect Or Measure In The Real Atmosphere’
“In particular, formula 5 (and 6) as presented here, totally rules out
any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed
by the IPCC in their reports can exist in the real atmosphere.”
– Holmes, 2017
In a new peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal Earth Sciences last December (2017), a Federation University (Australia) Science and Engineering student named Robert Holmes contends he may have found the key to unlocking our understanding of how planets with thick atmospheres (like Earth) remain “fixed” at 288 Kelvin (K), 740 K (Venus), 165 K (Jupiter)…without considering the need for a planetary greenhouse effect or changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The Greenhouse Effect ‘Thought Experiment’
Perhaps the most fundamental conceptualization in climate science is the “thought experiment” that envisions what the temperature of the Earth might possibly be if there was no greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases, or atmosphere.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA
“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.”
Simplistically, the globally averaged surface temperature clocks in at 288 K. In the “thought experiment”, an imaginary Earth that has no atmosphere (and thus no greenhouse gases to absorb and re-emit the surface heat) would have a temperature of only 255 K. The difference between the real and imagined Earth with no atmosphere is 33 K, meaning that the Earth would be much colder (and uninhabitable) without the presence of greenhouse gases bridging the hypothetical “heat gap”.
Of that 33 K greenhouse effect, 20.6 K is imagined to derive from water vapor droplets in the atmosphere (1,000 to 40,000 parts per million [ppm] by volume), whereas 7.2 K is thought to stem from the “natural” (or pre-industrial) 200-280 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration (Kramm et al., 2017).
As a “thought experiment”, the critical heating role for water vapor droplets and CO2 concentrations lacks real-world validation. For example, the Earth’s oceans account for 93% of the planet’s heat energy (Levitus et al., 2012), and yet no real-world physical measurements exist that demonstrate how much heating or cooling is derived from varying CO2 concentrations up or down over a body of water in volume increments of parts per million (0.000001). Consequently, the CO2 greenhouse effect is a hypothetical, model-based conceptualization.
And in recent years, many scientific papers have been published that question the fundamentals of not only the Earth’s hypothetical greenhouse effect, but the role of greenhouse gases for other planets with thick atmospheres (like Venus) as well Hertzberg et al., 2017, Kramm et al., 2017, Nikolov and Zeller, 2017 , Allmendinger, 2017, Lightfoot and Mamer, 2017, Blaauw, 2017, Davis et al., 2018). The Holmes paper highlighted here may just be among the most recent.
‘Extremely Accurate’ Planetary Temperature Calculations With Pressure/Density/Mass Formula
Holmes has argued that the average temperature for 8 planetary bodies with thick (0.1 bar or more) atmospheres can be precisely measured with “extreme” accuracy — an error range of just 1.2% — by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: “[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”
Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body. He then calculated the planets’ temperatures with these figures.
Venus’ temperature was calculated to be 739.7 K with the formula. Its measured temperature is 740 K. This indicates that the formula’s accuracy is within an error range of just 0.04% for Venus.
Given Earth’s pressure/density/mass, its calculated temperature is 288.14 K using Holmes’ formula. Earth’s measured temperature is 288 K, an exact fit.
Saturn’s calculated temperature is 132.8 K. Its measured temperature is 134 K — an error range of only 0.89%.
The impressive accuracy of the formula is illustrated below in Table 1. and Figure 2.
Atmospheric Pressure/Density And Surface Temperature
In large part, the density of a planet’s atmosphere is a primary determinant of its temperature. Planets with thick atmospheres are hotter. Planets with thin atmospheres are cooler. The further away from the surface, the less gravity/pressure there is and the cooler it gets. And vice versa.
Sciencing.com
“In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be. A planet with weak gravity will tend to have less mass and allow more atmosphere to escape into space. Thus the thickness or thinness of the atmosphere depends upon the strength or weakness of gravity. For example, the gravity on Jupiter is 318 times greater than Earth, and thus Jupiter’s atmosphere is much thicker than Earth’s. Gravity gets weaker the further away it is from a planet, so the atmosphere will be thicker near the surface.”
A facile illustration of the effects of atmospheric pressure on the surface temperatures of a planet like Earth can be found in the Grand Canyon, Southwestern U.S. There, the North Rim is about 1,000 feet (305 meters) higher in elevation than the South Rim. Interestingly, the North Rim is also about 9 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the South Rim due to the influence of atmospheric pressure/gravity. The bottom of the canyon reaches temperatures 20-25 degrees warmer than the top. The stark temperature difference is unrelated to the greenhouse gas concentrations for the two locations, nor is it connected to sunlight. It’s the gravitational pressure that creates the heat divergence.
Subia, 2014
“Elevation and season of the year determine average temperatures at the the Grand Canyon. Elevations at top of the South Rim average around 7,000 feet. The North Rim averages about 8,000 feet. The higher the elevation, the cooler the temperature. At any given time, the North Rim will average 8-10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler versus the South Rim. … [T]he very bottom of the canyon can increase 20 to 25 degrees warmer than the top of the respective rims.”
Sensitivity To CO2 Concentration Changes ‘Extremely Low’
Holmes points out that the implications of his precise calculations for planetary temperatures necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is no need to have a greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases to bridge a hypothetical “heat gap.” Instead, he writes that “planetary bodies with thick atmospheres cannot be mainly determined by the ‘greenhouse effect’, but instead most likely by an effect from fluid dynamics, namely, adiabatic autocompression.”
This effectively rules out the possibility that CO2 is a predominant climate driver.
In fact, Holmes’ calculation for CO2 climate sensitivity (doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.03% to 0.06%) is -0.03°C.
As he ostensibly understates in his conclusion, “This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere.”
Holmes, 2017
Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law
Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity
Introduction
Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa [a thick atmosphere, 0.1 bar or more]. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law.
It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.
This formula proves itself here to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used, but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.
Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas.
In short, there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.
The Formula: An ‘Extremely Accurate Predictor’ Of Planetary Temperatures
In the real world where gravity doesn’t perform work on an atmosphere, climate sensitivity is pretty high:
https://eartharxiv.org/4et67/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
Posts like this should make any sane reader of a blog like this question if the authors really know what they are doing or if they just want physics to not work like it actually works.
Can you explain how gravity is compressing the atmosphere and causing a temperature increase doing it?
P.S.: Of course it’s possible to calculate the temperature when you have all the other variables of the well known equation. It can’t get more obvious … the ignorance of physics/science is displayed best with a quote from your article:
Well, Kenneth … please tell us, what is the gravity at the surface and by what percentage does it decrease in say, 10 km height?
It’s getting colder the higher you go, because of the lapse rate that begins at the surface. It doesn’t begin somewhere in space and then causes air to get warmer the further down you go.
Looking forward to your reply about questions I haven’t answered and throwing all kinds of colorful words around 😉
Before AndyG55 yaps something about zero-science, please be skeptical enough to realize that temperature is the setter, not pressure, not density. A planet’s atmosphere isn’t a closed system. Like a bicycle tire that gets warm when filled with air at high pressure, it won’t be able to keep up the temperature differential without constant work being performed. And, as we all know, gravity doesn’t perform work on the atmosphere since it doesn’t get further compressed.
Exception: atmospheres on planets like Saturn. There the compression is still taking place.
Since the bottom of the Grand Canyon is 20-25 degrees warmer than the rim, what is the physical cause of the temperature difference between the two locations if the elevation/gravity/pressure has nothing to do with it?
Do greenhouse gases control those temperature differences? No? Then what mechanism does?
You do realize what you are suggesting here, do you? 🙂
Do you really think it is warmer at the bottom because the air down there gets compressed more?
I’ve continued to ask you to provide the reason. Why is the temperature of the Southern Rim (Grand Canyon) consistently 8-10 degrees F warmer than the Northern Rim, since the only difference between the two locations is elevation (the Southern Rim is 305 meters lower than the Northern)? Greenhouse gases can’t explain the temperature difference. Nor can sunlight. So what does? Identify the cause of the temperature divergence.
And if you agree that CO2 and water vapor cannot explain the temperature difference for the two surface locations in the Grand Canyon, at what locations/heights on or above the Earth’s surface do GHGs explain surface air temperature differences…since they are hypothetically responsible for 33 C of the surface air temperature difference, bridging the 255 K to 288 K “heat gap”?
Seb continues to ignore basic physics.
Probably because doesn’t understand any of it.
Kenneth, please tell us what you believe the reason for the temperature difference is! I want a good laugh in the morning 🙂
I’ll let a geologist named Jonathan DuHamel attempt to explain it to you. Perhaps you’ll learn something. More likely, you’ll just pivot to name-calling…your usual gambit once you’ve been shown to be wrong.
—-
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/12/03/what-keeps-earth-warm-the-greenhouse-effect-or-something-else-2/
Consider the Grand Canyon. The river level is 4,900 feet below the South Rim and 5,900 feet below the North Rim. Does the extra weight of the atmosphere at the bottom of the Canyon make the bottom warmer than the rim? Even though cold air sinks, the bottom of the Canyon is always warmer than the rim, at any time of the year, as shown by temperature measurements in the table below. Notice also that the higher North Rim is almost always cooler than the South Rim. This is a demonstration of the “lapse rate.” Atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude. This is because as you go higher up there is less air above you, and therefore less downward force due to the weight of this air. As pressure decreases, air expands and cools.
And just to make things interesting, a 2013 paper in Nature Geoscience explains why “A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, [separating stratosphere from troposphere] occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight.” This shows that temperature is controlled by pressure, not greenhouse gases.
Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Many publications since, have expounded on Maxwell’s theory and have shown that it applies to all planets in the Solar System.
—-
But do tell, SebastianH. What is the reason YOU believe that the North Rim is 9 degrees F cooler than the South Rim? Identify the mechanism. Stop running away each time I ask you this question. Answer it. What causes the temperature divergence?
“Before AndyG55 yaps something about zero-science,”
Then seb produces ZERO science. just his juvenile low-level opinion based on… guess what.. ZERO science.
How PREDICTABLE is that !!
“gravity doesn’t perform work on the atmosphere since it doesn’t get further compressed.”
roflmao. the seb ignorance writ large.
The work is done in MAINTAINING that compression.
And anyone that thinks that work is NOT done in fighting against gravity , should try holding a 5lb barbell out, stationary, at arms length.
Not moving, so no work being done, right.
How much energy does a floor expend holding the barbell: Hint: floors are not equipped with electric motors and power cables. We’ve been through this before.
Internal strain energy, Pierre.
Just like in your arm.
The calculations of deflections and internal strain energy of EVERY object resisting a force, use units of energy and work.
A course in basic structural engineering may be required.
Perhaps a simplified brief intro?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-strain-energy
Why Seb thinks compression still on Saturn, but not on Earth? Where is difference?
Seb reminds me of a Physics Professor who argued that if we take a container and fill it with air and lift it up in the atmosphere, it does not change the temperature. This is proff that there is no gravity effect on the gas.
Seb thinks this is physics.
He wrong! He forget that whoever lifts the container puts energy in to lift the container. Aur atmosphere is not in container. it makes lift itself.
How not if no expending energy? Energy that is taken reduces the temperature. You no need change in gravity to make cooler. you only need height!
Because Saturn doesn’t have the magic gas (CO2).
Earth’s atmosphere is pretty much settled. The pressure at the surface isn’t increasing year over year and therefore no compression is happening. Saturn is a different story. That planet even emits more heat than it receives from the Sun, heat coming from internal processes like helium “raining” downwards. On Jupiter it is entirely primordial heat from the forming of the planets that provides its internal heat. And so on …
No, it doesn’t lift itself.
btw: if gravity would perform work, then it would be possible to extract usable energy from that. Good luck building a generator sitting on the floor “holding up” a heavy weight. That’s really basic physics and I am starting to realize why the mechanisms in climate science also are a mystery to most skeptics.
@Kenneth: I see, you regard the effects of GHGs magic now?
“if gravity would perform work,”
blah.. blah.. yap.. yap..
“That’s really basic physics “
And you FLUNKED yet again.
Yep, gravity based energy has been around for ever.
Grandfather clock, hydro power.
Lift mechanisms and counter weights.
Car springs.
Strain related counter-balances in tall buildings.
Trampolines, springboards. (again, you will have ZERO CLUE how that relates, seb = clueless)
You never did do anything except basic junior high physics, did you, seb, and a bare pass if at all, from the junk physics you put out..
I no think Earth atmosphere settled. Do you?
No problem with climate then!
Earth produce energy also. Only difference quantity not quality.
Seb needs look at first law. Air molecules of course need energy to be lifted. Not coming from within, but coming from sun! What he thinks happens when no sun shine? Molecules flat on Earth no moving. This is what happens.
You not able to go up stairs without energy. why air molecules could? He wrong physics! Air has mass so energy needed to lift.
Simple physics!
Gravity is counter force to over come by work that air molecules have to do.
See, he’s getting it. Please tell that you need to expend work to get work from gravity to AndyG55.
Seb continues his ignorant ZERO science prattle.
EMPTY and scientifically ignorant.
And interestingly, those variables do not include greenhouse gases. And yet the precise temperature can be calculated anyway.
Do you disagree with what’s written here? “More atmosphere is allowed to escape to space” with weak gravity/less mass. That’s why planets with thick atmospheres (Venus) are warmer, and planets with thin atmospheres (Mars) are cooler…even though both Venus and Mars have 950,000 ppm CO2 in their atmospheres.
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.”
—
“A facile illustration of the effects of atmospheric pressure on the surface temperatures of a planet like Earth can be found in the Grand Canyon, Southwestern U.S. There, the North Rim is about 1,000 feet (305 meters) higher in elevation than the South Rim. Interestingly, the North Rim is also about 9 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the South Rim”
“[T]he very bottom of the canyon can increase 20 to 25 degrees warmer than the top of the respective rims.”
Can you explain why greenhouse gases (atmospheric CO2 and water vapor concentration changes) provide a better explanation for the stark temperature differences at these locations?
Also, what is the reason why the calculations are so accurate for thick atmosphere planets even though they don’t use greenhouse gases as a modifier?
Have you ever heard of the ideal gas law, Kenneth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
It’s the very nature of this law that you don’t need anything else. Why would you? What you are saying is that when driving a vehicle for 10 km in a certain direction, you exactly know where you will be. No need to include the mode of transport into that equation. You’ll be there whether you used a bike, a car, or walked.
Similar your don’t need to know anything about the energy input to determine temperature from the other variables. It’s ridiculous that skeptics would take something like this (reminds me of Nikolov & Zeller) and use it to determine that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Doing that just demonstrates how little you know about physics. Sorry. (AndyG55, don’t bother with replying that it’s me who doesn’t know a thing … that’s getting old).
And you did it again. Answering my question by a counter question and I have no doubt you will repeat it again and again and claim I didn’t answer your question … so tiring.
Ever heard of optical thickness and can you calculate the number of CO2 molecules in both atmospheres? It’s not the ppm that determines the size of the GHE, if you didn’t know that.
Can you please answer my questions then?
Do you really think it is less gravity at the rim that makes it cooler there? (and again, please answer how much less gravity there is in different heights over the surface). How does that work exactly? Is it exactly the same temperature where the pressure is identical on this planet? Do you believe that is the case?
Because it is the damn law of ideal gases. Some of the NASA data for the planets is derived from this law, because we don’t know any better. It would be surprising if it doesn’t match. I leave it to you to find out why it doesn’t match for Mars … should be interesting to watch. Can you get to the bottom of that riddle? 😉
Clearly you haven’t heard of the Ideal Gas Law, Sebastian, or you have not read the key part of Holmes’s paper, which uses said Law to derive planetary temperatures.
In future before typing, engage brain.
Then go ahead, explain! Do you think “drop the volume” is a magic trick that somehow invalidates physics as we know it? 🙂
SebastianH, your version of “physics as we know it” is rooted in modeled assumptions and hypothetical conceptualizations. As you know, we have no real-world evidence, observational evidence, or physical measurements that demonstrate how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it. It’s not “known physics”. It’s a thought experiment.
” It’s a thought experiment.”
More like a brain fart/malfunction !!
” invalidates physics as we know it? “
roflmao.
seb, you have proven time and time again, that your knowledge of actual real physics is basically a great big EMPTY void.
My version is the universal one … I am not inventing physics as I go along, like you guys seem to do 😉
Your version of physics is a thought experiment. As you know, there are no real-world physical measurements that demonstrate how much (if at all) a body of water warms or cools when the CO2 concentrations are varied above it in increments of parts per million. None. It’s a modeled hypothetical conceptualization.
The idea that if more people agree with you than disagree (It’s universal!) that makes it right is not scientific. It’s political.
“I am not inventing physics as I go along”
No, you are posting child-physics, Junior high erroneous and NON-physics.
You have proven time and time again , that you have very little understanding of any actual REAL physics.
Produce real PHYSICAL measurements showing that CO2 causes warming
The gravity-pressure-thermal effect is absolutely known and measured. Even you are not anti-science enough to DENY that fact.
Tell us seb, why don’t they make chairs out of flimsy thin balsa wood?
They don’t do any work once you are seated in them, do they. 😉
Why don’t they make floors to take heavy machinery out of 4″ x 2″ joists and chipboard?
Do you know how they figure out what size beams they need in major structures?
Do you know what the major calculation used is called ?
Na, what makes it universal is that it works everywhere under all conditions and circumstances. There are no special cases where it works differently. What is “not scientific” and “political” is to question these universal laws with hilarious examples of where they ought to not apply. I still don’t get the reason why anyone would do this? 1 + 1 = 3 when over an ocean? Nope!
“1 + 1 = 3 when over an ocean?”
Is this another of your little fantasies, seb ?
—–
CO2 warming over oceans.. NOPE
CO2 warming of you gravity controlled convective atmosphere. NOPE
Expecting rational science from seb.. NOPE.. NEVER !!
The uncanny thing about this is that the pressure/gravity/mass effect can not only explain/precisely calculate temperatures on Earth and Venus, but Jupiter and Saturn too–with remarkable precision. And the latter planets do not have any greenhouse gases in their atmospheres. Of course, the hypothetical greenhouse effect cannot explain the temperatures of those planets. Not only that, but we have no validated observational evidence or physical measurements that demonstrate how much (if at all) varying CO2 concentrations in increments of parts per million up or down above a body of water actually heats or cools that body of water. It’s a hypothetical conceptualization…rooted in modeled assumptions. And considering this is a water planet, and the ocean temperatures determine the atmospheric temperatures, and not the other way around, not having mechanistic physical evidence for CO2’s water-heating-and-cooling capabilities is a fundamental gape in our knowledge.
Correct. It’s the atmospheric density that determines that.
So what else explains the stark temperature difference, SebastianH? Be specific.
Do you think water vapor and CO2 concentrations explain why one site elevated 305 meters above another site is -9 degrees F colder? I would assume you don’t. So if water vapor and CO2 — the Earth’s greenhouse gases — can’t explain why the bottom of the Grand Canyon is 25 degrees F warmer than the rim, then at what location above the Earth’s surface do greenhouse gases actually change the surface temperature (by 20.6 C for water vapor droplets, and 7.2 C for CO2)? If not at the surface, where?
On Venus, the temperature largely stays the same throughout the planet, but drops by 82 degrees C in the very same region where the pressure drops to 45 bar. The pressure difference causes the temperature drop. The CO2 concentrations stay the same. This does appear to help your case that the temperature on Venus is largely controlled by the CO2 concentration. On Earth, as well as Venus, where there is less pressure, there are cooler temperatures. Venus’ atmosphere has 100 times the density/pressure that Earth has. That’s the primary reason it’s so much hotter.
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).”
As explained in the paper, it doesn’t match for Mars because Mars does not have enough atmospheric pressure/density to use these calculations with any precision.
You must be really invested in this nonsense to not being able to see through it 🙂 this is why nobody takes skeptics seriously, not one can come up with a counter argument that even makes a little sense.
We’re still waiting for you to provide scientific evidence that shows humans control ocean temperatures by emitting more or less CO2…as that not only makes little sense, there is no observational evidence from the real world or physical measurements from a controlled experiment that validates this conceptualized thought experiment that says water vapor droplet and CO2 concentrations heat and cool water bodies.
Again I ask: What is the physical mechanism that causes the bottom of the Grand Canyon to be 20-25 degrees hotter than the top rim?
“not one can come up with a counter argument that even makes a little sense”
Says seb , the master of EVASION of any counter argument, or any empirical proof for that matter.
The arguments put forward by REALISTS are totally logical and based on empirical data.
The AGW sympathisers are the ones TOTALLY DEVOID of rational science.
Kenneth before you repeat yourself over and over again with no effect, please answer my question first. Can you explain how gravity causes the temperature to increase? Be specific (as you like to demand)!
And the rest: this is known now for over a hundred years. Stop playing the ignorant guy here.
I’ll let a geologist named Jonathan DuHamel attempt to explain it to you. Perhaps you’ll learn something. More likely, you’ll just pivot to name-calling…your usual gambit once you’ve been shown to be wrong.
—-
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/12/03/what-keeps-earth-warm-the-greenhouse-effect-or-something-else-2/
Consider the Grand Canyon. The river level is 4,900 feet below the South Rim and 5,900 feet below the North Rim. Does the extra weight of the atmosphere at the bottom of the Canyon make the bottom warmer than the rim? Even though cold air sinks, the bottom of the Canyon is always warmer than the rim, at any time of the year, as shown by temperature measurements in the table below. Notice also that the higher North Rim is almost always cooler than the South Rim. This is a demonstration of the “lapse rate.” Atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude. This is because as you go higher up there is less air above you, and therefore less downward force due to the weight of this air. As pressure decreases, air expands and cools.
And just to make things interesting, a 2013 paper in Nature Geoscience explains why “A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, [separating stratosphere from troposphere] occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight.” This shows that temperature is controlled by pressure, not greenhouse gases.
Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Many publications since, have expounded on Maxwell’s theory and have shown that it applies to all planets in the Solar System.
—-
But do tell, SebastianH. What is the reason YOU believe that the North Rim is 9 degrees F cooler than the South Rim? Identify the mechanism. Stop running away each time I ask you this question. Answer it. What causes the temperature divergence?
*known
Like you always do. You bring up quotes in hopes of not having to explain any mechanism by yourself. Why are you doing this? Are you only collecting sound bites you can reproduce when needed?
Exactly!
Exactly! It cools!
And there we go again with the creative intepretations, even the authors you quote seem to do this 😉
Lapse rate and geothermal gradient.
If you want you can even interpret it as an increased greenhouse effect since more and denser atmosphere is above the low point than the high point. More molecules available to radiatively interact with. But that would be stretching it.
And now you! Explain how gravity causes compression and therefore a temperature increase. What is the mechanism that is doing this and is not a perpetuum mobile? 😉
“This shows that temperature is controlled by pressure, not greenhouse gases.”
Jelbring, 2003
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
The main conclusion, derived from the model atmosphere of this paper, is the fact that there has to exist a substantial greenhouse effect (GE) which is mass dependent and which will develop independently of the amount of greenhouse gases in any real planetary atmosphere. The generally claimed importance of “greenhouse” gases rests on an unproven hypothesis (ref 1). The hypothesis is based on radiative models of energy fluxes in our atmosphere. These are inadequate, since radiative processes within the atmosphere are poorly described, convective energy fluxes are often inadequately described or omitted, and latent heat fluxes are poorly treated. The whole GE in these models is wrongly claimed being caused by “greenhouse gases”.
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
But is that enhanced greenhouse effect determined by water vapor droplets and CO2 molecules? You believe so. I have yet to see evidence that would allow me to become a believer.
“As you go higher up there is less air above you, and therefore less downward force due to the weight of this air. As pressure decreases, air expands and cools.”
I am aware that you know multiple authors employing that flawed argument. Doesn’t make it any more true.
In your own words please! This quote describes the lapse rate. The paper in the article describes gravity compressing the atmosphere and causing heat to build up as a result. Please describe how that is possible without further compression happening! Also present a plausible explanation why what you think is happening is not a perpetuum mobile. Be specific!
Only author seb seems to know about is the Grimm Bros.
He lives in a world of scientifically unsupportable FANTASY and Make-Believe.
Is unable to produce actual science to back-up even one of his many nonsense non-thoughts.
“there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect.”
You have yet to prove the existence of CO2 warming in our GRAVITY-CONTROLLED convective atmosphere.
The so-called greenhouse effect is a MYTH, backed by ZERO empirical science.
I know you have zero comprehension of things like internal strain, kinetic energy, potential energy etc etc,
…but you do need to realise that gravity is always doing work on the atmosphere, hence always creating heat.
Quite odd that people know that the atmosphere is an open system, then don’t realise that it takes constant work (due to gravity) to maintain the atmospheric pressure.
For those that like analogies, think of maintaining a given pressure in a gas bottle with a hole in it.
AndyG55, there is no work being performed. You are halucinating …
The author of HockeySchtick is a physicist. This is worth a read.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.za/2014/12/how-gravity-continuously-does-work-on.html
How Gravity continuously does Work on the atmosphere to control pressure & temperature
Some commenters claim gravity is not continuously performing thermodynamic Work upon the atmosphere to generate the thermal gradient from the continuous compression/expansion of gas parcels or packets continuously moving up and down within the lower atmosphere. This is the source of the 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, so we will now demonstrate why this misconception is incorrect by using the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy), ideal gas law, and barometric formulae.
“The author of HockeySchtick is a physicist”
And seb most certainly is NOT ! 😉
He has been shown “wanting”, as always.
Yeah, it works the same ways on the atmosphere as it works on a ball coming down a slope after you kicked it upwards. Explain how you can extract usable energy from that work and you become the inventor of the first Perpetuum mobile. Please do mankind the favor of enlightening with your gravity wisdom!
Poor seb, basic physics understanding is ZERO.
ZERO evidence of CO2 warming
Does not understand the physics that designs and builds every large structure.
An empty zero-knowledge AGW sympathiser.
“(AndyG55, don’t bother with replying that it’s me who doesn’t know a thing … that’s getting old).”
Yep, a very old FACT, that you seem determined not to do anything about.
Why they put up your yap yap yap is beyond me.
You just handwave nonsense, then avoid any real debate, you just pretend evade and distract, you are brain numbing-ly dumb, you and your whole smug condescending creed.
That reply was to Sebastian.
“Have you ever heard of the ideal gas law, Kenneth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
It’s the very nature of this law that you don’t need anything else. ”
Obviously he knows it. The whole argument is based on it, because the ideal gas law tells that pressure and temperature in a gas are closely related. Indeed, they are two way to express the kinetic effect of molecular agitation.
In a (nearly) closed system like the atmosphere of a planet, total kinetic energy and total potential energy are linked together by the ergodic hypothesis.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/vt.htm
Quote: “The virial theorem states that, for a stable, self-gravitating, spherical distribution of equal mass objects (stars, galaxies, etc), the total kinetic energy of the objects is equal to minus 1/2 times the total gravitational potential energy. In other words, the potential energy must equal the kinetic energy, within a factor of two.”
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath606/kmath606.htm
The greater the potential energy, the greater the kinetic (temperature, pressure) energy.
Except it is not a closed system. There is radiative interaction with a hot fireball and the rest of the universe. The pressure isn’t setting the temperature, it’s the other way around.
So the temperature at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, which is 20-25 degrees F warmer than the top of the Grand Canyon, causes the atmospheric pressure to be raised at the bottom and to be lowered at the top? What is the mechanism that sets the temperature, then? It’s not GHGs. So what is it? How did the temperatures get so much warmer the further down the canyon one goes? What caused that?
And if you agree — and you must — that greenhouse gases do not cause the divergence in temperatures at the bottom of the Grand Canyon versus the top, at what location on the Earth’s surface do CO2 concentrations change/affect the temperatures? If not the surface of the Grand Canyon, where? Please support your answer scientifically.
Sebastian H. says:”Except it is not a closed system. There is radiative interaction with a hot fireball and the rest of the universe. The pressure isn’t setting the temperature, it’s the other way around.”
It is in equilibrium. Planets lose as much radiative energy than they get (their global thermal energy doesn’t increase with time). Their surface pressure, and temperature, are in a great measure determined by the strength of their gravity field. There is a spectral effect when the peak wavelength of the ground emission (as a black/grey body) falls in an opaque band of the atmosphere. In that case, the temperature of the ground must slightly increase for the peak emission to overlap enough of the first transparent window. But as the radiative emission increases as the fourth power of temperature, a slight increase is enough.
“Except it is not a closed system.”
No, the pressure gradient continually needed replenishing.
You don’t even realised that you just destroyed all of your own anti-science non-arguments, do you seb.
So funny ! 🙂
“The pressure isn’t setting the temperature, it’s the other way around.””
WRONG !!!
The way you keep asking this tells me that you either have no clue at all or are trying to troll me. Which is it?
Why would the GHE cause a temperature differential at different heights? Why is the surface of the Grand Canyon the special place for the GHE to be tested? Please support your answer any way you want!
Uh, it wouldn’t. That’s why you’re being asked to explain the role of say, CO2, in explaining surface temperatures. After all, it is your belief that CO2 controls the melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice.
At what location(s) on the Earth’s surface do CO2 concentrations change/affect the temperatures?
You and your “strain energy” … just stop it. It’s not funny anymore.
At all locations of course. Very much depending on local temperatures of course, since there can’t be back radiation without something radiating (also the reason why the GHE can be negative at some locations on this planet).
At what location(s) on the Earth’s surface do CO2 concentrations change/affect the temperatures?
So how much of a change is caused by CO2 in the Grand Canyon’s North Rim vs. South Rim?
And before you ask: no, that doesn’t mean that the temperature increases everywhere (with the same climate) in the same way. But you can see it as an increased energy budget/heat content distributed around the globe. That’s what an increase in GHG is causing.
Feel free to calculate the different amount of backradiation reaching different parts of the surface over a timespan. Then estimate the percentage of the backradiation that is caused by CO2 and there you have it.
If you are asking this question to show that much higher temperature differences exist apart from what CO2 is causing, then you succeeded. I just don’t know how that is “supporting a skeptical view point”. It’s kind of obvious, isn’t it?
Thanks for acknowledging that. Now quantify it. Of the 5 degrees C difference between the North and South Rims (305 meters separate them vertically), how much of that 5 C is caused by CO2?
Why are you asking this question? It makes no sense.
On average a doubling of CO2 will cause a difference of X degrees. A doubling doesn’t cause a difference between locations at different heights.
You have yourself acknowledged that “much higher temperature differences exist apart from what CO2 is causing”
So I am asking you to specifically identify the temperature differences caused by CO2 that are necessarily much smaller. How much less smaller? Quantify it.
I still don’t know if you are trolling or not … but well … the ECS for CO2 is well known, so without any feedbacks around 1 degree per doubling. If you mean what difference the existence of CO2 in our atmosphere causes, I don’t know exactly.
We all know that the 33K value is just a baseline, since an Earth without an atmosphere wouldn’t be at an average of 255 K, just like the Moon’s average temperature isn’t 255 K. It would be much colder. But we can say, that greenhouse gases (all of them) in the atmosphere cause at least a 33 K temperature increase.
If you still mean what part of the temperature difference between North and South Rim is caused by CO2, then I am afraid I can not follow your logic here. It makes no sense asking a question like that.
SebastianH, the ECS for CO2 ranges anywhere between 0.02 C and 10.0 C, depending upon the model. (Yes, model. These are hypothetical conceptualizations, not rooted in observable, real-world measurements.) In what way can it be said that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is “well known”?
“without any feedbacks” is not ECS. You’re talking about the presumed/modeled/alleged “convective” value, which is NOT ECS. You probably need to bone up on the basics, SebastianH.
If you don’t know the difference CO2 causes, why in the world are you calling people deniers of the truth that CO2 warms the atmosphere? If you don’t know how much warming CO2 causes, and you don’t know how to calculate it, then it can’t be ruled out that it causes a negligible amount of warming. If you insist that the warming CO2 causes is NOT negligible, then wouldn’t there be a scientific way to demonstrate this? Why isn’t there one? And how is this “basic physics” if you can’t even identify what difference CO2 makes in our atmosphere?
See, this is the problem with your beliefs, SebastianH. This is why people like me search for other explanations for planetary temperatures other than CO2 concentrations. This is why we don’t just dismiss alternative explanations like the one this Holmes paper posits. We are entirely unsatisfied with the lack of observational and real-world evidence that your claims about CO2 (not to mention ocean “acidification” and 30,000-species-go-extinct-every-year) have.
Well, I’d assume you’d agree that the temperature difference between the North and South Rim is NOT caused by CO2 (or GHGs in general). Right? If so, my question is, and has been (I’ve asked several times), Where on the surface of the Earth DOES CO2 cause a temperature difference, if not at the surface (where we measure surface temperatures to claim the planet is warming)? Where is the CO2 signal in surface air temperatures if you agree the surface air temperatures in the Grand Canyon aren’t caused by CO2? This is not a question that you can just run away from by saying “Why are you asking this question?”.
“You and your “strain energy”
Poor seb again shows that his education is SADLY LACKING.. basically NON-EXISTANT.
If its even possible he knows LESS about anything than physics and climate …
… then it is structural mechanics.
He lives in a ZERO-KNOWLEDGE fantasy world, and is quite content to remain there.
“But we can say, that greenhouse gases.. blah, blah… “
You can say it, but you are totally unable to provide any measured proof.
So its just a baseless, mindless, brain-washed yap as far as real science is concerned.
“Posts like this should make any sane reader of a blog “
You are certainly NOT sane, seb.
Climates sensitivity to CO2 is very low to non-existent
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.FupaeiCA.dpbs
As you have constantly shown, it is IMMEASURABLE
There is NO EMPIRICAL PROOF it even exists at all
There is absolute measureable and observable PROOF of the gravity/pressure/thermal effect.
When it comes to actual science, YOU LOSE, seb… EVERY TIME
No-one can help your total lack of understanding of science and physics until you are willing to at least TRY to help yourself.
“The further away from the surface, the less gravity/pressure there is and the cooler it gets.”
Then in the next line you leave out the “pressure”.
Deceitful.
Then you keep using just “gravity” instead of “gravity/pressure” as you continue your deceit.
Seb. caught is a LIE , yet again.
Seb. “its getting colder the higher you go, because of the lapse rate that begins at the surface”.
Actually, the lapse rate continues below the surface, eg ventilation tubes in mines experience warming as they descend due to auto-compression. The lapse rate in mines below the surface is the same as it is above the surface.
In meteorology, a sinking parcel of cool dry air is said to warm with increasing atmospheric pressure (compression).
At the Dead Sea, which is over 400 metres below sea level, the increased air pressure will crush an empty plastic bottle.
The temperature in mines is set by the surrounding material and depth into the earth mantel. It’s not a continuation of the lapse rate above the surface, but may very well have it’s own lapse rate.
Question: if we could lift up the entire surface by 100 m, do you think.it would cause a colder average surface temperature because everything is now at a higher elevation?
Wrong again, seb !
“if we could lift up the entire surface by 100 m,”
We can’t, so why the FANTASY analogy !?
Try to stick to REALITY for once in your life, seb.
And NO, because you would have very little effect on atmospheric thickness.
“cause a colder average surface temperature “
Most places with a higher elevation are colder on average.
Didn’t you know that, seb?
Seb. “It is not a continuation of the lapse rate above the surface….”
The following is a quote from Safe Work Australia about ventilation in mines. “temperature rise due to auto compression in adiabatic conditions (approx. 1C and 0.4C per 100m of depth increase for dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures respectively)”. See also Effect of Auto Compression on Ventilation System in Deep Shaft Coal Mines in Jharia Coal Field, Mishra and Sahay.
You will note the rate of increase (lapse rate) for dry bulb and wet bulb in the mine is indeed the same as above the surface.
Warming in mines due to auto compression is well established.
SebastianH: I’ve chided Andy once or twice because he can be too harsh, but here you deserve it. You are the one trolling, friend. When it suits you, the word “pressure” appears, then disappears when you want it that way. I’m not a physicist, but I understand how a compressor works. It’s not called a “com-CO2-er” for a reason. Your fridge would not work if “temp up first, then pressure. Your posts reveal that you understand the flaw in your reasoning, because you steadfastly avoid it, yet keep posting the same question over and over. If Einstein said it, you’d still demand it be put into words by someone else. You are the troll.
#Intellectual Dishonesty
http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
So how do you account for the difference in gravitational energy at the bottoms of atmospheres versus their tops ? You can’t just leave it out of the energy balance equations . And it is indisputably the force which keeps the N*T pressure gradient in equilibrium .
Your case might be better if you had any quantitative testable equations for spectral GHG effects trapping thermal energy beyond that calculated for radiative equilibrium .
I think you’re explanation that gravity compressing an atmosphere cannot explain the temperature as calculated is nonsense.
The results using NASA’s planetary fact sheets are indisputable – EVERY planet temperature calculated using their values and not a “greenhouse” in sight.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-ideal-gas-law-the-planets-and-the-fraud-of-climate-science/ – I didn’t write the ridiculous title.
Explain this :-
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-jupiter-58.html –
“The temperature in the clouds of Jupiter is about minus 145 degrees Celsius (minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit). The temperature near the planet’s center is much, much hotter. The core temperature may be about 24,000 degrees Celsius (43,000 degrees Fahrenheit). That’s hotter than the surface of the sun!”
The solar radiation at Jupiter’s orbit is ~50.26 W/m2 which equates to a SB calculated temperature of ~172 K – slightly lower than the ~24,000°C NASA quote !
So the solar radiation isn’t the cause of 24,000°C. There is no evidence of chemical or nuclear reactions being responsible.
So what causes this if not gravity compressing the atmosphere ?
One person had the marvelous answer that it is the “left over” heat of creation because the huge atmosphere is an excellent insulator.
This sounds almost plausible except it is allegedly some 4.6 billion years since the creation and it fails to account for what caused this heat of creation in the first place if not gravity compressing an atmosphere ???
This paper from Holmes is certainly a good joke. The law for perfect gas is valid. That’s all!!!
Nikolov and Zeller have been saying this for years, including in their 2017 paper.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/wcc4-rome-interview-with-nikolov-and-zeller/
Alan Siddons and others pointed similar years ago, that it was Pressure/Gravity that is the primary cause of surface temperature.
Rethinking the Greenhouse Effect
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Rethinking_the_greenhouse_effect.pdf
and,
New paper confirms the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on 6 planets including Earth, falsifies CAGW
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-paper-confirms-gravito-thermal.html
and,
Alan Siddons on Radiative Equilibrium
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/alan-siddons-on-radiative-equilibrium/
Not sure if I am correct, but I thought that at a certain height the temperature starts to increase. How does this fit in these calculations?
Above the tropopause the presence of ozone causes direct absorption of energy from the sun such as to reverse the lapse rate slope.
However, taking the full height of the atmosphere the average lapse rate slope must match that slope set by atmospheric mass, gravity and insolation.
The slopes in the troposphere and mesosphere (declining temperature with height) adjust via convective changes to offset the opposite slopes in the stratosphere and thermosphere (increasing temperature with height) so as to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium for the atmosphere as a whole.
Convective changes always occur to restore equilibrium in the face of radiative imbalances cause by the radiative capability of the atmospheric composition.
Otherwise there could be no long term retention of an atmosphere.
I have a number of relevant articles here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/
This is why,
https://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/temp_profile.html
Simply, because below about 0.1bar pressure, the atmospheric density allows radiation to prevail.
The lower atmosphere is “ruled” by convection, conduction and pressure based air transfers.
None of these calculations make any sense, that’s the whole point of this. They think that the lapse rate is somehow going downwards from the top of the atmosphere and this determines surface temperature or something like that. It’s pure nonsense.
“None of these calculations make any sense”
They wouldn’t to a weak-minded physics/science/maths challenged […].
All you have is pure NON-SCIENCE.
Sebastian,
When are you going to explain WHY in some detail?
Waiting……
I did, in this very comment section. Demonstrating that the ideal gas law works doesn’t demonstrate anything about how temperature and pressure are set. Especially since it isn’t a closed system.
No you gave your worthless anti-science opinion.
ZERO science to back up anything you yap about.
Sebastian,
When are you going to explain WHY in some detail?
Waiting……,
Still waiting……
“lapse rate”
Is just a calculated or measured number.
It doesn’t start or finish anywhere.
The Physics simply don’t support CO2 being the cause:
Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole
The best way to argue for the science, and against the climate alarmists is to simply go back to the basic physics of the greenhouse gas effect (GHG) and how CO2 contributes to it. Stated simply, the GHG effect is the trapping/absorbing of outgoing infrared (IR) radiation by various greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. These … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/climate-science-on-trial-co2-is-a-weak-ghg-it-has-no-dipole/
“In fact, Holmes’ calculation for CO2 climate sensitivity (doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.03% to 0.06%) is -0.03°C.”
Sounds about right,
A minor change in the specific heat of the atmosphere.
No wonder no-one has never been able to produce any empirical evidence of CO2 warming our GRAVITY-CONTROLLED convective atmosphere.
“[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure,
[2] the average near surface atmospheric density and
[3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere”
The gravity thermal effect SHOWN once again
No wonder some AGW sympathisers are ranting mindlessly like headless chooks, with zero science to counter, and zero science to prove their mythical CO2 warming..
O.
No.
PV = nRT. You can solve T without any CO2 in it. But… this is not really a result.
I’ve been banging on about this very issue for years.
Most recent version here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
Hi Stephen, we have been in approximate agreement for a long time 🙂
But its hard to break through when their cult religion, and salaries, depend on maintaining the MYTH of CO2 warming.
Facts and empirical scientific proof become irrelevant to them.
It’s hard because you are wrong. You are the kid screaming that 1+1=3 and demand everyone should accept that 🙂
SebH was one said compression still working on Saturn but not on Earth. He the one demands wrong physics.
He not one time thinking that the paper is saying that it can calculate all temperatures correctly.
He not argue paper, he argu Andy all time.
Must not do this!
Learn how to talk first, then complain about yourself not understanding what a circular argument is. Give me your speed and a timespan and I calculate you the distance you moved. Do you think it is very “scientific” to then assume that driving a vehicle had nothing to do with the process since it is not in the formula used?
I learn talk if Seb learns science!
Deal?
Much to learn he has!
You truly are an arrogant prat, seb
With absolutely NOTHING to back up that baseless ego.
I’m assuming English is not JB’s main language.
By at least he tries.
His grasp of English is FAR GREATER than your grasp of science or physics.
Poor seb, STILL no science to back up anything he says
So sad. !!
As I said, seb..
“Facts and empirical scientific proof become irrelevant to them.”
And you keep proving that with your every post.
With a constant composition ( M cst. ) of the atmosphere , P/(ro*T) is a constant. You need more to calculate T from P , as the density is also a function of T and P… T and P are independent if you don’t use another independent equation
This issue does make my brain hurt a bit. I’ve always taken the basic GHG physics as beyond reproach, and yet……
I think I’m with Seb on this up to a point, at least. The Holmes paper does indeed look like a circular argument, and I’m not sure it takes us any further in deciding just how much (if anything) CO2 actually contributes to warming in vivo.
In essence the claim is, as per Nikolov/Zeller and several others, that mean surface temperature is almost completely independent of atmospheric composition– and that seems to be contradicted by what we observe in daily and seasonal changes – indeed the weather itself.
However, that says nothing about convective effects. I have a high regard for what I have seen from Stephen Wilde, though I’m not able to critique his theories properly myself.
Would like to see other, less strident, commentators come in on this.
“In essence the claim is, as per Nikolov/Zeller and several others, that mean surface temperature is almost completely independent of atmospheric composition– and that seems to be contradicted by what we observe in daily and seasonal changes – indeed the weather itself.”
I was always under the impression that Nikolov/Zeller ideas cover the long term average temperature of a solid planet with atmosphere. Their model shows the temperature profile of such planets from the surface to the outer extremity of the atmosphere.
They never ever said or implied that their mechanism covers the yearly, monthly, day to day (or minute to minute) variations, that naturally occur on these bodies. In other words, their calculations fully explain the whys and hows a global average temperature is achieved.
So stop making assumptions and speculation about what Nikolov and Zeller say and go and read what they say — See https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/#comment-1250673 above for the link and information.
Exactly! This is the straw man commonly used by those who wish to dismiss without fully considering the conceptualization. The 288 K (Earth) value (planetary average temperature) is what these accumulating papers are referring to, the present one included. Expecting that these explanations will do more than that serves them up for gratuitous dismissal.
If the atmosphere is dense enough and the pressure great enough, like on Venus, then solar energy cannot penetrate to the surface… and the gravity thermal effect over-rides everything, so you get equal temperatures day night etc
Earth’s atmosphere could best be described as partially-tenuous, so local temperatures fluctuate greatly with the incoming solar energy, and with pressure variations within the system.
AndyG55, sunlight is reaching Venus’s surface. The atmosphere of Venus is very thick and thus moves a lot more energy around which enables better mixing of the temperatures.
Ignoring radiative energy transfers shouldn’t be on the skeptics todo-lists. Please stop ignoring physics.
WRONG again, seb.
Please LEARN some basic physics.
Sunlight DOES NOT reach the Venus surface.
The Sun’s energy does, as part of the gravity/thermal mechanism.
Sebastian is misleading about the surface of Venus,
“AndyG55, sunlight is reaching Venus’s surface. The atmosphere of Venus is very thick and thus moves a lot more energy around which enables better mixing of the temperatures.”
It is less than 3%, surely you know that is negligible?
Not only that the Atmosphere is moving around rapidly, probably due to ionization effects since the planet has no discernable Magnetic Field.
High surface Albedo as well. A lot of incoming Solar energy never even enter the Atmosphere.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Albedo
AndyG55, so I assume the photos from the surface of Venus were taken with giant flash lights?
Sunsettommy, even a tiny amount of radiation reaching the surface will increase the equilibrium temperature (or better: the heat content), when it can’t escape. You should know that by now …
Can’t escape because of the gravity thermal effect, correct.
Atmospheric glow, seb.
Do try to learn the difference. NOPE.
Seb writes,
“Sunsettommy, even a tiny amount of radiation reaching the surface will increase the equilibrium temperature (or better: the heat content), when it can’t escape. You should know that by now …”
Did you find out what kind of solar radiation actually reach the surface?
There is some discussion that there is a fluid region between the atmosphere and the surface, which would eliminate ANY so called “backradiation effect anyway.
Kenneth – I understand that Nikolov/Zeller (and indeed the new paper) talk about long-term averages and I am not claiming that short-term variations give the lie to their ideas. I merely point out that these temporary variations do demonstrate the operation of a GHE in our atmosphere.
The big question seems to me to be about other mechanisms (?convective) which act as a thermostat. For me, I’m quite happy that water vapour can do that – and therefore H20 amplification of warming is very likely wrong, but that doesn’t mean that atmospheric mass/density/molar mass can describe it.
More guidance needed.
Thank you for reproducing this. The first time I read about it, I did not grasp how it enabled the effect of a doubling of CO2 to be so small. However reading it again I get it. You can not attribute 7.2K to CO2 at 280 ppm if the temperature is predetermined to 288K by atmospheric pressure. It would mean the temperature would have had to be 295.2K in pre-industrial times.
Even the 7.2 K contribution from CO2 to the 33 K GHE is merely a thought experiment. The paper suggests there is no “heat gap” to bridge with greenhouse gases. Earth’s temperature is already 288 K without them.
The paper basically proves the ideal gas law is a good predictor of the surface temperature. But transposing the equation it could be a good predictor of the atmospheric mass with a given gas mix and given surface temperature.
Is it the chicken or egg?
It is well known that Earth’s atmosphere behaves as an isentropic process within the troposphere; meaning it obeys the ideal gas law. So for a given atmospheric mass, gravitational force and gas composition, the surface temperature can be determined. Likewise for a given temperature, gravitational force and gas composition the atmospheric mass can be determined.
As a limit case it is quite easy to predict that if the surface was at 0 degrees K then there would be no atmospheric mass and no atmospheric pressure; all familiar gases that exist at 270K become solids. In fact there would be no gas at all.
If temperature is the controlling factor then the atmospheric mass at a fixed composition would need to increase for any increase in temperature. However there is no long term trend in MSLP:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadslp2.0_0-360E_-90-90N_n.png
Climate models all predict that there will be an increase in atmospheric water vapour with rising temperature. That would clearly increase atmospheric mass as well as slight change in composition and be consistent with higher surface temperature. However NASA MODIS data shows there has been no increase in atmospheric water in the last 15 years.
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
There are no suitable gases in the periodic table for Mars to retain enough atmospheric gas for the atmosphere to behave as an isentropic process. Even on Earth the oceans play a key role in distributing the heat to enable the atmosphere to essentially remain an isentropic process. Without the distribution of water across Earth I expect there would not be enough mass in Earth’s atmosphere to behave as an isentropic process.
It seems reasonably certain to me that the surface temperature will drive the atmospheric mass if the there is enough atmospheric mass and distribution of heat to behave as an isentropic process. For Earth surface to be heating we should be seeing an increase in atmospheric mass. There is no data that shows an upward trend in atmospheric mass on Earth.
Are you sure about that?
What we need is a dense, photo-stable, high molecular weight gas that is biologically inert and can be manufactured from chemicals present on the surface of the red planet.
We can even determine from the value of the Martian surface gravity what that gas molecular weight needs to be.
Oh what fun! Let’s start with Sulfur Hexafluoride that has a MW of 146.05 g/mol and do the math.
Now we can start planning how to do some useful and effective terraforming of Mars!
Planets form an atmosphere through the cooling process to reach an equilibrium. There is a lot of gas to start with. It appears the planets went through CO2 rich atmospheres to what we see today. Venus is still CO2 rich.
The problem with trying to get warmer from a cold start is that there is no way of achieving enough gas to produce isentropic conditions. It means the chosen gas has to be able to remain a gas at the lowest surface temperature. SF6 does not meet that condition for Mars. The surface temperature is as cold as -130C. That means as fast as the SF6 is produced it will condense somewhere. It also has a narrow liquid range so the prospect of forming oceans is not good.
I suspect that Earth did not have essentially pole to pole distributed oceans it would have lost its atmosphere the same as Mars has. There is not enough thermal inertia in the atmosphere to retain its mixed stated. It relies on heat distribution from water.
Ideally you would want to start with a molecule that is in both liquid and gas phase over most of Mars surface. I expect the critical condition is pole to pole linkage of the water phase. Once you get up to liquid over a good portion with pole to pole connection you have a means to distribute heat. That then gives the prospect of growing the mass of the atmosphere and warming the place up. It may then be possible to introduce the atmospheric elements that make life possible on earth. There needs to be enough mass to achieve the temperature to get H2O in liquid and gas phases across the surface.
As you point out, the other requirement is the molecule in the starting gas phase is photo-stable.
Hence the very real geological risk of Snowball Earth if both hemispheres develop simultaneous continental icecaps.
But a low temperature Snowball Earth would more easily retain a low molecular weight atmosphere, because the planetary escape velocity remains the same. Earth clearly possesses a lot of design redundancy.
Oh, and just in case someone wants to claim that the high CO2 concentration atmosphere required to end Snowball Earth proves the radiative greenhouse hypotheses. No it does not. It simply shows the requirement for a high molecular weight atmosphere to provide the necessary increased level of adiabatic autocompression.
So in the absence of a functioning terrestrial biosphere and the absence of a functioning biochemical sink to create limestone, Snowball Earth’s dry planetary atmosphere would increase in mass by accumulating from volcanic emissions the one photo-stable high molecular weight gas that can break the Snowball cycle, namely carbon dioxide.
The canonical increase in CO2 required to break Snowball Earth is 0.12 bar (i.e. 12 kilopascals).
So the surface atmospheric pressure is required to be raised from our current 101.3 kPA to 113.3 kPA
Here is the calculation using T = PM/Rρ
This is a scoping calculation with modern (yes I know haven’t adjusted them and therefore incorrect) values of M and ρ
T= 113.3*28.97/8.314*1.225 = 322.28 K
This is my estimated adiabatic autocompression planetary temperature rise of +34C from our modern value of 15C to a peak value of 49C needed to break the Snowball!
Wow. This is fun.
So we don’t need the GHG. We don’t need the sun too. The sun doesn’t matter. We could be somewhere outside the galaxy with no sun and the temperature would be the same.
Great !
Bullshit !
Pierre, just try to not publish bullshit.
Considering we have highlighted over 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers that link solar activity to the Earth’s climate in the last two years…
2016 Sun-Climate papers (133)
2017 Sun-Climate papers (121)
…and we have already highlighted the Sun’s role in climate change as supported by 2018 papers…
https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/22/3-new-2018-papers-link-modern-warming-and-past-cooling-periods-to-high-low-solar-activity/
3 New (2018) Papers Link Modern Warming And Past Cooling Periods To High, Low Solar Activity
…it would appear to be a bit odd that you, Nicias, are accusing us of supporting the position that “we don’t need the sun too”.
Interestingly, this paper is not about climate change. It’s about calculating the average surface temperature of planets with thick atmospheres. Before accusing us of “publishing bull—-” and suggesting that we think the temperature “would be the same” with “no sun”, perhaps you should learn a bit more about the subject matter.
Well Kenneth, you are effectively supporting a claim that you don’t need GHGs to calculate the surface temperature of planets. A source of energy is completely missing from that formular, so apparently nothing is needed to arrive at those temperatures, except a certain pressure and density.
You can’t have it both ways and now see the Sun as integral part in setting the temperature. After all the equations in this post, say it clearly doesn’t (well not completely, the author claims that the Sun sets the 255 K temperature and the rest is done by gravity or something like that) 😉
P.S.: Can you imagine that I can calculate you the exact temperature of the gas inside a boiling pot with the lid on, when you give me the density/volume/molecule count and the pressure? No need to look at the source of energy that causes the water to boil … not needed according to the equations. So it’s probably not the stove which causes it to boil, it must be the pressure, right?
Where does he claim that?
Chapter 2.1 of the paper:
You don’t read those papers in full, do you?
In other words, your statement that Holmes claimed the 33 K is set by “gravity, or something like that” was not accurate.
I can not count how many times the author mentions a “gravitationally-induced temperature gradient” in that paper. What do you think this auto-compression thing is? An invented term describing the effects gravity and density ought to have on temperature …
P.S.: The author even employs the Graeff experiment with the water column. What skeptic wouldn’t 😉 You know, the experiment where you fill an isolated tube with water at a certain temperature and gravity neatly causes a temperature differential top to bottom (the bottom being warmer). This is how perpetuum mobiles are constructed …
Reminds me of the time you tried to support your belief that CO2 causes water to warm by citing that Alka-Seltzer YouTube video. That was quite amusing.
My point in asking the question was to let you know that you shouldn’t misquote what he wrote in your attempts to marginalize — a habit of yours.
It was a more accurate interpretation than anything you assume papers are saying 🙂
Btw: what does cause the warming in that CO2 in a bottle with water demonstration?
Thanks for referencing my December 2017 paper.
There have been some odd comments on this train, which I feel I must refute.
For example;
.
“The sun doesn’t matter. We could be somewhere outside the galaxy with no sun and the temperature would be the same.”
.
That claim is one I did not make. The Sun certainly has a function! The Sun basically creates the effective temperature for Earth. What we are talking about here, is what causes the residual temperature.
And this comment;
“None of these calculations make any sense, that’s the whole point of this. They think that the lapse rate is somehow going downwards from the top of the atmosphere and this determines surface temperature or something like that. It’s pure nonsense.”
.
A thermal gradient appears in all planetary atmospheres at 10kPa and temperatures then increase all the way down to the surface (and even below the surface, if there is a depression or a mine-shaft).
This thermal gradient is due to auto-compression, and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
Auto-compression can be calculated by the following relationship;
Pe = Ps exp(gH/RT)
As can be clearly seen, this effect primarily relies on pressure and gravity, which will be different for each planetary body.
The entire volume of any atmosphere which is >10kPa is dominated by convection.
When a gas parcel is compressed, as it is when is descends in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up. Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
Temperature in the Earth’s troposphere is determined mainly by the interplay between pressure and density, with some input from molar mass, (the latter, mostly on longer time-scales).
Pressure, density and molar mass are determined mainly by two factors; insolation and auto-compression.
Thank you for this contribution to our comment thread and for your interesting paper, Robert. It’s good to see that you are interested in interacting with our CO2-controls-the-Earth’s-climate believer, SebastianH. He writes that your paper makes no sense because he not only doesn’t understand it, he doesn’t want to understand it. He’d rather dismiss it, and you, as “insane”. Please be available to address his attempts to marginalize you and your points.
If you would, please address the challenge that says you are only using the already-known parameters that determine planetary temperatures, meaning that your calculations are “circular”. Thanks.
It’s not increasing downwards, it is decreasing upwards. Mine-shafts are warm, because temperature in the outer mantle increases by around 25K per km. It sets the starting point of the gradient upwards.
I don’t know what you mean by “auto compression”. If you are talking about the lapse rate, it does only rely on the specific heat and gravity. No Sun, no CO2.
There is no work being done by gravity in our atmosphere, otherwise you could construct a perpetuum mobile. It doesn’t continuously compress … we would have noticed that by now, don’t you think? 😉
@Kenneth:
Oh I understand the circular argument pretty well, you (and the author) are the one who is interpreting as an argument against the greenhouse effect. Which is just nuts. 🙂
“It doesn’t continuously compress ”
Make up your mind, seb
You say its an open system, then you say it doesn’t require constant work.
Your grasp on physics is remote at best.
Is it cognitive dissonance you suffer from…
or cognitive non-function?
Please, feel free to construct your Perpetuum Mobile.
Seb-child takes its little fantasy to the next level. This perputuum thing is YOUR make-believe farce conjured from your total lack of comprehension of any structural physics what-so-ever. You are PERPETUALLY CONFUSED.
Your grasp of structural physics is NON-EXISTENT. Even less than your grasp of any other sort of physics..
Others will ask.. How is that even possible.
Robert Holmes
Many thanks to you for explaining further. As you have shown, using ordinary science, applying it correctly,(with no magic gas effects required) to explain how planets can maintain their global average temperature.
Our planet just requires an atmosphere and our radiant sun.
To my understanding our orbital relationship to the sun, our sun’s variations, and to some extent volcanic events, impact our weather processes and oceanic cycles and ultimately determines how our climate varies. The only other large effect on the way the climate changes is in land use, and changes in surface albedo. Out of all of these processes humans can only control our changes in land use, which IMO we do poorly.
Do you find this reasonable, and is there something significant I am missing?
Robert Holmes,
Of course the problem cAGW types have with this approach is that they fail to appreciate the the atmosphere is not static, it is dynamic — very much so in the troposphere.
The atmosphere is a huge circulatory system (a heat pipe without walls) that maintains the planet’s temperature by shunting excess ground level and just above’s (within the troposphere’s) heat energy up by physically movement to the tropopause, and then through the process of radiation move the heat energy off the planet.
The troposphere’s air movement is greatly enhanced by the presence of the water content of the air, improving the efficiency of our planet’s heat dissipating system, thus allowing life to thrive by keeping the maximum temperature down to quite narrow limits, and protecting the planet from ever experiencing thermal run-away.
“This accuracy is achieved without using the S-B black body law, or the need to include terms for such parameters as TSI levels”
I read that in your paper.
The sun doesn’t matter, you wrote that.
Kenneth,
I address the ‘circular’ argument (i.e. for Titan) in my paper.
Not sure what he is claiming here; is he asserting that the molar mass version of the Ideal Gas Law is wrong?
A law through which one can arrive at the temperature by the measurement of just three gas parameters, pressure, density and molar mass, for diverse places such as Venus, Earth (anywhere in the troposphere). Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, (anywhere in their atmospheres) Titan – and it even works for the center of the Sun?
What I have presented is a hypothesis. So, Sebastian, let’s test the hypothesis; start anywhere on the surface of the Earth and measure these three parameters, calculate the temperature by use of this formula;
T=P/((R x ρ/M))
Still not convinced? Let’s try another planet – anywhere >10kPa in its atmosphere, (which is where the effects of the GHE supposedly are).
Even quicker, post here a link to a peer-reviewed published paper which quantifies any warming effect from the CO2 in our atmosphere.
Actually, I think there will be a very long wait for this one.
Robert Holmes,
let’s try it this way: you probably know the equation
F = m * aIf you have “m” and “a” you can get “F”. This doesn’t explain why “a” has value X though. Your argument is circular because you are using the ideal gas law. It doesn’t say anything about what caused pressure or temperature to be what it is, only that those variables are connected to each other.
What you seem to think is that the pressure sets the temperature and the pressure is a result of gravity, right? That was the case when the solar system formed, but the heat from that initial compression of Earths atmosphere is long gone. Like a bicycle tire doesn’t stay warm for long after you pumped it full of air. Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.
[quote]Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.[/quote]
In physics, work is defined as a force causing the movement—or displacement—of an object. The atmosphere is nothing other than a bunch of tiny objects—particles—called molecules. These molecules are all in motion along a projectile trajectory known as a parabola. This trajectory is due to the work being performed on the molecules by gravity.
Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy in the gas. Molecules in the gas which are going up—away from the center of gravity of the Earth—are being slowed by the work done on them by gravity. Contrariwise, molecules in the gas which are going down—toward the center of gravity of the Earth—are being sped up by the work done on them by gravity. In other words, the kinetic energy of the gas must decrease with increasing altitude solely due to the work done on the molecules of gas in the atmosphere. Thus the work done by gravity on the molecules in the atmosphere is the direct cause of lapse rate in the troposphere.
The question then becomes this: What sets the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface of the Earth? Is it set directly by the Sun shining on its surface? Apparently not, since the surface of the Earth is too warm for that to be the case. So the temperature is set somewhere up in the atmosphere. But why? Robert Holmes says that it is set at the 10 kPa point in the atmosphere. Why that number and how does the sun managed to heat at that pressure level?
The fact is that in addition to the surface being heated by sunlight and being cooled by outgoing surface infrared light, the atmosphere also interacts with light of various frequencies. That interaction with light sets up an effective level above the Earth’s surface at which the incoming and outgoing radiation balance.
The real question is whether CO2 increases or decreases the height of this emissions layer. I think Dr. David Evans gets it most right when he points out that there are really four main emissions layers: the surface, cloud tops, the water-vapor emissions layer and the CO2 emissions layer. Together, the effective height of the emissions is determined by all of these emissions layers and the interactions between them.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative-model-and-why-it-solves-so-many-major-problems/
Because of the lapse rate, the higher the effective height of this set of coupled emissions layers, the higher the temperature of the surface of the Earth.
Where the alarmists have gotten things very wrong is in concluding that this effective emissions layer is increasing as CO2 increases. In fact, Dr. Evans has shown, by correcting the over-simplified model used to arrive at this conclusion, that the sensitivity of the height of this effective emissions layer to CO2 concentration is very close to zero.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-17-solving-the-mystery-of-the-missing-hotspot/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/
If you haven’t already read it, I recommend that you read the entire series by Dr. Evans:
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Thank-you RegGuheert for that timely reminder.
I’d plumb forgotten about Dr. Evans’ excellent work. (Now I suppose I’ll have to go back and re-read it, instead of reading seb’s boring rants about magical science.)
RegGuheert
This paper may help:-
Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency.
Thanks, Reference!
Interesting. But I’m not sure that addresses the case in which the atmosphere does not interact with either shortwave or longwave radiation. In other words, it is assumed that the atmosphere includes so-called “greenhouse gases”.
But one thought experiment is what the temperature is in an atmosphere which is transparent to these frequencies of light. Would the temperature be set at the 10 kPa point or at the surface? If the answer is the surface (and I think it is), then it seems that other temperatures are possible due to the effective emission layer moving up or down.
Seb not understands. Gravity is a force. Atmosphere has to perform work to counter gravity. No energy atmosphere will not be gas. Will not retain as gas. If atmosphere not performs work it falls on planet.
Energy for work comes from sun initiaally, as heat from surface. If higher up gas, more work performed. converted energy in work.
This reason laps rate. This is gravity “works”.
Sebastian writes this idiotic bomb,
“What you seem to think is that the pressure sets the temperature and the pressure is a result of gravity, right? That was the case when the solar system formed, but the heat from that initial compression of Earths atmosphere is long gone. Like a bicycle tire doesn’t stay warm for long after you pumped it full of air. Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.”
First he says the Atmosphere is,……. he he he…. hahahahaha … “settled”
Second he says Gravity isn’t performing any work on that “settled atmosphere”, which make rational people wonder…..,
WHAT IS KEEPING THE ATMOPHERE ON THE SURFACE?
If Gravity isn’t performing any work on the planet……
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
I just realized that it is those awesome super CO2 molecules behaving like a sheepdog, keeping the atmosphere from leaving the planet.
Why didn’t say so, Sebastian?
“Like a bicycle tire doesn’t stay warm for long after you pumped it full of air”
A bicycle tire is a closed system seb.
Didn’t you know that the Earth’s atmosphere is an OPEN system, and hence must require constant work for the atmospheric pressure to be maintained
Try putting a hole in that tyre to make it an open system, seb, see how long it holds the pressure.
Your lack of cognitive function is quite bizarre in a headless chook type of way.
Yes, we’ve been asking SebastianH to produce quantified evidence for how much warmth is caused in both the oceans and the air by incremental (ppm) changes in CO2 for well over a year now. He typically responds by calling us names or insinuating that we are insane rather than answer the question.
Thanks Robert.
You know what is funny? The way you seem to see this author as an authority on the field.
Well anyway, even Ned Nikolov destroys this paper in a comment of his, so which one do you trust more? Who is right, who is wrong? 😉
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2018/01/24/does-this-paper-prove-there-virtually-no-co2-greenhouse-effect/#comment-90023
I can’t believe I am using a quote from the mad man himself to argue with you, but there it is. Circular reasoning is circular …
Robert Holmes’ reply:
—
Ned,
“..air density is a function of pressure & temperature. This is demonstrated by the fact that air density is lower at the equator and higher near the poles for nearly the same surface pressure.”
My paper shows that air density at the South Pole is 1.06kg/m3 in other words, only slightly below the global average – yet the pressure is a very low 68kPa. It’s the low pressure which mainly results in the low average temperature of -49C.
“One cannot use the Gas Law to conclusively prove the lack of a radiative GE.”
I realize that, and I did not even try to do this! The radiative GHE certainly exists in our atmosphere; the forcing from it has even been measured and quantified. However, that does NOT mean that there is any net atmospheric warming arising from it!
On Earth, temperature is determined by the interplay of pressure and density, with some influence from molar mass via;
T=PM/Rρ
Pressure, density and molar mass are mainly determined by insolation and auto-compression.
I think that we are in broad agreement.
Yeah right, so the base temperature of 255 K is set by the Sun and pressure increases the surface temperature from that, but – wait for it – low pressure at the poles decreases the temperature below 255 K? Makes sense, doesn’t it? 😉
When you think it can’t get better …
Again, boiling (closed) pot of water, give me pressure and volume and I give you the temperature with uncanny precission. Do you think the stove below the pot has nothing to do with the temperature of the water(-vapor) being what it is? Do you think the pressure is enhancing the temperature that the stove is setting?
Very interesting, but how to convince the world leaders?
Replace them all with simple minded ones like Trump and you’ll have no problem convincing them of anything that sounds stupid enough and goes against what smart people are saying is happening.
Basically, let the story of the movie “Idiocracy” happen …
Your partisanship is noted for what it is………, dead on arrival.
It is clear you are so wedded to the absurd CO2 is the driver of climate, that you will defend it no matter what.
Your reply to Holmes is all opinion with none of the science. Simply you are a terrible supporter of the long dead AGW conjecture.
Opinion? Please elaborate.
“Opinion? Please elaborate.”
Ok… ZERO-science, unsubstantiated, fantasy-realm, brain malfunction.
This is a bit silly. Of course if the pressure and density of a gas is known, one can calculate the temperature using the equation of state (ideal gas law or any other even more detailed/accurate one).
And yet a full blown discussion is happening whether or not this is circular with the resident skeptics (except Pierre) fully betting on the wrong side. It’s entertaining and enlightening at the same time. If they get this basic stuff wrong, why do people think that anything more complicated from that corner of the web could have anything to it and lift them and their views above conspiracy theorist territory?
It is a bit silly. But I have/had some time to spare, so … having fun with the silly boys (who this time really deserve calling them this way).
As usual you have nothing called a counterpoint to Robert Holmes paper.
You also continue your bad habit of not backing up your OPINONATED claims with cogent science based replies.
Quoting Kenneth:
“Yes, we’ve been asking SebastianH to produce quantified evidence for how much warmth is caused in both the oceans and the air by incremental (ppm) changes in CO2 for well over a year now. He typically responds by calling us names or insinuating that we are insane rather than answer the question.
Thanks Robert.”
Waiting, waiting….
Still waiting…..
“And yet a full blown discussion is happening “
No , you have put forward NOTHING
ZERO SCIENCE to back up any of your childish anti-science rantings.
You are EMPTY as always.
Seb, your hubris explodes from you when you say “resident skeptics (except Pierre) fully betting on the wrong side.”
Betting on the wrong side?
No, you poor delude person, there is not a side.
There are scientifically explainable processes, or there is the “magical realism” you appear to support. It must be special ‘magic’, for time and again you are asked to provide the science for you opinions but you fail.
“Not here to worship what is known, but to question it”
And on that point you fail!
Or can you answer the question —
“Yes, we’ve been asking SebastianH to produce quantified evidence for how much warmth is caused in both the oceans and the air by incremental (ppm) changes in CO2 for well over a year now. He typically responds by calling us names or insinuating that we are insane rather than answer the question.”
Ehm you should read sentences in their context. Maybe you’ll understand what “wrong side” means then … could it maybe have something to do with the previous sentence? Whether or not it’s a circular argument …
Try for a coherent, logical post next time, seb.
You are talking EMPTY NONSENSE, yet again.
With ZERO science to back up anything you say
Just EMPTY baseless yapping…as always.
The term “Greenhouse Effects” is now so emotionally / politically charged and so ineefective (due to the various attempts redefine it as each previous definition is debunked) that I am encouraging people to only use the term “Radiative Greenhouse Effect” when they are specificaly referring to the IPCC’s version of the (un)truth.
I’d like to suggest that those of us that believe that the IPCC’s radiative greenhouse effect is not necessary (becuase it was always a fraud) to explain the difference in the Earth’s near surface temperature of 288K and the Earth’s effective S-B temperature of 255K should instead use the term “Atmospheric Pressure Effect” for the explaination that Robert Holmes (and Ned Zeller) are describing. Having another ‘Greenhouse effect’ is plain unhelpful – even if this one really is the truth.
The term “Greenhouse Effects” when related to climate is a nonsense term.
Greenhouses do not require magic gases to operate.
However it is used, and IMO solely to dupe the unscientific innocent populous into believing that the common and understandably warm greenhouse, somehow relates to how the atmosphere operates. This usage also mistakenly eludes to climate effects being (easily) understandable, giving those arrogant loudmouth pontificators in this field of study, the thin veneer of looking like they understand the subject.
IMO “Greenhouse” should simply be replaced with “IR active” (Infrared Active) e.g. “Radiative Greenhouse Effect” becomes “Radiative IR active Effect”, “Greenhouse gas” becomes “IR Active Gas”, “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect” becomes “Enhanced IR Active Effect”, etc.
Holmes 2017 – “This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”
Nikolov and Zeller 2017 – “Our analysis revealed that GMATs 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.”
And,
“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.”
From,
‘New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model’
Ned Nikolov* and Karl Zeller (2017
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2017/09/new-insights-on-physical-nature-of.html
I’m sorry, but the author has not demonstrated what he claims.
All that Robert Holmes has shown is that the atmospheres of planet obey, to a good approximation, the Ideal Gas Law.
In fact, it would be a huge shock if they did NOT obey the Ideal Gas Law. It’s not just a good idea … it’s a Law.
But that says exactly NOTHING about the trajectory or the inputs that got those planetary atmospheres to their final condition. Whether the planet is heated by the sun or by internal radioactivity is NOT determinable from the fact that the atmospheres obey the Ideal Gas Law. They will ALWAYS obey the Ideal Gas Law, no matter how they are heated.
And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases do or don’t do anything.
Look, we could start up a million nuclear reactors and vent all the heat to the atmosphere. The planet would assuredly get warmer … but the atmosphere wouldn’t stop obeying the Ideal Gas Law. The variables of density and temperature and mean atmospheric molar mass would simply readjust to the new reality, and the Ideal Gas Law would still be satisfied.
So I’m sorry, but the underlying premise of this paper is wrong. Yes, planetary atmospheres obey the Ideal Gas Law … and no, that doesn’t mean that you can diagnose or rule out heating processes simply because the atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Law.
w.
“we could start up a million nuclear reactors ”
Well NO, we couldn’t.
And once any heating from these mythical million reactors ceased, the planet would cool back down to the approx. value set by the gravity pressure gradient.
Also, adding heat to that atmosphere has NOTHING to do with CO2.
Indeed if we look at the graphic http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
we see that due to the excellent heat regulation of our planet, our atmosphere NEVER gets out of the ‘Goldilocks’ zone that life enjoys when subjected to excess heat.
IMO this planet is rather good at controlling the upper temperature extent the climate can get to, and not so good at regulating itself against the lower temperature extremes.
Venus, with very little sunlight getting through an atmosphere 93 times denser than Earth’s and composed of 96% CO2, has an average temperature of 864° F.
Earth, with much sunlight getting through an atmosphere composed of 0.04% CO2, has an average temperature of 61° F.
Mars, with a fair amount of sunlight getting through an atmosphere 100 times thinner than Earth’s and composed of 95% CO2, has an average temperature of MINUS 67° F.
Now looking at the atmospheric composition of Venus and Mars, we see that both are in the same range of high CO2 composition, but the Venusian atmosphere is over 9,000 times as dense as the Martian atmosphere, and the Venusian temperature is about 14 times more than the Martian atmosphere. Given roughly the same percentage of CO2, but big density and big temperature differences, DENSITY, then, DOES seem to make a difference, where temperature is concerned, given the same atmospheric percentage of CO2.
Now consider that the Venusian night is about 116 Earth days long, and the average Venusian temperature is roughly the same on the day and night sides of the planet. The swing in Earth’s temperatures, however, from day to night, can range from 20 to 30 degrees F. If the Greenhouse effect is the mechanism on Venus, then how is it possible that the temperature on the day and night sides are the same? How can 116 Earth days of darkness sustain the same temperature as 116 days of light, with a 96% CO2 atmosphere? Shouldn’t the day side be even more scorching, compared to the night side? Shouldn’t there be, at least, some change between day and night temperatures?
Now consider that the Venusian night is about 116 Earth days long, and the average Venusian temperature is roughly the same on the day and night sides of the planet. The swing in Earth’s temperatures, however, from day to night, can range from 20 to 30 degrees F. If the Greenhouse effect is the mechanism on Venus, then how is it possible that the temperature on the day and night sides are the same? How can 116 Earth days of darkness sustain the same temperature as 116 days of light, with a 96% CO2 atmosphere? Shouldn’t the day side be even more scorching, compared to the night side? Shouldn’t there be, at least, some change between day and night temperatures?
Excellent challenge, Robert K.
Nope, not excellent at all, Kenneth.
He mentions the extreme density of the atmosphere on Venus and is not able to conclude that such an atmosphere can move around a lot of energy. And since the backradation towards the surface is so massive and most of the interaction with the Sun happens at great heights (clouds absorb most of the energy and not much reaches the surface at all), night and day do not play as big a role for surface temperatures.
You thinking this is a great challenge of common knowledge, does tell a lot about your understanding of the mechanisms. Ignoring everything about radiative energy transfers should not be what makes a person a skeptic. You should learn how everything works, only then you can challenge it on any substantial grounds.
“You should learn how everything works, only then you can challenge it on any substantial grounds.”
Poor seb, you have proven your “knowledge of anything to do with atmospheric science is basically NON-existent”
Heck you STILL have this brain-washed “belief” that CO2 causes warming somehow, DESPITE the fact that you have NEVER been able to produce one iota of actual science to back up this child-minded mythology.
Your anti-science is TOTALLY UNSUPPORTABLE, and you know it.
You continue to be an EMPTY SACK, seb.
“You should learn how everything works”
ROFLMAO, this from a seb who remains WOEFULLY and WILFULLY ignorant on anything to do with physics, atmospheric or structurl
What a lot of words trying to convince a half brained climate activist of something he doesn’t want to know…
Re: “The pressure isn’t setting the temperature, it’s the other way around.”
The above is one of the most ignorant opinions expressed.
The temperature cannot set the pressure since heating/cooling the gas cannot increase/decrease its mass. The pressure of the earth atmosphere at sea level is equal to the total mass of the atmosphere divided by the surface area of the earth. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract as it heats and cools. Remove the sun and let the planet cool to 3K and the “atmosphere” (now solid O2 and N2) would still have the same mass resting on the surface.
Re: Ideal Gas Law
Often quoted and very useful in the lab, but seldom understood. Don’t just memorize the formula, study its derivation from first principles.
The given precepts are:
a. fixed volume
b. no energy gained or lost
c. subject to no external force.
Now consider in what ways the atmosphere of a planet violates these assumptions.
Exercise for the student. Replace precept c. with “subject to an acceleration of 32 ft/sec/sec and see what temperature gradient results.
That would be the ubiquitous SebastianH’s opinion. He has to believe that, as that way he can claim that humans control atmospheric temperatures. If he acknowledges that pressure —> temperature, there goes the human control of climate (and glacier melt, sea level rise, ocean acidification, species extinctions, desertification, extreme weather…and all the other catastrophes he believes CO2 causes).
Would this be Dr. Gervais, author of…
Gervais, 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216300277
Conclusion: Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies (Idso, 1998; Miskolczi, 2007; Paltridge et al., 2009; Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010; Clark, 2010; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015; Volokin and ReLlez, 2015). On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.
Sorry, but no. I’m just an old retired Air Force officer; computer scientist.
Did go to engineering school though (Ohio State) some 40 years ago.
During a Physics class on the derivation of the gas laws, I asked about the effect of gravity as an external force, and was told “Why don’t you work that out?”
After spending all my “free time” for several weeks I finally came up with an answer of something less than a hundredth degree per meter. When I showed the lecturer, he glanced at the figures, then pointed to the result and said “Too small to measure in the lab, so immaterial!”
signed (not to be confused with a the more educated Doctor)
Marcel J. Gervais, Capt (USAF retired)
“study its derivation from first principles.”
Been there done that.. a long time ago. 🙂
Your last point is correct. However …
… you are giving the explanation yourself in the same paragraph. It’s an extreme situation, but the pressure would actually be close to zero, since the atmosphere is gone. With changes in temperature the mass of atmospheres can change. A simple example would be rain and evaporation.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The sentence you quoted has the word atmosphere enclosed in quotation marks, and then for the slow, I included the parenthetical explaination of why. Perhaps for the exceptionally slow I should have said “the former atmosphere will now rest on the surface as a solid” but most reasoning readers would figure that out for themselves. The obvious point being made was that the mass did not change and it is all still supported by the (former) surface.
#Intellectual Dishonesty
http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Except in seb’s case we can leave out the “intellectual” part.
Most of it is just plain fabrication and fallacy.
The pressure did change, since the mass above an observer standing on the “surface” changed. You called it an “ignorant opinion” that temperature change could cause pressure change, remember?
Pressure is changing all the time because of temperature changes. Watch the barometer more closely …
@Kenneth: I don’t get it. You claim to be all about science, but when faced with scientific nonsense you don’t recognize it. Why is that? You even fall for it an chime in with “bla bla, he is dishonest, bla bla”. I wonder why that goes so easy for you …
“when faced with scientific nonsense you don’t recognize it. “
Yes we do.. Its in basically EVERY one of your posts.
Odd that pressure changes before temperature, isn’t it seb.
You look a barometer to predict short term weather, not a thermometer.
Again intentional miss-reading. The pressure on the surface (the whole world) is equal to the mass of the atmosphere. Even if the “atmosphere” cooled down the whole mass (unchanged) would continue to press down on the surface with the same total pressure. Or do you not realise that the solid oxegen and nitrogen would press down on the surface supporting it?
The pressure on the whole surface is the topic since you seem to maintain that global (that is the whole world, right?) warming results in (or from) a global increase in pressure, which is foolish.
Local pressure variations are not the question since the pressure cannot increase anywhere without a corresponding decrease elsewhere. The average remains the same, and cannot change the global average temperature.
I assure you, I do not do such things.
It is no longer part of the atmosphere then, it has become the surface.
So you don’t agree that the mass of an atmosphere would obviously change when the composition changes? An extreme example being a cooling towards absolute zero …
This exactly … the pressure isn’t setting global average temperature.
Re: SebastianH 8. February 2018 at 3:19 PM
…This exactly … the pressure isn’t setting global average temperature.
You say this as though you won; yet you lost.
The statement I objected to in the first place, which started this rediculous sub-thread was you saying:
“The pressure isn’t setting the temperature, it’s the other way around.”
As most readers (perhaps not you) are quite aware, my issue was with the “other way around” part.
It is NOT either the other way around. The pressure isn’t setting the temperature since whether the earth warms or cools, as long as the mass of the atmosphere remains the same, the pressure (total averaged over all the surface) remains the same. Say otherwise?
Why would the mass stay the same when it warms or cools? Look at your own extreme example. Once the temperature is low enough for nitrogen to condense, it will “rain” down to the surface. In the other direction, a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more water, so mass changes.
I don’t see this as us fighting. You are saying essentially the same as me, you just get to the wrong conclusion.
The stupidity never ends for you,
“Why would the mass stay the same when it warms or cools? Look at your own extreme example. Once the temperature is low enough for nitrogen to condense, it will “rain” down to the surface. In the other direction, a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more water, so mass changes.”
Yeah when Nitrogen cools down to… he he… hah haha ha…. – 320 degrees below zero F. (MINUS 320 degrees below zero F) Not any time soon.
He is talking about MASS of the atmosphere NOT volume as you seem to say.
If you come to a conclusion based on FACTS, that is opposite to seb FANTASY FIZZICS junk nonsense..
…you have a good chance of being correct.
Basically everything seb rants, is diametrically opposed to reality.
I give up; you do win! I must concede that global warming may increase global humidity by some few tenths of one percent thus increasing the mass and pressure by some miniscule (probably unmeasurable) amount, therefore your sweeping generalization that the temperature “sets” the pressure is established.
[…] at the Notrickszone, there’s much buzz over a new paper entitled Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a […]
Trying to disprove the greenhouse effect by using such a method as this paper or Nikolov’s paper or using adiabatic formulae is a well-trodden path. But these methods have a serious shortcoming because they cannot explain the observational records of radiative fluxes. You have to see the whole picture. It takes a while to understand the work of, for example, Kiehl and Trenberth, but you need to understand where they are coming from in order to offer any refutation. Robert Holmes I suggest you read Wild et. al. 2015 and really try to understand it. If you want to demonstrate that the surface temperature increase over the last 30 years has not been caused by greenhouse gases, you must first address the data that supports this conclusion. It can actually be done! But it cannot be done by ignoring atmospheric emissivity. Best of luck.
Well, for one, there was a hiatus in greenhouse gases and their effect on temperatures according to a 2016 paper published in Nature (Song et al., 2016)…
https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/
New Paper Documents Imperceptible CO2 Influence On The Greenhouse Effect Since 1992
—
Also, it is well established that there has been a reduction in cloud cover since the 1980s, which has allowed more solar heat to be absorbed by the surface (oceans) and increase temperatures. The positive radiative forcing from a reduction in cloud cover alone since the 1980s easily overwhelm any alleged forcing from CO2 concentration changes, hiatus or not.
—
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
“Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S [surface solar radiation] have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S [surface solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year [1.6 W m-2 per decade].”
—
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“[T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [1979-2011]. … Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.”
—
ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
“Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.”
“you must first address the data that supports this conclusion”
There is no data that supports this conclusion
There is ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN of any CO2 warming in the satellite data set.
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that CO2 causes warming of the oceans or the atmosphere, or anything else.
Produce this mythical data, seb.. so far you have FAILED MISERABLY at supporting a single thing you have said with any actual real empirical science..
Whoops, its another AGW sympathiser. Luke, not seb.
Sorry for putting you in with seb, Luke.
A pretty bad thing to do to anyone.
And there we go again, Kenneth claiming what has been shown to not be true too many times to count now 😉
What skeptic is not able to self correct? The blind one who ignores everything that doesn’t suit his agenda.
Translation:
I am unable to make a cogent counterpoint to your statements using four published science papers to support your reply against Luke’s science free comment.
sunsettommy, you really need to stop doing that. I counterpointed this particular claim more times than I can count. No need to repeat myself over and over again. There really needs to be a FAQ for guys like you … something where every claim of yours is taken apart and an explanation for everything is provided … if only something like that would exist. Oh wait, it does! Outside your bubble apparently 😉
No, you have NOT counterpoint anything with anything but baseless erroneous gargbage.
That is all you have.
You really need to stop doing that, and actually present some real empirical science..
The very idea of that is an anathema to you, I know.
An FAQ of the questions you RUN AWAY from and AVOID presenting any scientific evidence for what-so-ever, would take up several weighty tomes.
SebastianH, you have NEVER come close to showing that natural factors cannot explain the warming trend since the 1980s, nor have you demonstrated that the Song et al. (2016) paper is inaccurate when it shows there was a pause in any greenhouse/CO2 affect on temperatures during 1992-2014. This is just another example of you making stuff up.
So if we don’t agree with you that CO2 molecules control ocean temperatures, glacier melt, sea level rise…and cause extreme weather, desertification, acidification of the oceans that kills off 30,000 species per year…we’re blind. And we ignore the “everything” evidence available that supports these beliefs of yours. At what point did you provide support for these beliefs, SebastianH? Where is the evidence that CO2 causes the Earth to become browner (desertification)? You claimed you have it…but have never provided it. You also claimed that 30,000 species are going extinct every year. Please cite this evidence. How many more times are we going to have to ask you to actually provide scientific evidence for your beliefs?
Seb is EVIDENCE FREE when it comes to CO2 warming anything !
EVIDENCE FREE is the NATURAL state of brain-washed AGW sympathiser.
Excuse me, how many times did I do the calculation for you what the cloud cover forcing numbers in your quotes mean in relation to CO2 forcing over the same time period?
Why do you keep claiming that cloud cover forcing “easily overhelms” CO2 forcing?
And when cornered with anything you come back to your other questions you feel have not been answered. I won’t repeat myself for you again. Promised. I will just point out when you are wrong, without repeating why … it’s pointless explaining anything to you.
“how many times did I do the calculation “
Fantasy calculation based on erroneous assumption and unprovable suppositories..
Proven WRONG by actual measurements.
STILL you have ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming of anything in the real world situation
EMPTY and destined to remain that way.!!
And really seb, having you yapping about something being wrong, is an almost CERTAIN guarantee it is NOT WRONG.
You have proven time and time again that your grasp on physics, science, and sanity, is highly tenuous at best.
[…] – Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2: […]
Stop quarreling, guys, and have a read: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/
Stop quarreling, guys, and have a read: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/
Been there, and I see that the same “quarreling” is going on over there. How is this supposed to alleviate the “quarreling” here? Is the quarreling over there supposed to be somehow more enlightening, to the point of stopping the quarreling here — I don’t think so.
This is a quarrelsome issue. Let us continue.
Exactly. Good, substantive debate is wholly worthwhile. It’s not like we have anything close to settled science here.
“Good, substantive debate”
Pity there is no-one who can provide anything worthwhile in the way of actual empirical science to attempt to back the AGW side of the argument.
Debate is basically EMPTY from that side, apart from the normal unsupportable anti-science fantasy garbage and fairy-tales.
Kenneth, it is pretty much settled that this is a true statement:
““Adiabatic auto-compression” from gravity ‘work’ happened exactly once, as earth formed and contracted out of the solar accretion disk. Earth has had ~4.5 billion years to cool since. The paper conclusion is completely bogus.” (first comment on that linked article).
I don’t know why you guys keep discussing this as a possible reason for the surface temperature being what it is. It’s bogus …
Useful Idiot;
Re; snowball Earth calcs with 12% extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have adjusted the values of M and ρ by also increasing them by 12% as per the pressure;
T= 113.3*32.44/8.314*1.37 = 322 Kelvin.
The result is 49C for an average temperature on Earth.
This would release the planet from the snowball without the need for any greenhouse warming.
Sebastian H
“It’s not increasing downwards, it is decreasing upwards. ”
.
Sebastian has most things backwards.
Sebastian’s posts are a very interesting mix of red herrings, straw men, ad-hominems, incredulity and ignorance.
He is mixed up in many areas, but especially about temperature.
Temperature is the end result, and it is only a measure of the average kinetic energy in a system.
On Earth, temperature is determined by the interplay of pressure and density, with some influence from molar mass via;
T=PM/Rρ
Pressure, density and molar mass are mainly determined by insolation and auto-compression.
.
“Mine-shafts are warm, because temperature in the outer mantle increases by around 25K per km.- I don’t know what you mean by “auto compression”.”
.
I am a qualified mine ventilation engineer. We incorporate auto-compression into all calculations to establish how hot the mine will get for the mine-workers. We need to know this so that we know how much cooling air to provide. Mines spend millions of dollars in order to cool mine air which has been warmed by auto-compression. Please tell them that they are wasting their money because it does not exist.
.
“What do you think this auto-compression thing is? An invented term describing the effects gravity and density ought to have on temperature …”
.
Try reading this book, and then email the authors telling them auto-compression is ‘invented’; McPherson, M. J. (2012). Subsurface ventilation and environmental engineering: Springer Science & Business Media.
.
“Your argument is circular because you are using the ideal gas law. It doesn’t say anything about what caused pressure or temperature to be what it is.”
.
You have a partial point here, and I have addressed this earlier, and in the paper.
Simply looking at the numbers of the three gas parameters alone cannot give you any information about what has caused the temperature. By calculating the temperatures of differing planetary bodies, it is not my main aim to confirm the gas law, since it has already been confirmed by years of measurement. Instead, my aim is to demonstrate the universality of gas thermodynamic atmospheric effects. However, that also is not the full story. Here are 10 independent reasons why I think that CO2 does not warm the troposphere measurably;
1) because every planetary body with a thick atmosphere has a clear thermal gradient, which always starts at 10kPa – regardless of the presence or not of GHG
2) recent papers show that convection dominates over radiative transfers in all atmospheres >10kPa – meaning that on Earth radiative energy transfers take a back seat in the troposphere
3) my knowledge of the physics of star-formation led me to believe that this aspect of gas thermodynamics had been neglected in our atmosphere.
4) growing evidence that the alleged ratio of forcing since 1750 (anthropogenic vs natural) was wrong
5) growing evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 after feed-backs was low, or even zero
6) growing evidence that factors other than CO2 drive climate change (clouds, climate cycles).
7) growing evidence that Venus was not hot because of the greenhouse effect of CO2
8) there is no empirical evidence, quantified in a published paper, that more CO2 causes any warming anywhere in the atmosphere
9) my knowledge of auto-compression indicated what the real reason for the residual temperature effect on planetary bodies was
10) Lastly, that a small input change of one gas (i.e. +0.03% of CO2) into the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not possibly change the three gas parameters enough to increase global temperatures by 3C, as alleged by the IPCC.
“It doesn’t continuously compress … !”
.
The entire troposphere is in motion; convective motion. Half of it is descending and compressing, and half of it is ascending and de-compressing. Not sure who is telling you that parcels of air do not undergo compression – if it’s your professor, you should try to get him fired.
On Earth the Sun warms things up and the atmosphere’s optical thickness causes some of that energy to be retained, increasing the heat content until temperature is high enough to get into balance with the incoming energy. The temperature is the end result of a heat content buildup (or a loss of heat content).
The atmosphere is not getting warmer until it reaches the ground and then warms the ground by contact, etc. It is the other way around.
The temperature in mine shafts is controlled by the surrounding material. Warm Earth equals warm air. Or more scientifically: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037%281%29%2064-67.pdf
It starts at the ground upwards and ends in the zone where the pressure is low enough that radiative energy transfers dominate. The equations for this gradient doesn’t contain GHGs, that is correct. Nevertheless a gradient can only form when something is heating on one side and cooling on the other. Otherwise you get a perpetuum mobile. As an engineer, you should know this.
Surprise, that’s called optical thickness. Not a new concept at all.
Stars form by the collaps of material/gas. At high enough pressures atoms fuse and you get a star. They are hot, because of the fusion and initial compression, not because of the pressure. You need constant compression to keep something hot. As soon as you stop and pressure isn’t increasing further, all the heat will radiate away. Earth’s atmosphere isn’t compressing any further, Jupiter’s is.
I assure you the basics aren’t neglected in any model of the atmosphere.
What evidence? You mean the crap that is posted on skeptics websites?
Venus (the surface) is hot, because that’s the temperature that is needed for an equilibrium (energy coming in from the Sun equals energy radiated to space). If you could magically cool the surface, it wouldn’t be in equilibrium anymore. The heat content of the surface would increase (thereby increasing the temperature) until the energy emitted equals the energy absorbed again. Same for artificially heating the surface, it would lose more energy than it receives and thus cool down again.
If the atmosphere of Venus were suddenly transparent (no greenhouse gases) the heat content of the surface would rapidly decrease because there is only SW radiation from the Sun as an input left.
There are many papers detailing the process and papers with measurements exist too. Of course, the skeptics community says they are all fake or something, so … na, no evidence. Instead they suggest that we should conduct an experiment with a second identical Earth, before they believe that the properties of GHGs are real 😉 It is entertaining to watch with what they come up with. This time it’s your paper, next time it’s something else. The search for ridiculous alternatives never ends 😉
Nope. All the air that “comes down” and you call “auto compressed” also had to go up at some point. Take a good guess where the energy for that process is coming from. Hint: not gravity. Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t get warm from compression in the same way as a chair doesn’t get warm (and keeps the temperature) when you put a weight on it.
Because that is not how it works. Changing out molecules in a gas mix doesn’t warm or cool anything. If you can’t believe that a tiny amount of molecules can have a big effect than look at a bathroom mirror. What percentage of the glass is the reflective part? Suddenly a completely transparent material becomes opaque by coating it with a small amount of reflective material.
I suggest you let a professor review your paper and your thoughts. At this point I have serious doubts anyone even read your paper before publishing it.
Of course parcels of air get compressed. Because they got warm at the surface, expanded while traveling upwards until they reach a point where radiative effect dominate. They lose their energy, sink down and get compressed again. That’s one of the basic heat transports from the surface to space. It doesn’t cause any warming of the surface. To do that those parcels would have to pick up energy at the top and then decend downwards.
Have a good day and remember that mineshaft walls have a temperature too, next time you try to calculate the temperature of air inside a mine.
Robert Holmes: “there is no empirical evidence, quantified in a published paper, that more CO2 causes any warming anywhere in the atmosphere”
Please cite even one of these “many” papers that use real-world empirical evidence, not models or assumptions, to physically demonstrate how much warming or cooling is elicited by increasing/decreasing the CO2 concentration in increments of parts per million. Of course, since the heat flux is ocean to atmosphere (the atmosphere doesn’t warm until the oceans do, as the atmosphere only accounts for 1% of the Earth’s heat energy), you’ll need to cite empirical evidence that shows how much warming/cooling is caused in water bodies by varying the CO2 concentration above them up or down. We’ll need real measurements. Not models. Not assumptions. Real-world stuff. Please produce it.
At last, you recognize that the gradient is from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere. Why support Mr. Holmes’ claims then?
What do you think models are based on? Fantasies? How do you think models get validated? Is this all too complex for you to understand? Of course I fully assume that you will reply something about dodging your questions again. I am not here to do your homework, not anymore Kenneth. Look it up yourself.
In the case of AGW, the assumption that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for heating and cooling the ocean, melting or advancing glaciers, rising or falling sea levels, etc. Assumptions about what may be possible are not a substitute for real-world observations. Climate models also do a terrible job when it comes to forecasting and even explaining the recent past. No climate model predicated on CO2 emissions assumptions can explain why GIS melt was more pronounced in the 1920s-1940s than today, for example.
By having more than 3 climate simulations out of 117 (< 3%) accurately model temperature trends over a 20-year period. A 97% failure rate for CMIP5 does not validate climate models predicated on CO2 emissions scenarios. In fact, in any other branch of real science, the models would be discarded. Instead, people like you defend them anyway.
—
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Overestimated%20Warming.pdf
“[W]e considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models … By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.3 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate [0.14 °C per decade], and only a few [3 out of 117] simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty.”
—
Oh yes. The conspicuous display of your dizzying intellect has become too much for me to handle, SebastianH.
So you told Robert Holmes that there are “many” papers that identify how much atmospheric and oceanic warming is elicited by ppm changes in CO2 — and we have physical measurements available for verification, and yet when asked to produce this evidence or these papers, you say that I must look these up myself. Obviously, this means that YOU HAVE NO SUCH EVIDENCE to cite. Pathetic.
Just admit you have no evidence, SebastianH. That would be more honorable than lying about having the evidence and then telling me to “look it up yourself” when we ask for it.
“I am not here to do your homework, “
You need to at least START your own junior high homework first, seb
Seems you AVOIDED any real learning at that the junior high stage…..
… just like you AVOID any questions and actually fight rabidly against the chance to actually LEARN something now.
You are obviously content to live in your little fantasy fizzics realm, and leave all the questions you cannot answer in Never-Never-Land.. you are the child-mind that refused to grow up.
No, I didn’t. I told him “There are many papers detailing the process and papers with measurements exist too.”
Do you deny that detailed measurements of radiation in different directions and in different heights (including spectrographs) exist?
Just admit that you are making things up as you go, Kenneth. That would be more honorable than interpreting papers in creative ways and supporting papers that come to questionable conclusions resulting in claims that hundreds of papers would support a skeptic viewpoint.
Also, answer questions when I ask you them and do not reply with homework assignments. Thank you.
Robert Holmes: “there is no empirical evidence, quantified in a published paper, that more CO2 causes any warming anywhere in the atmosphere”
As you know, the atmosphere doesn’t warm until the oceans do. So the “process” detailed in papers with measurements must not only show observational evidence of the process of CO2–>OHC–>atmospheric change, but provide physical measurements detailing how much change is occurring in the ocean heat due to incremental changes in CO2 concentrations (or any body of water if not the oceans).
You claimed you have access to papers with this detailed information. You claimed you have physical measurements. And yet when asked to produce it, you can’t. Because IT DOESN’T EXIST. Stop dishonestly claiming it does.
And if you agree that there is no CO2 contribution to the stark temperature differences (-9 F) at the North Rim vs. the South Rim (i.e., the Earth’s surface) of the Grand Canyon, I have asked you many times now to identify where on the surface there is an identifiable CO2 contribution to temperature gradients…if it doesn’t exist in the Grand Canyon. Also, quantify the CO2 contribution — wherever it might be occurring. You’ve previously written that you don’t know how much difference CO2 contributes.
SebastianH: “If you mean what difference the existence of CO2 in our atmosphere causes, I don’t know exactly.”
If so, why are you adamant that it is not negligible and/or inconsequential? How do you know it’s not…if you acknowledge that you don’t even know what it is?
The measurements show clearly what amount of energy is transfered in what direction. Wavelength analysis tells us what molecules are responsible for what parts of the backradiation. And that part doesn’t just magically vanish when it interacts with the surface.
But go ahead and continue to believe that just based on the convenient fact that it is impossible to conduct an experiment that could do something like that.
But wait, one can use a proxy and instead of changing the CO2 concentration to cause a change in the backradiation change something else that causes the same effect. I wonder if somebody did that already? 😉
And I reply to you – again – asking you why you think that would be the case? What gradients are you talking about? It doesn’t make any sense to me, sorry. Do you mean the gradient in the atmosphere? The lapse rate? That one doesn’t change when the greenhouse effect increases/decreases. Why would it?
“I don’t know exactly” usually means exactly this. I also don’t know exactly how big the explosive force of the last hydrogen-bomb that detonated was. That doesn’t mean that it was negligible or inconsequential, does it?
I also don’t know exactly how much water my body contains. Do you? Is it negligible?
You really are a scientifically CONFUSED little AGW sympathiser, aren’t you seb. !
Make it all up as you go along !
SO MUCH that is just SO WRONG in your ranting diatribe.!
There is ZERO evidence that CO2 causes warming. It is not a reflective material as you mindlessly try to say in another false analogy..
Pressure starts from the top, not the bottom.
“sink down and get compressed again.”
So work IS always being done.
Thank you seb.
You really are having trouble keeping all your LIES and MISINFORMATION straight, aren’t you. 😉
Poor seb, perpetually CONFUSED. !!
Seb , a simple question that will show if you are actually able to think rationally.
In a mine, what will happen if the temperature at any depth, is greater than the temperature that the pressure gradient can maintain.?
Just read the first link in my previous comment, you know … the one you replied to. I’ll repeat it for you to help you: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037%281%29%2064-67.pdf
“Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics” seems OK, so that’s not the problem. And it doesn’t appear that they contradict anything Holmes writes, especially since auto-compression is dealt with in other similar papers (see references given above by others). Note the equations in your reference use the ideal gas law to estimate what temps might be, though they quite rightly lament the lack of actual data to compare their model with to validate it (something SebH dismisses as irrelevant). So, why is SebH referencing this paper? …perhaps because he thinks the only contribution to the increase in heat with depth is from surrounding material that gets hotter as one goes deeper? Well, it’s not the only contribution, which is why the paper applies the ideal gas law and the gravitational constant to estimate actual temperatures.
So, what is the problem? SebH doesn’t “get it.” …and it would help if he would have given us a paper that had more meat on it’s bones (more detail), and more guts (better references)…
I looked at a few of their reference but the ones I tried gave me nothing but “page not found,” and other gibberish? Try ’em and see for yourself.
https//www.hww.geol./sec.edu/Faculty/Nunn/gl17065/Chp4_notes.html
http://www.uky.edu/AS/Geology/howell/220/notes06_metamorphic-s
https://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/geol/termag.htm
https://www.britannica.com/eb/article9046293
http://Ideo.columbia.edu/users/jcm/Topic3/Topic3.ht
ml
Normally when I check refs I can get a higher than zero percentage of those sampled to work.
Come on, SebH. You can do better than that…or maybe not.
You yet again show that you just DO NOT COMPREHEND.
Trying to get you to comprehend ANYTHING is like trying to explain something to a 5 year old !!!
And yes if you flex something enough it will get warm.
But we are talking about work done.
When-ever a force is resisted, work is done by the INTERNAL structure of the material.
In the case of air resisting the gravity force of the air above it, that internal resisting force is the kinetic energy of the particles in the air. Comprehend?? or too much for your little mind. !!!
I know you haven’t done anything higher than junior school physics, but please, open your blinkered little mind and TRY to learn at least something. !!
So, EVASION of a simple questions, YET AGAIN.
Squirm away, little worm
In a mine, what will happen if the temperature at any depth, is greater than the temperature that the pressure gradient can maintain.?
And as you go up the mountain and get closer to the sun of course it gets warmer, eh? Well that’s the implication of what seb blathers about.
And you finally reach the top of the mountain and boil some water for a warming food and drink only to find water boils at 87°C there.
You will find it quite difficult to make a decent cup of tea at high altitude, because the water doesn’t get hot enough to extract the flavours from the tea leaves properly.
You also have to be careful about cooking food by boiling, because the water doesn’t get hot enough to kill some bacteria.
But the tea would be much cooler without all that heat-trapping from the greenhouse blanket. Right?
Please explain the balsa wood vs. dense wood chair thought experiment as it relates to the mass-gravity-density conceptualization. Is there perhaps a better word than “work” to describe what’s happening with the denser wood? Because work implies action/energy.
“Please explain the balsa wood vs. dense wood chair thought experiment as it relates to the mass-gravity-density conceptualization.”
Hint, its all about “internal energy” available to resist outside force.
Just as a denser wood has far greater internal “strain energy” to resist the mass x gravity = force of someone sitting in the chair, then the atmosphere at the bottom of the atmosphere must have more internal energy (kinetic energy in the case of gases)to hold up the air above it being pulled down by gravity.
Every structure deflects under load, be it axial, bending, twisting etc.. How much depends on the material properties and the cross-section properties of the members in the structure. Ideally, the deflection is minimised within cost constraints. (with avoidance of collapse of course)
The units of “strain energy” is Joules.. ie same as for “work”
Your arm holding out a stationary mass, like a barbell, also uses the “strain energy” in your muscles to hold up the barbell, until that strain energy goes to yield point. If you don’t believe me, try it. !!
The balsa wood chair, will of course reach yield point very quickly, while a well designed solid wood chair should barely deflect at all.
We are talking about “stationary” or “steady” loads here, impact loads are whole next field of study.
—–
I’ll also answer the second question, since seb NEVER can.
The relationship which governs all structural analysis is called the “work-strain relationship.”
It is used in all structural design software (validated by millions of examples in real life)to calculate deflection, displacements and transmitted forces throughout a structure.,
ALL of it based on the internal “strain energy”, a material property, and cross-section properties of the members in the structure versus the loads applied to the structure.
I hope that is enough, because I don’t have time to go through a whole course on structural engineering for everyone.
“But the tea would be much cooler without all that heat-trapping from the greenhouse blanket. Right? “
Pretty sure you could NEVER boil a cup of water by increasing the CO2 concentration above it. 😉
Nope, suppose 25ºC at the surface, and a fantasy CO2 sensitivity of 3ºC per doubling of CO2 concentration
That gives a possible temperature of about 59ºC
Sorry, but even under the wildest IPICC fantasy, you will still have a tepid cup of tea, with no flavour at all.
AndyG55, good explanation, but please, explain how this actually causes warming. Putting a weight on a chair compresses the chair. How does it warm the chair and more importantly manages to hold the temperature differential to the surroundings without further compression work?
Same goes for air parcels expanding upwards and being compressed downwards. How does that cause any warming? It’s a transport system to transport heat from the surface upwards, not the other way around.
In the end, you’ll get a gradient starting from whatever the wall temperatures are at any depth.
You yet again show that you just DO NOT COMPREHEND.
Trying to get you to comprehend ANYTHING is like trying to explain something to a 5 year old !!!
And yes if you flex something enough it will get warm.
But we are talking about work done.
When-ever a force is resisted, work is done by the INTERNAL structure of the material.
In the case of air resisting the gravity force of the air above it, that internal resisting force is the kinetic energy of the particles in the air. Comprehend?? or too much for your little mind. !!!
I know you haven’t done anything higher than junior school physics, but please, open your blinkered little mind and TRY to learn at least something. !!
That requires constant energy input to flex that something. Gravity is not causing an ongoing compression of the atmosphere. The density at the surface is not continuously increasing.
I do comprehend. This happened exactly ones in the lifetime of our planet: when it formed from the accretion disc. At some point in the distant past the material that makes up our planet stop compressing because of that internal resisting force and cooled off.
I took a few semesters of astrophysics and quantum information theory back in the uni days. But please go one and show us how much you “know” about how physics actually work. It never seizes to surprise me 😉
You yet again prove you have not comprehended a thing.
WILFULLY IGNORANT you will remain.
“Gravity is not causing an ongoing compression of the atmosphere.”
ROFLMAO
Of course it is.
What a totally moronic statement, even from you.
Gravity creates an atmospheric-mass-based force.. and it doesn’t do anything ????
Are you being serious ???? !!
You haven’t comprehended even the slightest bit from this topic, have you. !
Your Fizz-sucks is total NONSENSE, seb.
“I took a few semesters of astrophysics and quantum information theory back in the uni days”
So you wasted that part of your life too, did you. !
Everything you pretend to know, is a massive deviation, almost diametrically opposed, from any known physics or reality.
So.. what went wrong, seb ?
It’s like teaching a child that insists on 1+1=3 with you. I am losing hope that you will ever be capable of seeing your mistake 😉
When you let a weight fall down, gravity perform work. It accelerates that weight. Until it hits something. Then gravity doesn’t further accelerate that weight. It sits on the ground and no work is being performed.
Is that so hard to understand?
That might be your impression because you are the one living on a different planet, where leaving out half of the equation is ok to do and yelling at others is ok too 😉
seb continues to write new chapters in this FANTASY world of ZERO-science and ANTI-KNOWLEDGE.
Even the Grimm Bros would be amazed at the sheer hallucinogenic cognitive dissonance and emptymess..
Put a weight on a beam, the weight is exerting a force. How does the beam resist that force, seb??
Look up the term “STRAIN ENERGY”, seb, and at least TRY TO LEARN, its basic structural design used the world over, that you are DENYING, seb.
Many have tried, but you are proving that LEARNING is something you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF. Your baseless arrogance will not let you learn.
Your current physics knowledge is from a planet far distant, akin to a la-la never-never land of MAKE BELIEVE.
“in the same way as a chair doesn’t get warm”
And seb continues his display of absolute IGNORANCE when it comes to structural mechanics.
Dig deeper and deeper, seb, its hilarious.
You never did answer the question seb.
Why don’t they use thin balsa wood for chairs?
After all, they aren’t “doing” anything once you are seated, are they.
ps. Do you know what the relationship is called that is built into the calculations of ALL structural analysis software is called?
The software that allows for the design of all major buildings bridges and structural infrastructure.
I bet you have ZERO CLUE. !
ignore the 2nd “is called”. !
AndyG55, construct a machine that makes use of the “work” you think is performed and you’ll be a millionaire, Nobel prize winner and I will forgive you any insult I had to endure from you in the past. Deal?
Seb’s ZERO knowledge and ZERO comprehension and TOTAL LACK of understanding of structural principles continues to be displayed for all.
So HILARIOUS.
Every building, every structure, makes use of the inner strain energy of the materials it is made from , seb
If you don’t know that, there your ignorance is COMPLETE.
Noted that you CONTINUE TO AVOID 2 simple questions….
1. Why don’t they use thin balsa wood for chairs?
2. Do you know what the relationship is called that is built into the calculations of ALL structural analysis software?
Keep avoiding the questions, seb..
… or just keep going with the inane/insane/EMPTY comments that show that you haven’t got the slightest clue.
SebH wants Andy to make a sailing boot? He weird request. Easy make energy from work in atmosphere. SebH not know that wind mills do that?
“make a sailing boot?”
I suppose I could try, all my boots are steel capped, also rather worn out and a bit holey, which could present a bit of a challenge with buoyancy.
Because it brakes under load.
Yes I do, but that is somewhat irrelevant and you are still evading what I am asking you to do/explain. Why?
So how does something warm from compression and stay warm without further compression in an open system?
Your comment shows that you have understood ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of what has been explained.
You either have the learning capability of a gnat, or are being DELIBERATELY stupid so as to seek attention.
1. Why does it break under load.?
2. That has been explained, you are just too mentally incompetent to figure it out.
I am now totally convinced that you have TOTAL LACK in basic education, and have absolutely ZERO intent of opening your mind and doing anything about it.
You wish to remain WILFULLY IGNORANT.
I’ll try again anyway..
a) Its an open system, it ALWAYS need further compression. Like a tyre with a hole in it.
b) the resistance to the gravity mass of all the other air above means that INTERNAL WORK must be done , in gases this is in the form of Kinetic Energy.
I know from your comments that the whole concept is a total anathema to you, and that you are making ZERO effort to understand, having built a deliberate wall of ignorance.
I’ll even answer my questions for you seb, so you don’t have to go hunting for a second brain neurone..
1. It collapses because it doesn’t have the internal strain energy to resist the gravity mass force of someone sitting in it.
2. In exactly the same way, the air at the surface MUST maintain enough internal energy to hold up the several km of air pushing down on it.
In gases, that internal energy comes from kinetic energy, and in the simplest terms, that KE registers as TEMPERATURE.
So the temperature is FORCED by the pressure gradient.
Except there is no further compression caused by gravity. But apparently, you think that this is the case. So again, construct a machine that extracts this mythical energy and you will win a Nobel prize and become very very rich.
Nope, the air at the bottom doesn’t need to do any work to “hold up” the air above. Does the suspension of a car need a source of energy to hold up the car?
No, it must not. And since you are unable to see that, this sentence couldn’t be more true (only it is about you and not me):
“I am now totally convinced that you have TOTAL LACK in basic education, and have absolutely ZERO intent of opening your mind and doing anything about it.”
You are a severe case of the Dunning Kruger effect.
There is always one or more of you guys on climate-related blogs who totally misinterpret physics. No matter how thorough people explain to them how stuff actually works, they continue to post what they believe is right. Completely resistant to any learning effect 😉
P.S.: How hot is the water at the bottom of the Mariana Trench?
“How hot is the water at the bottom of the Mariana Trench?”
OMG, seb doesn’t know that water is incompressible
IGNORANCE runs VERY deep with this child-troll.
“There is always one or more of you guys on climate-related blogs who totally misinterpret physics”
And that would be YOU, seb
Your understanding of atmospheric physics and “explanations” are anti-science, unsupportable NONSENSE, from some la-la fantasy land.
As you keep showing in EVERY post you make.
“Does the suspension of a car need a source of energy to hold up the car?”
OMG, you refuse to COMPREHEND ANYTHING, seb.
If it has to supply a counter force to the car bouncing, here does it get that counter-force from. The explanation of “strain energy” went like a space shuttle over your head, didn’t it, seb..OBLIVIOUS. !!
How do you think they design things like coil springs?? No idea, have you. !! Why not use the coil out of a bic pen?
Now you are just behaving like a little child you didn’t pay attention to anything when he was younger, and now wonders why he DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE what is going on.
“Nope, the air at the bottom doesn’t need to do any work to “hold up” the air above”
ROFLMAO
Oh Look , more of sebs “MYTHICAL MAGIC FIZZUCS™”.
The Air just stays up.. all by itself. !!
Poor seb, from the fantasy bizarre to the sublimely ridiculous, then back again, in one post..
You should look that one up, really.
Calling something incompressible is your way out of this? What does happen internally when you compress water? Where does the compression energy go in this case?
It is a spring, the energy from compression is stored internally until the spring gets released again. Some internal warming is also occuring when initially compressed, but that cools off to the surrounding temperature. Gravity doesn’t perform any work on the spring once it is compressed. “Bouncing” changes nothing regarding this process. The energy to make the car and the spring bounce doesn’t come from gravity.
Of course it does. If holding up a cup of tea with your arm extended gives you the impression that work needs to be done to hold things up then you are missunderstanding important parts of physics and deal with being challenged by creatively insulting others. It’s really weird watching someone do that. You are the perfect example for the Dunning Kruger effect.
Or it’s just trolling, because you seem to understand that there is a contradiction if liquids and solid materials would behave the same way as you propose gas and springs, tables, chairs, etc behave (requiring constant work to “hold up” stuff) 😉
Your baseline IDIOCY and IGNORANCE is really getting passed the RIDICULOUS STAGE.
Your REFUSAL to learn even the most BASIC FACTS of any sort of structural physics are passed a JOKE.
You really just think air has nothing holding it up.
You really think that no energy is required to “hold things up”.
BIZARRE !!
You show you have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in gaining even the slightest KNOWLEDGE of how things in the structural world are designed.
Certainly NOT from any of your IGNORANT anti-physics ideas.
Your understanding of basic physics is basically NON-EXISTANT. And you are trying DESPERATELY to keep it that way.
Thing is seb, that ANYONE can look up “strain energy” in any structures text book, or even on the web, and see that everything I have said is correct.
The energy required to “hold things up” or to resist any force, comes from the internal strain energy within the material.
THIS is the FACT that you are in TOTAL DENIAL of, despite the FACT that it is used in ALL STRUCTURAL DESIGN.
Your REFUSAL to even attempt to understand such a basic engineering principle, shows your intent is PURELY and TOTALLY to be a nil-informed attention seeking TROLL.
“The Air just stays up.. all by itself. !!
Of course it does.
So if we remove the air underneath a given parcel of air, that parcel of air just stays where it was, is that right seb . 😉
You really are suffering a cognitive mal-function, aren’t you little attention seeking troll.
“If holding up a cup of tea with your arm extended”
Gravity x the mass of the coffee and cup = a force.
How does your arm counteract that force, seb.
(Let’s make it a 5lb barbell, shall we, don’t want to spill the coffee on that carpet.)
How long can you hold that 5lb barbell out there seb?
Does your arm feel anything?
How do they know what size beam to use in a structure, seb, how do they do the calculations?
One lost comment (kind of lengthy). Hope a moderator can find it, whereever it has gone.
LOL – good luck with that, SebH.
https://ct.weirdnutdaily.com/ol/wn/sw/i53/2/1/30/wnd_d88985844f17b5a7388e968038865c9d.jpg
Probably ended up in sewer where it belongs
Thanks for the links KenR. Makes my point: those papers address the problem head on, the Song paper is quite good, the greenhouse effect is intrinsic to their theory. Robert Holmes theory makes no such allowance, which was my point. So the challenge is for Holmes to quantify, for example, what is the relationship between surface temperature, albedo, insolation and emissivity? Merely stating P = rho.R~.T is insufficient.
Song et al makes very good use of OLR, their Ga is a measure of atmospheric emissivity, in fact it is identical to eP/(1-e) where P is absorbed solar insolation (not pressure!) and e is the bulk emissivity of the atmosphere with respect to surface radiation, in an equilibrium state. Those guys really understand radiative flux, sort of! Their Gs = Ga+uP+Q, where u is the atmospheric emissivity with respect to solar insolation and Q is the non-radiative heat transfer due to latent heat and conduction. They are so close to the unified radiative model!
Willis stated;
“I’m sorry, but the author has not demonstrated what he claims.
All that Robert Holmes has shown is that the atmospheres of planet obey, to a good approximation, the Ideal Gas Law.”
.
Willis is wrong. I could do no better than to quote a simple thought experiment, written by “The Reverend Badger” on WUWT site, I present it here;
Consider 2 rocky planets with thick atmospheres orbiting at the same distance from, just for fun, our very own sun. And let’s be really silly and have them in earth orbit as well. And even more ridiculously one has an atmosphere identical to the earth. Let this planet be E1.
Spec: E1 in earth orbit, same atmosphere as earth.
Now the other planet is E2 (how did you guess!). surprise surprise this is going to be identical to E1 EXCEPT for the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of E2 will contain NO GHGs. It will be a nice mixture of various gases with exactly the same pressure, density and molar mass as E1. Just NO GHGs.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas theory for Earth predicts that E1 should have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 Because of it’s GHGs.
The alternative theory/hypothesis of Robert predicts they will have identical temperatures. But interestingly the figure is the same as the other theory! Coincidence? Maybe.
How would you eliminate the possibility that a simple formulae with no reference to the percentage of GHGs in an atmosphere accurately predicts the temperature of a planet with a very specific (todays) percentage of GHGs. Well, have a look at other planets, some with huge GHG percentage (Venus). Obviously, a simple formula with no reference to GHGs would not be expected to fit 8 planets.
And yet it does.
The ONLY way that is possible IF the GHG theory is correct is that changes in GHG percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure/density/molar mass to make Robert’s formulae fit. But you could change the pressure/density/molar mass in EXACTLY the same way numerically using non GHGs to get the same result.
Therefore the GHG theory MUST be incorrect.
My input;
The Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law says that since these two planets have the same density, pressure and molar mass, they MUST have the same temperature. Yet one of them contains GHG and the other does not.
In this way it is seen that either the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law is correct or the (33C or whatever is claimed) greenhouse effect is correct – both cannot possibly be correct.
Again: tell me all the properties except temperature of the inside of a boiling (and closed) pot of water and I tell you the temperature. No need for any description of the heat source that made the water boil in the first place. It just has the temperature it has, because of pressure, density, etc.
I just proved that you don’t need a stove to boil water, voila!
They wouldn’t have the same density, pressure and molar mass. You can’t maintain an atmospheres with the same properties as the one containing GHGs with the energy input provided by the Sun at the same distance.
Another thing that makes me wonder if you are just trolling others here is the fact that measurements of the radiative energy transfers exist. You must be aware of them and yet you claim they don’t play a role in setting the surface temperature of a rocky planet with an atmosphere? What sane scientist would claim something like that?
“They wouldn’t have the same density, pressure and molar mass. You can’t maintain an atmospheres with the same properties as the one containing GHGs with the energy input provided by the Sun at the same distance.”
The one with the GHGs would simply have less vigorous convective turnover as a result of a less steep lapse rate slope but otherwise average density, pressure and surface temperature would be the same because the changes in density and pressure caused in rising columns of air (half the atmosphere at any given moment) would be offset by equal and opposite changes in descending columns of air.
Exactly Stephen.
Our nice damp, mildly compressible, atmosphere ensures we have a vigorous convective turnover giving us all that lovely weather.
Stephen,
with no greenhouse gases the temperature would be different since the atmosphere would be transparent to LW radiation then. With lower temperatures you have less density and pressure and some parts of the atmospere will condense out (remember, you are trying to maintain an atmosphere with equal parameters as the one we currently have).
It just won’t work.
“It just won’t work.”
You have shown that your understanding of basically every bit of how the atmosphere works is DIAMETRIACALLY OPPOSED TO REALITY.
The only gas that has ANY effect on the temperature of the atmosphere is H2O, and it has to COOL the surface to get there.
There is ZERO proof of any CO2 effect on the atmosphere except enhancing the biosphere.
Your continued comment of a FALLACY that you KNOW you cannot support, is getting quite PATHETIC.
If there was any proof of CO2 causing warming, you would be the first to produce it.
So far you have been a MONUMENTAL FAILURE in EVERY regard.
How different? What would the temperature be if the CO2 concentration was 260 ppm, just as it was 8,000 years ago?
“What would the temperature be if the CO2 concentration was 260 ppm”
Darn cold in winter, because you would be without fossil fuel heating and electricity !!!
I see, so let’s take two water surfaces A and B at identical temperatures. What does need to happen to B so it begins to evaporate more than A? Could it be an increase in the temperature of B? And you are suggesting now that B ends up being cooler than A because of the evaporation? Dream on.
Your body evaporates because you are hot, you don’t end up cooler than you normally would be without sweating.
Stop making things up, SebH. Here, I’ll post this for you AGAIN.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2014/03/agw-theory-back-radiation-insignificant.html
It goes into excellent technical detail dissecting the scam. I’m it will help you see where you are wrong, if you 1)bother to read it, and 2)if you can comprehend it.
good luck.
ROFLMAO, and other anti-fizzics seb analogy.
Showing he has STILL zero -comprehension
Tell us seb, how does water get into the atmosphere??
What happens when it transfers ENERGY upwards from the surface
Your IGNORANCE of atmospheric processes and physics in general, is PROFOUND to say the least !!
Do you REALLY think that transferring energy from somewhere actually warms it up.
You are SERIOUS LOOPY today , seb.
Yon, seb is now taking the DELIBERATELY IGNORANT approach to everything.
NO-ONE could POSSIBLY be as IGNORANT and INCOMPETENT and showing himself to be totally incapable of rational thought and learning as he is portraying himself to be.
He is DELIBERATELY acting like a 5 year old seeking attention, a sort of pre-pubescent tantrum, so to speak.
He is doing this because its all he has left.
oops, got a code wrong somewhere. !
@Andy
“NO-ONE could POSSIBLY be as IGNORANT and INCOMPETENT …”
My thought on that is that if he admitted to any part of what’s correct, he could never keep trying to sell us on his version, which is clearly contradicted by the facts
So, yes, I think you make a very good point.
I’ve read it, do you really believe what is written over there? Why?
By evaporation and it cools the surface.
Tell us what causes evaporation to occur? Again, two water surfaces at equal temperature, what happens when you warm up one of the surfaces? Will it evaporate more? Will the evaporation cause that it is actually cooler than the other surface that is not being warmed? Tell us!
This one’s worth storing….
https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/comment-page-1/#comment-1251249
How does water get into the atmosphere??
SebastianH: “By evaporation and it [water vapor] cools the surface.”
So water vapor, the most potent and plentiful greenhouse gas, cools the surface of the Earth, which is 71% water. But yet at the same time you believe that water vapor warms the surface and subsurface ocean. How does that work, exactly, in the real world?
“By evaporation and it cools the surface.”
WOW, seb got something correct. !!
Then he ruins it with another piece of incoherent nonsense, inventing things no-one every said.
So sad, so seb. !!
At least you have admitted that evaporation COOLS the surface…
tiny step, seb, tiny steps.
So, SebH, you haven’t a clue what Dr. Anderson is talking about, as I suspected.
As to water vapor, I’ve also posted this for you before, but to no avail.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek
All you do is bluff and bluster. You are a complete fraud.
yonason,
That is what you take away from me asking if you believe that nonsense? He is talking about the energy budgets and how 100+% would be impossible. He is talking about the net radiative transfer being from the ground up and he postulates that the radiation from CO2 is absorbed on very short distances. He even goes so far as to declare CO2 a cooling agent.
That alone should be enough to make a skeptic VERY skeptical. But here we are, you believe it wihtout questioning anything and despite you claiming that you know how physics work.
Please refrain from posting conspiracy fantasy stuff made by climate deniers. It just makes you look worse than when you just call people names and use other creative insults.
@AndyG55: so you evade my question? Then it is settled, you have no clue.
Again, two cups of water in the same environment, what do you have to do to the temperature of the cups so one of the cups evaporates more? What will that increase in evaporation do to the temperature of the cup (of water)?
I should stop posting because you, an anonymous ignorant troll hack, tell me to?! Hahaha – I don’t think so.
You obviously have no idea what he’s saying. And what he writes is based on his education and experience. It’s what he does for a living. He’s a successful high-tech businessman – while you are a loudmouth nobody.
If he were wrong you could give us more than vague mockery. You would be able to take at least one aspect of what he asserts, and show HOW it is wrong. But you don’t, because, even if it were wrong, you wouldn’t have the faintest idea why.
You are a typical leftist activist with nothing to add, and it only becomes clearer the more you write. So, by all means, keep it up.
“He even goes so far as to declare CO2 a cooling agent.”
Which is what it is. So why the issue?
You last question is still a piece of seb idiocy, no idea what you think you are trying to say, Its a question written by an […].
Are you seriously trying to pretend that evaporation doesn’t have a cooling effect?
That would be the most BIZARRE anti-everything suggestion you have ever made. !!
Pretty way-out, wacked-brain stuff, even from you.
You need some serious mental help, seb. !
Yes, i do. It’s nonsense. And the presentation is sub-par too. His blogger bio (https://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076) is pretty telling too. If I would call me a skeptic (I do), I wouldn’t trust a source like that. You don’t need to call someone who tells you that an “anonymous ignorant troll hack”. The ignorant person is you, always. Especially if you have to rant like you do.
That’s cute. So everyone on the internet is right until proven wrong? Is this how skepticism works in your bubble?
It’s funny that you think this guy is correct in saying that GHGs actually cool the surface and that the energy budgets are all wrong because nobody understands the role of infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere. He clearly is in for a Nobel prize for pointing that out 😉
It’s not my problem that you don’t know “HOW” that is wrong. It’s just sad that you assume you know that he is right.
“…measurements of the radiative energy transfers exist” – SebH
Oh, good. So you DO have references! I’ll be glad to read them as soon as you provide.
Tried that. He didn’t produce any. This happens every time. He gets our hopes up that he can provide us with evidence supporting his beliefs…and then he lets us down.
I believe the required papers are published by the ‘SuperSciency PLC’ branch of ‘Not a Chance Publishing’
— Corporate mission —
“To be the biggest virtual publisher in the virtualized World”.
An achievement they easily made when they published “CO2, It’s a Gas by Da Mann” with nearly 2 billion virtual downloads to date. Search for them on Amazon or Google they’re virtually there!
seb must have a copy.
😊👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍 😊👍
“and then he lets us down.”
No he doesn’t.
He does EXACTLY what everyone expects him to do.
Absolute consistency.
Yes, Kenneth. And I think it’s important to keep his feet to the fire, as it were, and to make new readers who are unfamiliar with him aware of some of the games he plays.
“maybe you’ll learn something 😉”
No chance you will EVER learn anything, seb
You basically have to UNLEARN all the rampantly stupid anti-science and anti-physics you have from your la-la never-ever back-it-up FANTASY make-believe little basement existence.
It would take a lifetime for you to UNLEARN so much wilful anti-knowledge.
Do you deny that measurements of the incoming radiation, the outgoing radiation and the backradiation at multiple heights exist? Really?
Outgoing radiation matches the real global temperature record except at NO CO2 El Ninos,
Is that what you mean, seb ?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/olr-vs-tlt.png
or are you more interested in the incoming vs outgoing ?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-olr.png
@Andy
Thanks for that new (to me) blog. His first paragraph here is especially pertinent to evasive warmist behavior.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/the-heat-issue-once-again/
It very accurately describes the group-think that sebh subscribes to.
Yup. That’s sebh, alright.
” “Greenhouse Apologists”…”
I use the term “AGW sympathiser”.
And yes, their science is EMPTY.
They can’t even support the most BASIC fallacy of their baseless religion.
ZERO empirical proof that CO2 causes warming of any kind on our planet. !!
@Andy
P.S. – Here’s how “back-radiation” actually does work.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2014/03/agw-theory-back-radiation-insignificant.html
Theoretically it’s there, but too little to measure or to affect temperatures in any meaningful way. As I posted on a while back, the warmist version of the earth’s energy balance is flawed, because it violated conservation of energy.
Good to have you back, btw.
“Good to have you back, btw.”
Thanks,
Don’t know how long for, though.
They have just extended my working hours to 4 days a week + extras, so I’ll start working virtually full time in a couple of weeks, probably for 3-4 months. Not sure I’ll have that much “forum” time.
Nice money, but I sort of prefer the part time work, gives time for beach and other things during the week etc. 🙂
You two …
if you like that Okulaer blog then please pay special attention to what this author writes about insulation. He is generally correct.
Also:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/postmas-confusion/
Does that description remind you of anyone here? *cough* Kenneth *cough*?
You are kidding right? The conservation of energy is never violated … stuff like what is written in the paper and by your two here in the comment section is a gross violation of so many laws of physics that it isn’t funny anymore.
Maybe I should just leave you be, apparently you are happy in fantasy world where your “consistently manage to worm their way out of ever providing a definitive, coherent clarification of how” anything is supposed to work physically.
Read that Okulaer blog, maybe you’ll learn something 😉
“Do you deny that measurements of the incoming radiation, the outgoing radiation and the backradiation at multiple heights exist?” – chatbot troll SebH
How can you expect me to affirm nor deny something you claim exists but refuse to show? I have no idea what you are referring to, and I doubt you have a very clear idea, either. But maybe if you get more specific (with references) so I and others can know just what you are talking about, then we can comment on it.
You accuse us of violating the laws of physics, but you are ok with warmists doing that with the energy balance. Here’s a quote from Dr. Anderson’s article I referenced above…
I.e., smoke and mirrors and Enron accounting is all they have.
Now, you show me which physics laws I have trod upon with such impunity.
@SebastianH 9. February 2018 at 3:20 PM |
You write…
“Does that description remind you of anyone here? *cough* Kenneth *cough*?”
Do you mean this gem from that link?
“It [Joseph Postma’s blog] is just as much a cultic echo chamber as any warmist site I’ve ever visited.”
Well, while that does evoke associations with some trolls to NTZ, I can’t see how you would think it could refer to Kenneth. (psst, just between us, how drunk were you when you posted that?)
P.S. – If that cough persists, SebH, you might want to have it looked at. Let me know if you want me to recommend a good warmist Dr..
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duigon/lee321.htm
(Mot sanctioning all material at that site, though. It’s just that I want the best care for SebH that his ideology warrants.)
“maybe you’ll learn something 😉”
No chance you will EVER learn anything, seb
You basically have to UNLEARN all the rampantly stupid anti-science and anti-physics you have from your la-la never-ever-back-it-up FANTASY make-believe little basement existence.
It would take a lifetime for you to UNLEARN so much wilful anti-knowledge.
First, you need to realise that YOU have a serious cerebral non-functionality problem.
But you are way too wrapped up in your own egotistical ignorance to ever see it.
“You accuse us of violating the laws of physics”
These are “Seb’s Special Laws of Fizzsuxs”.
They bare pretty much ZERO similarity to ANY actual laws of physics you will find written anywhere except in a science FANTASY book.
They are MADE-UP on the fly to suit whatever hallucinogenic dream he is currently on.
Yonason,
I am referring to the various spectrometer measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation. Measurements like these:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-soIbJ3WdosQ/UUHsM0n4uyI/AAAAAAAARcE/Oj2fUfFMcN4/s1600/modtran_iris.jpg
http://slideplayer.com/slide/10780384/38/images/3/The+importance+of+the+far-infrared.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg
Nope, I mean the general description of the character that is Jo Postma.
I see, one of those “divine intervention” guys. Sorry, but no law of physics is violated by the energy budgets that are published.
However, if you believe that gravity is causing surface temperatures of planets to be warmer than they should be by “auto-compression”, then … well … ask your highschool physics teacher and let him/her explain it to you.
I ask him for measurements, and he gives me links to models, like this MODTRAN one…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-soIbJ3WdosQ/UUHsM0n4uyI/AAAAAAAARcE/Oj2fUfFMcN4/s1600/modtran_iris.jpg
…from here.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran.doc.html
And they want us to take them seriously.
Oh, and after calculating black body radiation for earth’s alleged avg., temp and comparing it to what the warmists claim about earth emissions at that temp, Dr. Anderson finds…
“YES, the “energy budget” used by the warmists DOES violate conservation of energy. For more on additional errors they make, see the rest of that article here.”
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/search/label/Conservation%20of%20Energy
That’s my comment, not Dr. A’s. It should have been outside the blockquote. Sorry.
Interesting that you choose to make Modtran look bad by using graphs which compare Modtran results with real world measurements …
Nope, those graphs aren’t simulations. The technology to measure such things really exists. Get over it 🙂
A little more on the MODTRAN.
Yes, the spectrum is real, but WHAT DOES IT MEAN?! That’s where the models come in, so I tried to see how they explained it, and clicked on “here is a technical description.” This is the response I got.
“Not Found
The requested URL /berk.1987.modtran_desc.pdf was not found on this server.”
I checked wayback, and what was there is there no longer.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160222033356/http://forecast.uchicago.edu:80/berk.1987.modtran_desc.pdf
Bottom line – ask a troll for information and he gives you troll droppings.
STOP WASTING OUR TIME!
Here you are Seb, just for you
Boiling water in the vacuum pump
I like the following video, where he reduces the pressure, and the water first boils then freezes. 🙂
dear friends you write a small mistake before Subia,2014 :it is not 9°F for 300 meters
but for 1000 meters.
[…] Ref.: https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-tem… […]
[…] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]
I’m not qualified to comment on the physics here, however I can make some general observations. This formula claims to match NASA measurements of the surface temperature of these planets. Has the author considered how NASA obtains these numbers? After all there isn’t a GCN on Jupiter’s notional surface or any other planet apart from Earth. Nor can we observe the IR emission from these planetery surfaces. My suspicion is that NASA obtains it’s surface temperature in a similar fashion to the authors thereby rendering his thesis void.
[…] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]
A combination of emission spectra for all planets, and some direct measurements by probes for Venus, Mars, Titan, Jupiter’s upper atmosphere also. Maybe for Saturn’s upper atmosphere too from Cassini’s last dive. There is a planned Saturn probe due to measure in 2034. But it is not so easy to define surface temperature for the gas giants. We can derive surface temperature of all the rocky planets quite accurately – including Mars, by the way – by considering only solar insolation, albedo and atmospheric bulk emissivity of the atmosphere with respect to the surface radiation.
[…] Link: https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-tem… […]
Well, this approach is bogus and does not live up to its promise. If you want a clear and definite falsification of the GHE, then here it is..
https://www.scribd.com/document/370673949/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-3
@Leitwolf
Of course some would say that your proposal is absolutely bogus for good reasons. E.g. If you want a clear and definite falsification of the GHE, then here it is..
https://climateofsophistry.com/
or is it…
What some guy called Maxwell worked out many, many, many years ago…
Certainly the CO2 conjecture is a nonsense, however as most ‘climate scientist™’ are still chasing their own tails, to gain wealth and transitory prestige, with that failed idea. However a counter proposal that covers all aspects of natural climate change has yet to be developed.
Just as the later days of phlogiston ‘theory’, where quantitative experiments revealed great problems with the conjecture, it took many years to replace it with something more rationally cohesive and logical.
Hopefully with climate science, modern technology will speed-up the change-over to something more rational and logical with verification congruent with unbiased observations.
Clouds of course would be very, very important in this, however (IMO) they are not (when assessing all variations in climate) the whole story. Nature is far more complex in it’s use of simple processes.
“Of course some would say that your proposal is absolutely bogus for good reasons”
I think someone who actually read my article would have a little bit more to say 😉
As I posted, above, that earth radiation budget is bogus.
https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/comment-page-1/#comment-1251272
…because it violates conservation of energy, which is a sufficient excuse to ignore it.
PS – I do see that the author is critical of it, so at some point it may be good to look at at in more detail, but what’s asserted by Holmes can’t be dismissed, IMO. It’s just another reason AGW theory is nonsense, and as such is just as important as any other valid criticism of it.
@Leitwolf 10. February 2018,
Yes I have read your theory. And stand by the comment I made.
It is an interesting idea, and not without promise. However the next step is required —
Gather the verifiable observed evidence to show every point of your idea performs as stated. Collate the evidence and show that your ideas have merit over and above the ‘Greenhouse Gas’ CO2 warming supposition.
E.g show by measurement what the albedo changes are, show by measurement what frequencies radiate through the atmosphere at different levels (not just up and down measurements as there are currently, but through the atmosphere at different levels,[show the Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model is valid or not], etc…)
Until then you, just like the IPCC, have just an imaginative theory!
Hi, obviously the article of Holmes is a hoax. Temperature, pressure and density of a gas are linked together via the gas law. The accuracy of the temperature calculation by Holmes is only an indicator for the accuracy and consistence of the parameter set he used and for the physical limits to apply the gas law for ideal gases at the air.
Holmes’s claim to explain and determine the air temperature by more fundamental physical laws is obviously not achieved! Because he missed to determine the cause for the observed air density resp. temperature. Air density and temperature are linked together by the gas law. What is causing one of these two liked parameters is the physical challenge here! From scientific point of view density resp. temperature of the air through the atmosphere are determined by the solar irradiation and the absorption of thermal radiation by greenhaouse gases (= greenhouse effect). That’s all.
No, Markus. Not even close.
Robert Holmes,
I am excited by your Paper (just as much as when 1000Frolly posted into a Climate Of Sophistry discussion thread back in October 2017).
I long for the day when the final nail is pushed into the coffin of the IPCC’s GHG theory and this could be the eve of when it happens. However, I have the following two reservations;
1. The accuracies of the results are very convincing – to the point where they might be too convincing. Are we certain that the part of NASA that can still do real science didn’t use this very same method to derive the planetary surface temperatures (or similarly use the method to derive one of the three other parameters because they already knew two of them and the surface temperature) ? Would the ‘corrupted-science’ part of NASA over at GISS allow that fact to become common knowledge?
2. In the thought experiment by “The Reverend Badger” which you reposted here on 7 February 2018 at 1:57 PM, you say that E1 (with atmosphere comprising GHG’s identical to real Earth) and E2 (identical to E1 except all GHG replaced with alternate gases to maintain the original Molar Mass of E1) would have the same surface temperature – but that would be true only if the Pressure and Density could be compelled to stay at the values over at E1. I can see the objections that the AGW Alarmists have with this: They’re saying that the absence of GHG at E2 will result in the pressure be lower due to the absence of their magic gas (and hence temperature will be lower). And that’s their objection on all of the real examples: the results are what they are because the three parameter values are known. But change the mix of magic gas and the pressure will change as a result, causing the temp to obey the Ideal gas law. So, until we can build an E2 and run the real experiment, I don’t think that we can yet say that their argument is defeated – it’s still just perilously close to it’s inevitable death.
Finally, I get it that our Sun provides the thermalising energy for the first 255K and this is ‘baked-in’ to the Earth’s three parameters, but what determines at what height that we should expect to find Earth’s effective S-B temperature ? It’s not to be found at the Tropopause because that’s about 210K. So, is it to be found at the 255K point that lies somewhere in the troposphere (meaning that the adiabatic lapse rate goes through it) or is the 255K of Earth’s effective S-B temperature to be found somewhere in the Thermosphere? Or is the effective S-B temperature a notional thing, that physically appears nowhere: just as a cricket batsman average score over the season might be 37.4, but we can be fairly sure that there was never a game when he achieved such a score?
Steve, pressure cannot change significantly unless more total mass is added or the strength of the gravitational field increases because whatever the volume of an atmosphere you still have the same weight bearing down on the surface.
GHGs make no significant difference to atmospheric mass and so cannot affect pressure.
Who remembers this?
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Everyone genuinely interested in getting to the truth of this matter should read Harry Huffman’s article: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
But some words of instruction and caution, before you start reading it;
1. Approach it with an enquiring mind, fully open and receptive to new arguments and reasoning. For some, the words may cause some mental anguish, but do not stop until you reach the end of the article: I assure you that the discomfort will be worth it. Do not duck your responsibilities as a free, independent thinker – do not attempt to read the article’s discussion thread to seek self-assurance.
2. Once you’ve read the article do nothing else (but have a cup of tea) and contemplate what you have read. If necessary, re-read the article again in order to allow you to complete your contemplation of what you have read.
3. Judge the article as it is presented to you – no previous concepts or beliefs should be allowed to obstruct your thinking. Be assured, the author has been entirely truthful i.e. he is not attempting to deceive you or allow you to hold a position that differs from his own. All the figures are from actual empirical data. Mankind has successfully landed craft on the surface of Venus, six times. Many more Venus missions have successfully returned atmospheric data. The figures used in the article are NOT theoretical. They are 162 million miles away from a “Thought Experiment”. All you have to do, on your own, with your own mind only, is decide whether what he has said is the TRUTH (remember there’s a difference between ‘truthful’ and ‘truth’).
4. Until you have decided whether what you have read (in just that article) is the TRUTH or is a FALSEHOOD, do not seek to read any other opinions or commentaries on the article or of the author. Remember YOU are an independent thinker. YOU are NOT a lemming.
5. Once you have decided (using only your own rational thinking mind) tell someone of your decision. Be proud to own your decision – if you find you are not proud enough of your decision, perhaps you have no capacity for independent thought / decision making (but beware that this unfulfilment will inevitably leave you with some cognitive dissonance, so you MUST decide – and you are urged do so with your own independent mind, unassisted by anyone else’s thoughts or opinions: just you and the article: TRUTH or FALSEHOOD?
6. Either way that you decide, the cliff-edge is fast approaching when Nature itself will reveal the truth or falsehood of the IPCC’s Greenhouse theory and their computer model projections. Don’t you think you owe it to yourself to be on the correct side of the argument before that time comes? That’s a rhetorical question by the way – your opinions and commentaries are not needed by free-thinking individuals.
Stephen Wolfe,
[In response to your post: on WUWT, February 15, 2018 at 7:56 am, where comments are now closed].
I think it is too soon to be giving out campaign medals (as the war will not have been won until the IPCC have been disbanded) but in the meantime I salute you for your work in this field. The Atmospheric Pressure Effect (APE) theory will win (unless politics defeats science). If Science is to overcome politics, the people need to understand that their political leaders are under the spell of some malevolent force which been corrupting science for the last 30 years or so. But that’s another battle.
For the people to know that the IPCC’s GHG theory is a crock of deception, they need to understand that there is a real theory that explains the 255K/288K mystery (that never was). My fear at the moment, is that the public are being told (by the Alarmist and the Lukewarmists) that the APE proponents are a bunch of whacko science deniers.
The reason that I point to Harry Huffman’s article is that it is so simple to see his points. Nevertheless, I recognise that we need a collaboration of those scientists that believe in the Atmospheric Pressure Effect to build the unifying document that can be endorsed by all APE proponents. It is unfortunate that I get the impression that this group of APE proponents are too individualist to contemplate such cooperation – like herding cats! But you, Harry Huffman, Robert Holmes and Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have to see this as a collaborative project. I’d even go so far as to suggest that Steven Goddard should be included, he gets it: his (Tony Heller) Youtube channel could provide the audience reach that is required. Like going to the moon, you all have to sign-up to this collective mission to comprehensively define the position of the proponents of the Atmospheric Pressure Effect. I call it by that name, but I don’t doubt that it will be difficult, as a first task, for the collaboration group to even agree it’s name!
Best Regards,
Yeah, bring all the nutters together in one group to make it easier to show how this is not science. This is numerology … you know, like those people that lead everything back to “23”. It takes a certain kind of believe to think there is any merrit in this 😉
“Yeah, bring all the nutters together in one group”
They have, its called the IPCC.
a group of the most RABID nutters is SkS where you get most of your information from
poor little seb.
Your comments are getting more and more DESPERATE, EMPTY, and NIL-INFORMED.
Sorry Stephen, I meant no offence when I got your Surname wrong. I meant Stephen Wilde (not Wolfe). My apologies once again. Cheers.
Sebastian,
Perhaps it’s the simplicity of the argument which is confounding one of us (and I’m open to the possibility that it’s me that’s wrong). So this is how I see it:
On Venus (with a very high concentration of CO2 in it’s atmosphere) it has actually been recorded (not theorised or imagined) that,at the height at which the Venus atmospheric pressure matches that of Earth’s atmospheric pressure at Earth’s surface, the temperature in the Venus atmosphere (when allowing only for the relative difference in distance the Earth and Venus are from the same Sun), the temperatures very closely correspond (and they also very closely correspond for all of the pressures found throughout Earth’s troposphere) . From this, I have drawn the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that it is only the combination of Atmospheric pressure [in conjunction with the known density and molar mass values as Robert Holme’s adds] and insolation, that determine atmospheric temperature of any planet / moon with a thick atmosphere. Significantly, the ratio of LWIR-active gas molecules in an atmosphere demonstrably has NO measurable effect upon the temperature of the atmosphere. It’s as simple as that. Clearly, the ‘magic gas’ (CO2) has no magic.
In a nutshell, that’s it.
Steve T.,
There is very little use in attempting to have a rational conversation with someone like SebastianH. He will simply refer to you as a “nutter” (as he has done here) if you don’t believe what he believes: that humans control the temperatures of the Earth’s oceans (and thus glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities, extreme weather, species extinctions, droughts, floods…) by burning more fossil fuels or fewer fossil fuels. He has no real-world data demonstrating airborne CO2 concentration variations heat or cool water bodies. He admits it’s only theoretical (actually hypothetical) and it hasn’t ever been observed in the real world, just in models. He just believes anyway. That’s why his beliefs are no more “confirmed” than those who do not agree that the evidence affirms that humans exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate system, or planetary temperatures.
Kenneth, I hope you can one day look back on what you have written and laugh about it. The way you compare “beliefs” … right, totally the same thing. No more confirmed …
Anyway, if you measure the force a falling object hits the ground with and measure its mass, you can actually calculate the acceleration using those two variables. It will always be the same acceleration, but you can not say what causes it from this equation. Maybe that’s gravity? Maybe you are standing on the inside of a rotating ring? Maybe an invisible person is pushing all the objects?
It’s the same with those “magic” equations like in the paper of this blog article. It would be a surprise if they didn’t work. It says nothing about the cause. Believing in this is not nuts, as everyone should be believing in the universality of the laws of physics. Believing this confirms that GHGs don’t make the surface of planets warmer than they should be according to the amount of incoming radiation, that is the nutty part 😉
Believing that such nonsense needs to be listened to and needs a “rational conversation” is also pretty rich. Nope, it doesn’t. You can have your opinions, but you can’t expect others to not make fun of them.
As you know, we have no confirmation that water vapor droplets and CO2 molecules heat and cool the Earth’s oceans when increased or decreased in the air above them (oceans) because THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO OCCUR IN THE REAL WORLD. It’s a modeled, hypothetical conceptualization that CO2 concentrations cause heating or cooling in water bodies when raised or lowered. Therefore, because this is only a modeled, hypothetical, imagined conceptualization that CO2 heats and cools water, pretending that we have absolute confirmation of this as a scientific fact is specious. Therefore, seeking alternative explanations for planetary temperatures that work not only for planets that don’t have GHGs as well as planets that do…is quite justifiable. The GHG explanation has significant holes in it. Unlike you, I refuse to close the door on alternative explanations…especially since the models that are predicated on CO2 “forcing” have been demonstrably wrong so often and so profoundly. Nowhere else in science do models that fail to simulate real-world observations fail 98% of the time (114 of 117 climate models failed to simulate surface temperature changes during 1993-2012 [Fyfe et al., 2013]) and still get characterized as scientifically confirmed. That’s why this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis for people like you. Another word for an unfalsifiable hypothesis is a belief.
So keep on name-calling, SebastianH. It only serves to undermine your case further.
As you know, we have never observed gravity accelerating anything. We assume it is gravity because that’s what our models (equations) say it is. But can you prove it? Nope, not possible.
But we observe things moving as predicted. We also see an increase in heat content, as the involved equations say it would. We attribute this increase to various sources and the largest one is the increase in GHGs. If you take those out of the equation, what is left then? No other factor could explain the increase in heat content and we are pretty sure we haven’t missed something yet unknown.
Sure, do your best. But explaining it with the confirmation that the ideal gas law is correct is … well … you know what it is. Pretty laughable.
No holes anywhere. It works on every planet the exact same way because it is based on the universal laws of physics. So far there hasn’t been an Einstein moment where we discover that under certain circumstances the equations don’t work. Find it, get a Nobel.
I am open to alternatives. What you and others have presented here so far are no alternative explanations. But who knows, maybe one day one of you guys finds a better explanation. Until then, I’ll stick with what works and best explains what we are measuring and observing.
I also don’t get what you have against models. They get used all the time. Without them, you couldn’t write your comments, you couldn’t call someone on your phone, you wouldn’t have a phone, etc. It’s a wonderful thing that people can now complain about science or announce they don’t believe in science while simultaneously using the technology that is available to them that would have looked like a magic trick a few decades before today. Clearly, science and models don’t work.
You should keep a better eye on your fellow commenters then. Their case (that is also yours) can’t be undermined any further then …
And you, keep being as stubborn as you are. I get the impression you would be in physical pain if you accepted even one thing coming from AGW proponents. You grasp every straw that authors of weird papers offer you and it almost always nonsense, but at least nonsense that sounded pretty good when you found it. Your inability to admit the problem with this paper here is pretty telling. And if that doesn’t undermine your case, well then skeptics like you are truly bullet proof. Can claim anything without consequence. Nobody will remember it anyway in a week from now. Right?
As you know, we have no confirmation that water vapor droplets and CO2 molecules heat and cool the Earth’s oceans when increased or decreased in the air above them (oceans) because THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO OCCUR IN THE REAL WORLD.
As you know, we have actual PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS FROM THE REAL WORLD about the effects of gravitational forcing at different heights above the Earth’s surface. We have no such actual PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS FROM THE REAL WORLD that tells us what the effects of incrementally raising CO2 concentrations in volumes of parts per million (0.000001) above water bodies are. No measurements. None. Zero. It’s all models. Hypotheticals. That’s the difference.
Exactly. Your beliefs are tied to the post hoc ergo procter hoc logical fallacy. It goes like this… We think that anthropogenic CO2 emissions raise ocean heat content. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising in the 1940s. Since then, ocean heat content has risen by about 0.1 degree C. Therefore, anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused that 0.1 degree C increase in ocean heat content. No need to physically observe this occurrence (rising CO2–>rising water temperature) in the real world. It’s enough to just believe in the causation.
That’s what believers say. Of course, it’s only true if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Cloud forcing. Solar forcing. Natural 60-year oscillations. And especially the evidence that says modern heat changes aren’t even close to falling outside the range of natural variability. Nothing unusual is happening today that hasn’t occurred in the past without anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But you go right on ahead and continue believing that the truth has been found in hypothetical models of CO2–>OHC conceptualizations. It’s not like I can convince someone who thinks his beliefs are unfalsifiable.
The GHG explanation has significant holes in it.
Yes, we’ll just ignore the fact that we have no observational evidence or physical measurements showing that CO2 concentration variations cause heat changes in water bodies. We’ll just believe anyway, though.
seb yaps mindlessly… “No holes anywhere”
Poor seb … [snip — please refrain from name-calling]
—–
Now, about those holes. (keep digging, seb)
Apparently they have just found one.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article200169249.html
“As you know, we have never observed gravity accelerating anything.”
OMG, seb ignores one WHOLE part of modern physics.
BIZARRRRRRE, to say the least !!
Not really. We are imagining that there is a force called gravity that pulls stuff towards the surface of Earth. We can’t prove this, we just know that something is happening.
That’s near impossible to do and therefore convenient to demand from the skeptics’ side. It’s comparable to demanding measurements of acceleration everywhere to be able to confirm that the laws we found are really working.
You are wrong. Lots of measurements exist that tell us about the radiative properties of greenhouse gases. Lots of measurements exist that tell us about what happens to heat content when you limit the outgoing energy transfer. It’s pretty straightforward and has been known for over a century and yet you claim we can’t know that this is really how it works. That’s beyond ridiculous.
Maybe someone should go out there and gather the resources necessary to conduct a convincing experiment. But I doubt that this will convince any skeptic. You’ll just call it fake then, ignore it or call for an even more impossible experiment. It’s like playing chess with pigeons…
No, the mechanisms are described pretty well. Also, all other forcings are also quantified and it turns out – as you so often emphasize – that GHGs would cause even more warming if it weren’t for some compensating forcings.
I hope you take that accusation by heart next time you post an article about a paper such as the one from Holmes. That’s a prime example of claiming something without a working mechanism.
Again, you apparently perceive this like you describe it here, but that is not the reality. That’s what you are imagining. I don’t need to believe in anything, but you need to have a very strong belief that what science tells us must all be fake and just a random correlation. For that, go to this website: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Do you really believe that this is how the connection CO2/temperature was found and is justified with?
That’s what scientists say.
You are good at finding papers that claim this, I know. But these factors are all considered. And as a side note: ever wondered how all those papers could be correct at the same time? How could the temperature increase be explained by cloud forcing and then also explained by solar forcing and then also by natural oscillations? Choose one or a combination of everything … or read what the rest of the science community came up with to explain what’s happening. You know, the large part you like to ignore or call fake.
Again, these aren’t beliefs. It’s an attempt to describe the mechanisms with equations based on the laws of physics. And they describe it very well. You don’t need to convince anyone, you just need to find examples where those equations don’t work and as a result, they can get further refined. That’s how science works.
So far skeptics have got nothing. And to make it more irritating, you guys claim that you have found lots of problems and “they” are just ignoring your findings.
Yes, we ignore that we have no observational evidence of gravity working the same around Jupiter and sent spacecrafts towards that planet anyway.
I still don’t get where you think the surplus energy goes in that CO2/water situation? No warming despite reduced outgoing radiation? Do you think evaporation is picking up the slack? You posted a “textbook experiment” claiming this a while ago. Is that how you think the ocean gets rid of the energy? Or do you believe that no such thing as an increase of the backradiation due to greenhouse gases increasing exists and therefore the outgoing radiation does not decrease? What is it? You want to show alternatives! Show them! The physics are pretty clear.
As you know, we have actual PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS FROM THE REAL WORLD about the effects of gravitational forcing at different heights above the Earth’s surface.
Whether “imagined” or not, we have actual, real-world physical measurements that consistently and repeatably tell us what the effects are of this force. We know, for example, how fast an object will move when dropped from a specified height above the Earth’s surface. We know that the weight of the object is not determinative in assessing the speed of the fall, as the force is the same whether it’s a marble or a cement block. So “not really” is wrong. We do have real-world physical measurements that tell us what this “imagined” force does. And they work every single time. Repeatable cause-effect. We have nothing like this with CO2–>water temperature. No science experiment. No If we lower CO2 concentrations by 0.000001, this changes the water temperature by ___ amount. No physical measurements. No observational evidence. No repeatable results. Nothing. That’s the difference. Gravity’s forcing effects are measurable and have been measured. CO2’s effects on water temperatures are neither.
We have no such actual PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS FROM THE REAL WORLD that tells us what the effects of incrementally raising CO2 concentrations
No, not impossible at all. Put two identical greenhouses side by side in a treeless expanse. Put two identical tubs of water in each greenhouse. Take a baseline temperature measurement for both water bodies. Pump in CO2 incrementally in one of the greenhouses, leave the control at ambient. Measure temperature changes in the high CO2 greenhouse vs. the low CO2 greenhouse. What would the difference be? We have no idea. Nor do people like you even want to know. Why? Fear. I mean, what if there is no difference between the high CO2 and ambient CO2 water temperature? What would you do if actual physical measurements from a real-world experiment like this showed CO2 did nothing to change the water temperature? You’d probably just deny it. That’s because this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis for you. A belief.
Sigh. And yet no measurements exist that tell us how much change in water body temperatures when CO2 concentrations are changed above them by 0.000001 (ppm). None. The measurements you are referring to do not tell us anything about water temperature changes from CO2 changes based on real-world physical measurements. You need to stop pretending like these are available. You know they are not.
Science doesn’t tell us what CO2 variations do to water temperatures. Science is about observations, measurements, disproving hypotheses with real-world experiments. It’s not science that tells us that anthropogenic CO2 emissions act like a blanket, trap heat, and then this process controls water temperatures when varied up or down in volumes of ppm, and, by extension, humans control glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities, etc. It’s people like Michael Mann, Al Gore, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt…telling us that. Those people don’t replace real, observational science. They have agendas. We know, as we’ve read their e-mails.
BTW: I am using gravity as an example here because there is a group of people who think it is a hoax and they are exploiting the fact that nobody can prove the phenomenon gravity really exists when its effects can clearly be measured. They have no problem with coming up with “alternative explanations” which are similar to what climate skeptics come up with when explaining the increasing heat content/temperature.
This is how you guys are perceived outside of your bubble.
So you at one point claim that we don’t really (“Not really”) have actual physical measurements detailing the effects of gravity forcing…
KR: As you know, we have actual PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS FROM THE REAL WORLD about the effects of gravitational forcing at different heights above the Earth’s surface.
Then, you turn around and say that gravity’s effects “can clearly be measured”.
So they can’t really be measured, but they can simultaneously clearly be measured. So which is it?
OMG, I don’t think I have every read such a MINDLESS, EMPTY, ANTI-SCIENCE load of incomprehensible GARBAGE as you have just wasted your time typing, seb.
Utter DEVOID of any real facts or understanding of science, physics .. or anything
Just a load of GULLIBLE, PARROTED BRAIN-WASHED ANTI-SCIENCE FANTASY JUNK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWoG8IckyE
“I am using gravity as an example… blah.. yap, yap…. ”
RUBBISH !!
You are using gravity as a PROP, nothing more.
It is just a PITIFUL ATTEMPT at distraction, seb,
… showing your UTTER DESPERATION at being TOTALLY UNABLE to produce ANY proof of CO2 warming anything.
Why not go and abbreviate what I said even further?
Just “No[…]”?
There you go! Accurately describes what I actually wrote … not.
“what you have written and laugh about it.”
We ALL look at the ranting EMPTYMESS that you write seb.
and LAUGH !!
Your abject inability to support anything you say with any actual measured science is quite HILARIOUS.
And your incredibly mind-numbed fantasies analogies.
BIZARRE to say the least. !
Just “BELEVING” that CO2 causes warming of water or of atmosphere, when there is absolutely zero empirical proof, is probably the most EMPTY-MINDED thing anyone could do. !!
“Maybe an invisible person is pushing all the objects?”
Put the toke down, seb !!
Your fantasies are getting away from you YET AGAIN. !!
“believing in the universality of the laws of physics. “
We have seen your “interpretations” and “lack of comprehension” of the actual laws of physics, seb..
… and they are LAUGHABLY BIZARRE,
Not based on any reality of physics, science or anything but wild brain-hosed fantasy !!
Take this his CO2 warming farce your mind has been hosed with, seb.
Just go with the FANTASY make-believe,,,
Just ignore the FACT that there is ZERO empirical evidence.
That is fanatical cultist religion, seb
NOT SCIENCE.
I see Willis Eschenbach has become a roaming hatchetman for lukewarmism,at best. Those of us who have studied this for years understand what the real point of the solar system T data all agreeing with IGL gravito-thermality is: That it means neither so-called ghgs, nor any other gas species per se, matter in the least. Because only solar distance, atmospheric mass and local gravity affect the lapse rate and T at all tropospheric levels on average.
I await info on what is driving Willis……grin
SebH not clear.
First says cannot measure gravity.
Then say can measure.
He making up things.
Hi Steve Titcombe,
the Atmospheric Pressure Effect (APE) has no existence in Physics. There is a bundle of pseudo-scientific papers of a handfull of well known climate deniers. They were rebutted years ago by other scientists who condescend to explain quite obvious errors in basic physics. From scientific point of view – imagine you would be in a science course at university discussing the topic – it is quite simple: if you would believe the physical truth of APE you would proof that you haven’t understood the physics.
Ignore basic physics all you like, markus
Doesn’t change the FACT that the gravity based thermal gradient exists on ALL planets with a viable atmosphere.
You must have FAILED basic science at junior high, and now just “BELIEVE” the crap about CO2 warming that the propaganda feeds you.
All increase in lower atmosphere temperature comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere as predicted by the ideal gas law itself. The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature.
Basic physics..
Do try to catch up some time in the next 30 years. !!