1) atmospheric pressure at the surface, and
2) solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere,
and without any consideration of any greenhouse gas concentrations or 'radiative forcing' from greenhouse gases whatsoever.
Thus, the paper adds to the works of at least 40 others (partial list below) who have falsified the Arrhenius radiative theory of catastrophic global warming from increased levels of CO2, and also thereby demonstrated that the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory is instead the correct explanation of the 33C greenhouse effect on Earth, and which is independent of "radiative forcing" from greenhouse gases.
Using observed data from the planets Earth, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Titan, and Triton, the authors,
"apply the Dimensional Analysis (DA) methodology to a well-constrained data set of six celestial bodies representing highly diverse physical environments in the solar system, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve prospective relationships (models) suggested by DA are investigated via non-linear regression analyses involving dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent (state) variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs [Global Mean Atmospheric Temperatures] of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions [0% to over 96% greenhouse gases] and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure [a function of atmospheric mass & gravity]. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation."
|Fig. 4. |
Dependence of the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (Ts/Tna) on mean surface air pressure according to Eq. (10a) derived from data representing a broad range of planetary environments in the Solar System. Saturn’s moon Titan has been excluded from the regression analysis leading to Eq. (10a). Error bars of some bodies are not clearly visible due to their small size relative to the scale of the axes. See Table 2 for the actual error estimates.
"The above comparisons indicate that Eq. (10b) rather accurately reproduces the observed variation of mean surface temperatures across a wide range of planetary environments characterized in terms of solar irradiance (from 1.5 W m-2 to 2,602 W m-2), total atmospheric pressure (from near vacuum to 9,300 kPa), and greenhouse-gas concentrations (from 0.0% to over 96% per volume). While true that Eq. (10a) is only based on data from 6 planetary bodies, one should keep in mind that these represent all objects in the Solar System meeting our criteria (discussed in Section 2.3) for the quality of available data. The fact that only one of the investigated twelve non-linear regressions yielded a tight relationship suggests that Model 12 might be describing a macro-level thermodynamic property of planetary atmospheres heretofore unbeknown to science . A function of such predictive skill spanning the breadth of the Solar System may not be just a result of chance. Indeed, complex natural systems consisting of myriad interacting agents have been known to exhibit emergent behaviors at higher levels of hierarchical organization that are amenable to accurate modeling using top-down statistical approaches (e.g. Stolk et al. 2003). Equation (10) also displays several other characteristics that lend further support to the above conjecture."
|Comparison of the two best-performing regression models according to statistical scores presented inTable 5. Vertical axes use linear scale to better illustrate the difference in skills between the models. |
Added: The top model incorporates greenhouse gas partial pressures and has a standard error over 20 times worse than the bottom model which does not consider greenhouse gas concentrations or radiative forcing whatsoever.
|Fig. 5. |
Absolute differences between predicted average global surface temperatures (Eq. 10b) and observed GMATs (Table 2) for studied celestial bodies. Titan represents an independent data point, since it was excluded from the non-linear regression analysis leading to Eq. (10a).
Added: The surface temperatures of 5 planets are determined within hundredths of degrees C using the Eqn 10a as a sole function of surface pressure and solar insolation.
|Fig. 7. |
a) Dry adiabatic response of the air/surface temperature ratio to pressure changes in the free atmosphere according to Poisson’s formula (Eq. 12). The reference pressure is arbitrarily assumed to be po=100 kPa;b) The SB radiation law expressed as a response of a blackbody temperature ratio to variation in photon pressure (see text for details). Note the similarity in shape between these two curves and the one portrayed in Fig. 4 depicting Eq. (10a).
Only one possible explanation of the 33C 'greenhouse' effect temperature gradient on Earth can be possible, otherwise the greenhouse effect would be twice as large (i.e. 66C):
1) The 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory from greenhouse gases (which confuses the cause with the effect and fails to explain the planetary temperatures of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, etc.)
2) The 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal effect, proven by this new paper and the works/papers of at least 36 others (and very accurately predicts the surface and atmospheric temperatures of all rocky planets with an atmosphere in our solar system):
The HS greenhouse equation
The Maxwell/Clausius et al gravito-thermal 'greenhouse effect'
Chilingar et al
1976 US Standard Atmosphere
International Standard Atmosphere & here
Connolly & Connolly
Nikolov & Zeller
Mario Berberan-Santos et al
Claes Johnson and here
Velasco et al
Giovanni Vladilo et al
William C. Gilbert & here
The Barometric Formulae
Richard C. Tolman
Lorenz & McKay
Ozawa et al
Wing and Cronin
William C. Gilbert & here
The Barometric Formulae
Richard C. Tolman
Lorenz & McKay
Ozawa et al
Wing and Cronin
Emergent Model for Predicting the Average Surface Temperature of Rocky Planets with Diverse Atmospheres
- Dimensional Analysis is used to model the average temperature of planetary bodies.
- The new model is derived via regression analysis of measured data from 6 bodies.
- Planetary bodies used by the model are Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan and Triton.
- Two forcing variables are found to accurately predict mean planetary temperatures.
- The predictor variables include solar irradiance and surface atmospheric pressure.
The Global Mean Annual near-surface Temperature (GMAT) of a planetary body is an expression of the available kinetic energy in the climate system and a critical parameter determining planet’s habitability. Previous studies have relied on theory-based mechanistic models to estimate GMATs of distant bodies such as extrasolar planets. This ‘bottom-up’ approach oftentimes relies on case-specific parameterizations of key physical processes (such as vertical convection and cloud formation) requiring detailed measurements in order to successfully simulate surface thermal conditions across diverse atmospheric and radiative environments. Here, we present a different ‘top-down’ statistical approach towards the development of a universal GMAT model that does not require planet-specific empirical adjustments. Our method is based on Dimensional Analysis (DA) of observed data from the Solar System. DA provides an objective technique for constructing relevant state and forcing variables while ensuring dimensional homogeneity of the final model. Although widely utilized in some areas of physical science to derive models from empirical data, DA is a rarely employed analytic tool in astronomy and planetary science. We apply the DA methodology to a well-constrained data set of six celestial bodies representing highly diverse physical environments in the solar system, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve prospective relationships (models) suggested by DA are investigated via non-linear regression analyses involving dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent (state) variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation.
This paper does NOT confirm the standard 33 K GE! In fact, it shows that the thermal effect of Earth's atmosphere is about 90 K. The 33 K estimate is simply a result of an incorrect mathematical calculation, see this earlier paper by the same authors on this topic: http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723ReplyDelete
The authors show the calculation of Earth's mean surface temperature is a flawed application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and I agree although the authors failed to consider the Earth's precession angle as described in the Chilingar et al reference linked above, which reduces solar insolation from TSI/4 to TSI/3.5. However, this additional issue with the canonical 33K "GHE" is not the subject of this post and has been discussed in prior posts, and does not affect the conclusion that the surface temperature has no dependence upon GHG concentrations.Delete
I brought up the 33 K issue only because you stated in your blog article that the new paper explains the 33 K GE through gravity. There is no 33 K GE nether there is a 66 K GE. There estimates are based on mathematically incorrect calculations using 1-D models, which are prone to aggregation errors. The thermal effect of Earth's atmosphere is ~ 90 K. The correctness of this estimate is explained in this paper: http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723.Delete
By the same token, temperatures calculated from the averaged absorbed radiation by a planet (i.e. from TSI/4 or TSI/3.5) are non-physical quantities that have no meaningful relation to actual physical (measurable) temperatures at the planet's surface. This is also explained in the same SpringerPlus paper: http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/723
The author of this blog is strongly encouraged to carefully read the above paper and note the inaccuracies stated in his/her blog article with respect to the content of the paper. The planetary temperature equation (model) derived by the authors is NOT applicable to estimating vertical temperature profiles in the free atmosphere. This is clearly explained in Section 3.1.3. The paper also discusses a number of other topics that require a bit deeper thinking than typically exercised on public blogs ... Please, first read carefully and try to understand what the authors actually report before expression an opinion in public ... Thank you!ReplyDelete
I never said the authors model predicts anything other than the surface temperatures. It clearly does not. However, if you carefully read the links I posted above to the HS greenhouse equation, the US Standard Atmosphere, Chilingar et al, etc. you will find that THOSE models DO accurately predict the vertical temperature profile in the free atmosphere on the sole basis of the gravito-thermal GHE, and without any GHG radiative transfer considerations whatsoever.Delete
Please, first read carefully MY POST AND LINKS and try to understand what I actually said before expressing YOUR opinion in public ... Thank you!
No need to comment so strongly. The author of this 2015 paper refers to their previous 2014 paper in the text and has it in the reference list. The authors mention a few things such as greenhouse gases, photons and other alarmist terms which maybe necessary to get it published. The is nothing new in dimensional analysis and dimensionless numbers (which I should have put in my comment further down).. The fourth edition of Chemical Engineering Handbook states that the Buckingham Pi method was introduced in 1914 and rigorously proved in 1951. If "scientists" have not heard of it, this is because they are not engineers. Volokin et al have used actual data to determine a relationship between dimensionless numbers. This makes more sense than wrong assumption about equations most scientists do not understand and trying to make models with dimensional data that can not be compared and then if the model does not work fiddle with the data.Delete
For your information the original S-B equation was determined for SURFACES in a VACUUM and for so-called BLACK BODIES. Emissivity correctly defined attempts to adjust for grey bodies. Prof Hoyt Hottel attempted to adjust for gases by changing the formula on one side to a volume basis by including path length and partial pressures. No one has satisfactorily overcome the problem of a vacuum with the S-B equation other than adjust temperatures for other means of heat transfer occurring at the same time. There is evidence that convection and phase change with an atmosphere spread and equalise the temperature around a globe so radiation from the sun only applies to the top of the atmosphere. If you want to call convection by gases around a surface and phase change of water/water vapor a greenhouse effect so be it. but radiation absorption and emission by CO2 and CH4 make no measurable contribution on Earth.
Yes the whole CAGW hypothesis is based upon the false assumption that GHGs are true blackbodies to which the SB law can be applied, as well as a false assumption of constant atmospheric emissivity. Agreed with your conclusion on CO2 & CH4.Delete
Considering Mars' atmosphere has a CO2 concentration of 950,000 ppm, and yet its surface temperature is still colder than Earth's with a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm, it would make sense that the CO2 concentration is not a determining factor for surface temperature. Mars' atmosphere is ~100 times thinner than Earth's, which is the atmospheric pressure/density factor referred to above - and why it's colder there despite 950,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2. Similarly, Venus' atmosphere is 92 times thicker than Earth's - the atmospheric pressure/density factor that makes it warmer than Earth.ReplyDelete
Well, it's not only the atmospheric pressure/density that explains the difference between Earth's temperature and the temperatures of Mars and Venus. Distance from the Sun (or the solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere) is also a key factor. Venus receives 91%more solar radiation than Earth, while Mars receives 57% less than Earth...You can use Eq. (10b) from the paper to calculate what would be the average surface temperature of Earth if one were to move Earth to the orbit of either Venus or Mars ... what do you get?Delete
So, Mars is really 950,000/100 = 9,500 compared to earth's 400 = 24 timesDelete
Atmospheric density does not change the parts per million concentration of an atmospheric gas.Delete
Mars' atmosphere is still 95% CO2 regardless of its density. Earth's is 0.04% CO2 regardless of its density.
Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration has changed by 1/100ths of 1% since 1900.
MS been looking for information such as this paper (which I have now download -not clear how one does it-first cme to a link which wanted $35 for the paper but then clicked on your framed insert). Recently downloaded a Makay et al Title "Temperature Lapse rate and methane in Titan's Troposphere 1997 ICARUS 129 P498-505. Then found an interesting post at http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7103. Have commented previously about Dimensional Analysis which was taught as an important part of Engineering maths and is certainly used to determine dimensional numbers such as the Reynolds Number, Prandtl number, Nusselt Number etc which are used in Heat TransferReplyDelete
I have suggested to Monckton that the so called "Forcings" are not dimensionally correct. CO2 can not force anything -it is a gas. A force, as defined by Newton, has the dimensions of MLT^-2 (ie mass times acceleration).
Russians Chilingar et al back in 2008 wrote a paper comparing temperatures in Earth's & Venus Troposphere using lase rates. Dr Harry Dale Huffman wrote about a similar comparison in 2010. I believe that Judith Curry has considered Huffman's analysis and shifted her perspective to be more sceptical about AGW.. There was another paper which i have lost which looked at temperatures and lapse rates on Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and other moons with an atmosphere.
These are just another reason why the supposed sensitivity (for doubling) of CO2 is close to zero. I am thinking of making a list about all the wrong assumptions in AGW
The supposed sensitivity for doubled CO2 is indeed close to zero, and is actually slightly negative ~2K due to increased CO2 slightly increasing the heat capacity Cp of the atmosphere, and accelerating convective cooling. This is explained in the latest Chilingar et al paper I linked to above.Delete
Thanks MS for your comment. Must have missed the post on the Chilingar et al 2014 paper which I have downloaded. It repeats some of the information in the 2008 paper. However, the paper is wrong about CH4. The first sentence on P826 is completely wrong. CH4 is not a large absorber of infra red radiation. It is a minor trace gas except on Titan where it has some effect similar to water on earth due to evaporation and condensation but CH4 has no radiation absorption or emission effect there unlike water and water vapor on Earth.Delete
Also, equation 7 in the Chilingar paper is wrong - it should be
CH4 +O3 >CH3OH +O2. CH3OH is highly soluble in water and this is one mechanism for removal of CH4 from the atmosphere. Have a look at this https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/
"The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation."ReplyDelete
It was known to the science of my schooldays in the 1960s that surface temperatures of planets with atmospheres was related to atmodspheric density which in turn was determined by mass plus gravity and manifests in the form of pressure at the surface.
I've been saying since 2008 that the so called greenhouse effect is caused by insolation, atmospheric mass and the strength of the gravitational field:
"The fundamental point is that the total atmospheric warming arising as a result of the density of the atmosphere is a once and for all netting out of all the truly astronomic number of radiant energy/molecule encounters throughout the atmosphere. The only things that can change that resultant point of temperature equilibrium are changes in solar radiance coming in or changes in overall atmospheric density which affect the radiant energy going out."
Yes, the authors think they've discovered something new and unexplained, but apparently are unaware that the theoretical basis of the gravito-thermal GHE has been known since the 1800's. Maxwell described the Poisson relation as the basis of the "GHE" in 1872:Delete
"It was known to the science of my schooldays in the 1960s that surface temperatures of planets with atmospheres were related to atmospheric density which in turn was determined by mass plus gravity and manifests in the form of pressure at the surface. "
Thank you for this paper and for your courage in openly challenging almost 500 years of efforts by POWERLESS TYRANTS to hide the discovery by Copernicus of a giant fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the Solar System in 1543.ReplyDelete
First, Popes objected to Copernicus' discovery. Four hundred years later atomic bombs exposed the source of energy in the Sun's core in Aug 1945.
Nations were united in Oct 1945 to forbid public knowledge that the core of the Sun is the Creator, Destroyer & Sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the Solar System today.
Yes, the world is in grave danger today as POWERLESS TYRANTS use public funds and spineless scientists to deceive the public!
This simple presentation might be of interest here: Rethinking the "greenhouse effect"ReplyDelete
Thanks for that -another great piece by Alan Siddons. I'm going to add that to the list above of authors on the gravito-thermal GHE.Delete
Well in that case you should also certainly add Harry Dale Huffman's contribution published 5 years ago since nobody has satisfactorily refuted it (but many have sought to ignore it) and it is at the core of all that has followed since.Delete
And yet another group sees that it is solar insolation plus the mass of the atmosphere that dictates the temperatures of the planet. This is good news even if they didn't acknowledge the giants that came before them and even if they don't have it exactly right. Any group that sees that CO2 is not the driver of the climate is welcome on the skeptic side.ReplyDelete
Stepan Widle said up above that it was known to the science of our schooldays in the 1960s (70s for me) that surface temperatures of planets with atmospheres was related to atmodspheric density which in turn was determined by mass plus gravity and manifests in the form of pressure at the surface. And he is right of course.
Keep up the great work you do here. I don't comment much as many of my comment just go off into space (my fault I am sure) but I read them all.
Thanks very much Mark for your continued support and getting the word out on other blogs as well.Delete
They say temperature( T) is a a fundamental dimension. It is not.ReplyDelete
According to the Gas Law T is a function of pressure (p) and volume(v)
p is force/area =Nm^-2 = kgms^-2m^-2
pv = kgms^-2m^-2m3 =kgm^2s^-2 =kgx velocity^2
T can be reduced to kg, m and s.
A better candidate for fundamental dimension is charge, q.
Even m = density/volume can be reduced to length.
In dimensional analysis T stands for time. Force has the dimensions MLT^-2Delete
Thanks Peter once again for your helpful comments. Much appreciated.Delete
Hmm, good points.ReplyDelete
How would charge be applicable in a planetary context?
Fundamental dimensions, mass, length, charge and time apply everywhere.ReplyDelete
Charge is important at all scales, atomic and planetary. For example solar wind, ionosphere, magnetic fields.
An interesting paper. I'm not going to purchase it, so can't fully speak to anything in it. My understanding of the effect of CO2 on radiative heat transfer comes from combustion engineering, not climate science. In that field, one generally assumes constant pressure. Gasses get heated by small quantities of participating media, such as CO2 or water vapour. The heating of a gas in contact with a hot surface by radiation is near 0 for dry CO2 free air. The heating of the gas is entirely due to convection and conduction. Add a small amount of CO2 or water and the heating from radiation exceeds the heating from convection and conduction at temperatures in the range of 500°C and higher. When something gets between a hot surface and a cold surface and itself gets hot, it reduces the rate of heat transfer from the hot surface to the cold surface until the hot surface is hot enough that thermal equilibrium is achieved. That's why we insulate.ReplyDelete
What this paper may support is the assertion that for the three bodies with an atmosphere and that fit the model (note that Titan does not fit the model), the concentration of CO2 is sufficiently high that saturation has occurred. As such, there should be little correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. For earth, the path length of CO2 at surface is 1 bar X 300/1,000,000 X 1 = 0.0003. For Mars, the bath length of CO2 at surface is 0.006 bar X 1 = 0.006 (the atmosphere of Mars can be approximated as 100% CO2). Hence even though Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than Earth, in terms of radiative forcing, there is MUCH more CO2 present. About 20 times more. Venus of course if off the charts.Titan on the other hand is not saturated. My interpretation of this article is: It says nothing about the GHG effect. It does provide evidence of saturation of CO2.
It has been shown that, at STP CO2 reaches saturation at approximately 800 ppm (actually 500 bar cm, which roughly corresponds to 800 ppm). At 400 ppm it is so close as to be 0. There should be some minor warming from 270 ppm to 400 ppm.
That there is an explanation for the correlation found that does not change the fact that CO2 and water are greenhouse gases makes sense as the "greenhouse effect" is known and measured and used in a lot of fields other than climate.
John, the full paper is available in the window above. Titan does fit the model to within 1.45C, which is still a very good fit, and the authors state in the paper that the data is more uncertain on Titan in comparison to the other 5 planets. The HS greenhouse equation also predicts the surface temperature and temperature profile perfectly on Titan as well as Earth.Delete
The 2nd figure I posted above clearly shows that the models incorporating greenhouse gas partial pressures have a standard error at least 20+ times worse than the model 12 which only uses surface pressure and solar insolation, and nearly perfectly predicts surface temperature on planets with GHG concentrations ranging from 0 to 96+%.
CO2 & H2O are IR-active gases which cool the surface for the many reasons I've pointed out and linked to above. The 33K "GHE" is entirely due to atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, as the giants of physics I list above first pointed out in the 1800's.
I figured out how to view the entire paper after I'd posted. Still digesting it. As I said. If CO2 does reach a point of saturation, then at concentrations above that, something else will impact surface temperature. Three of the 6 bodies observed have concentrations at or above saturation. One of them (the moon) has no atmosphere, one (Triton) so small an atmosphere that, from a radiative physics point of view, there is none, and the last is Titan. An application of dimensional analysis would find a poor correlation between concentration and temperature if the concentration exceeds the saturation limit of the gas. Earth has the lowest amount of CO2 from a radiative point of view, Mars next and then Venus. Given that Earth is almost at saturation, increases beyond this, such as seen on Venus and Mars, will not result in higher absorption, hence there will be poor correlation to temperature. Note that saturation is known in other fields that study radiative heat transfer. See: "https://johneggert.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/leckners-curves/"Delete
Tried to reply, but not sure if it went through. Figured out how to read the paper. Still digesting. The gist of my point is: My assertion is that this paper provides evidence of saturation. The moon and Triton have so little CO2 that it won't enter into any estimate of temperature. Earth is near saturation. Mars is much higher, hence saturated and Venus even higher. As such a dimensional analysis of CO2 versus temperature will find little or no correlation with any of these 5 bodies. This doesn't mean CO2 doesn't absorb radiant energy. It means there is so much that it has already absorbed all it can. Saturation is known in combustion problems. See https://johneggert.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/leckners-curves/ If this is a duplicate (ish) post, please feel free do delete it.Delete
"This doesn't mean CO2 doesn't absorb radiant energy."
Of course not
"It means there is so much that it has already absorbed all it can"
CO2 does indeed absorb and emit as much 15 micron IR "as it can," but CO2 is a mere passive IR radiator that merely delays passage of radiative heat loss to space by a few milliseconds, easily reversed and erased at night.
In addition, increased CO2 increased Cp, which is inversely related to temperature change by the lapse rate equation
dT/dh = -g/Cp
thus increased GHGs decrease the lapse rate, increase convective cooling of the surface.
Please read why Maxwell, the most famous physicist in history on the topics of heat and radiation knew way back in 1872 why the Poisson relation and gravito-thermal effect alone explains the atmosphere, and also see the Poisson relation also perfectly describes 2 additional planets not in the paper discussed in this post.
Concur MS, John do download the paper -as I said in comment above not obvious how to do but click on the frame window; the overprinted paper is there as a pdf. As a process engineer you will likely understand dimensional analysis. The equation derived comes purely from the data You do not have to agree with the terms used in the paper such as 'forcing" and "photo force" etcReplyDelete
Mentioning Titan, the comment here (I mentioned above)
may interest. This mentions a relation in atmospheres with the speed of sound - an interesting concept.
Thanks Peter for the Titan reference and the interesting relation to speed of sound. The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document on page 18 also calculates the speed of sound on the basis of the specific heats, gas constant, molecular mass, etc in equation (50), and which looks very similar to the atmospheric temperature profile.Delete
An Internet correspondent encouraged me to read this paper and other material on your site. I have two quick questions.ReplyDelete
- At various places you mention 'radiative forcing'. Is this used in the sense defined by the IPCC ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’(eg in response to a change in CO2 level) (i(AR4 The Physical Science Basis. 2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing). If, as seems possible, you are using it in some other sense, please would you point me to the definition you are using.
- Please would you point me to a reference where I can read up on the "Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory".
Thank you for your help.
Martin, thanks for your interest. I've written over 50 posts on this topic, but here are some starting points, in addition to the 40+ links I posted above.Delete
I am using radiative forcing in the sense that the IPCC claims increased CO2 is causing the surface to warm by a radiative forcing of ~1.5 W/m2. This is an incorrect application of the Stefan Boltzmann law as discussed in many of these posts.Delete
Note, in addition to the 6 planets in the paper, Nikolov and Zeller have also shown the same Poisson relation hold for an additional two planets: Mercury and Europa. Thus, a total of 8 planets proven with observations and theory to accurately conform to the gravito-thermal GHE theory:ReplyDelete
N&Z produced equations that appear to explain the temperatures at the surface of many bodies in our solar system using only two variables, namely pressure and TSI.Delete
One of the major features of their Unified Theory of Climate was the lack of a role for CO2. They claim that pressure has a major effect on surface temperature while gas composition does not.
In general I find their arguments persuasive but when it comes to airless bodies one can calculate the right answer based on Albedo, emissivity and the physical properties of the surface layers of the body.
While a simple set of equations can be appealing (if they work) the real world is sometimes untidy. Therefore I applied brute force numerical analysis to model the surface temperature of the Moon. The same technique works for Mercury too:
Any model that can compute the effect of the measured physical properties of the Moon's surace layers will show that the rate of rotation has a significant effect on the average surface temperature:
Nikolov and Zeller's equations imply that the rate of rotation of a body has no effect on its average surface temperature. Until they can include the effect of rotation rate on temperature I will regard their model as overly-simplified.
Please see my comment today at Climate, Etc. once again debunking the anti-astrophysics and anti-HS troll named "ristvan" yet again, both in regard to his lies about the Volokin paper above and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, etc. as well:ReplyDelete
And my followup comment to Volokin/astrophysics/HS trolls named mathewrmarler and ristvan:Delete
when aliens will come to Earth: goodbye religion and all its liesReplyDelete