Legitimate scientists have known for many years that the temperature of planets is controlled by atmospheric pressure, rather than Sagan’s drug induced greenhouse gas theory. Why don’t they speak up and end this madness?
On Jupiter the temperature increases because of atmospheric pressure, so as you descend temperature increases. Not far into the atmosphere the pressure is about ten times what it is here on Earth and the temperature is thought to be about 20 degrees C or average room temperature for Earth. Descend further and hydrogen becomes hot enough to turn into a liquid and the temperature is thought to be over 9,700 C. At the planet’s core scientists think that the temperatures could be as high as 35,500 C.
Hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas, and Jupiter receives very little sunlight.
maybe it’s because i went to school long ago, but i was under the impression that gases expanded as you heated them, which would make a hot hydrogen liquid a very difficult trick, but i suppose that a sufficient increase in pressure would counterbalance the thermal issue…
is that what they’re talking about?
The phase diagram shows Hydrogen as a liquid at very high temperatures and pressures
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v10/n12/fig_tab/nmat3189_F2.html
Hydrogen tanks are pressurized to 10,000 psi. They get hot when you put the hydrogen in the tank as it compresses, but the tank cools off.
Of course the tank cools – it is initially a small reservoir of “heat” in an atmosphere at a much reduced temperature – it will cool to thermal equilibrium.
Compressing the whole atmosphere is an entirely different thing !!
And of course a lapse rate proportional to pressure is completely scientific and observed phenomenon.
Climate scientists use “slight of hand” tricks like your statement to try to confuse but the 2 things are completely different and easily explained. Hope you simply confused 2 completely different phenomenon and weren’t seeking to deliberately obfuscate basic science facts.
Compressing a small volume of gas in a large cooler atmosphere is obviously not the same as compressing the whole atmosphere !
Compressing the thin gaseous atmosphere of a small terrestrial planet is a completely different phenomenon than compressing a giant gaseous planet. There is nothing you can learn about Earth’s atmosphere from the atmosphere of a brown dwarf star orbiting the Sun. Jupiter has no atmosphere, it IS an atmosphere, with no planet, it’s a ball of hydrogen and helium, and it gets over 50% of its heat from the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism and under 50% from the sun. Earth gets 100% of its heat from the sun and 0% of its heat from any form of imagined atmospheric compression mechanism which doesn’t exist. Not only that, but the phenomenon of getting heat by compressing a tank of gas at the service station is 100% the same as any adiabatic heat generation or loss in a parcel of Earth’s atmosphere as it rises and falls adiabatically since the amount of compression is always the same as the amount of expansion.
We need to step away from any argument that compares Earth to Jupiter. Step away now, and never address the subject again. Jupiter is a brown dwarf star that makes its own heat. OK?
We have 5000 foot mountains near our town, which is on the leeward side of them and around 700 feet elevation. In the winter, the air comes down from those mountains and we freeze our asses off. We are much colder than places away from those mountains. According to what you say, the air should compress and get hot as it comes down from those 5000 foot ridges.
Morgan:
“According to what you say, the air should compress and get hot as it comes down from those 5000 foot ridges.”
In other areas this is known to happen!! What you are not looking at is the temperature of the air before it starts down the mountain and the temp when it gets to you.
Here is what we get in SoCal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_wind
Santa Ana airmasses originate from high-pressure systems over the Great Basin and upper Mojave Desert. The Santa Anas are a katabatic wind—katabatic meaning “to flow downhill” in Greek, which is an accurate description of the action of these winds.[4] The air heats up from adiabatic heating during its descent. While the air has already been dried by orographic lift before reaching the Great Basin as well as by subsidence from the upper atmosphere, the relative humidity of the air is further decreased as it descends from the high desert toward the coast, often falling below 10 percent.[5] It is often said that the air is heated and dried as it passes through the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, but according to meteorologists this is a popular misconception. The Santa Ana winds usually form during autumn and early spring when the surface air in the elevated regions of the Great Basin and Mojave Desert (the “high desert”) becomes cool or even cold (although they may form at virtually any time of year).
I have a hard time believing you can heat air by raising the pressure from 14 psi in the desert to 14.0000000000001 psi in Santa Ana. Our compression tank is 220 psi and is only warm to the touch. Not even hot. When you put 65 psi of air in a bicycle tire it gets a little warm. Barely. Maybe 10 degrees warmer.
I have a theory that the air in Santa Anna is heated by the sun. But that’s just because I’m really smart.
My air compressor tank gets hot when it is filled, but it doesn’t stay hot, nor does the surface temperature stay warm due to 1 atm pressure.
PV=nRT As long as P and V remain constant, so does temperature.
But the compressor tank cools off to ambient temperature. Are you saying it stays warm?
As long as the atmospheric balance between incoming SW radiation and outgoing LW radiation remains fixed, nothing changes in PV=nRT
If the Sun turned off, V and T would collapse, the atmosphere would freeze, and P and T would drop to almost zero
As long as we are playing the fool; if we consider most scientists are legitimate and have known for many years that the temperature of planets is controlled by atmospheric pressure, that would a consensus make. Are you arguing against a scientific consensus Bob?
Comparing an air compressor to Jupiter. Brilliant!
Hey! Maybe if Bob filled that compressor with CO2, he could power Reggie’s blowtorch indefinitely.
I think he was comparing Earth to the compression tank. The temperature of Earth’s atmosphere is not created by the compression that happened 4.6 billion years ago.
On Earth, the pressure at night is the same as in the day. The pressure in the winter is the same as in the summer. The pressure at the equator is the same as at the poles. Etcetera. It’s not the pressure.
Comparing Earth to Jupiter tells us even less than comparing Earth to Venus does, which is nothing.
“the compressor tank cools off to ambient temperature”
A compressor tank is an incorrect analogy to the atmosphere. Once the tank is filled, there is no more compression taking place and thus the temperature cools off. There is no ongoing expansion/compression in the tank as there is in the atmosphere, therefore this analogy is inappropriate, unless there is a leak in the tank and the compressor has to keep running – in which case the tank remains hot.
On Earth, sunlight heats the surface and causes air packets at the surface to heat, rise & expand & cool, to release latent heat in the upper atmosphere. That air packet then sinks, compresses, and heats up once again per the ideal gas law. This process repeats ad infinitum, keeping the lower troposphere ~33K warmer by establishing a temperature gradient/lapse rate.
There is no radiative forcing term in the lapse rate equation dT/dh = -g/Cp and it is completely independent of “radiative forcing,” dependent only upon gravity, atmospheric mass, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. Thus, the so-called GHE is due to pressure, not GHG radiative forcing.
A better example than Jupiter is Uranus, on which the base of the troposphere is 33K warmer than Earth’s, despite receiving only 2 W/m2 from the Sun. It’s obviously impossible for greenhouse gases to amplify 2 W/m2 to 602 W/m2 [321 K], but gravity/pressure/atmospheric mass completely explain this, as well as the atmospheric temperature profiles of all the planets with thick atmospheres.
That phase diagram shows the pressure in GPa. One GPa is 10,000 atmospheres and 100 GPa is a million atmospheres. Is the pressure on Jupiter a million (earth) atmospheres?
Compressing a small volume of gas in a tank at ambient air temperature is completely different to compressing the whole atmosphere.
Thermal equilibrium will eventually balance the temperature of the atmosphere and the gas tank.
In the atmosphere a lapse rate proportional to pressure is established and remains remarkably constant.
Surely you can’t deny this basic science ?
Compressing gas in a tank is NOT the same thing as compressing the whole atmosphere.
Such analogies are deceitful – either deliberate or based on ignorance !
I thought Carl Sagan’s drug induced theory was billions and billions of little greenmen in greenhouse.
Is there a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism on Earth or Venus?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin–Helmholtz_mechanism
Steve
FYI
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#more-4372
Having lived on Kitt Peak and other observatory mountains out West and in Hawaii (parents who are astronomers) I can saw absolutely that going to school in the lower, heavy atmosphere valleys and then coming home to the thin atmosphere high territory meant going through a number of micro climate conditions which required carrying around a lot of extra gear in the form of coats, hats, boots and sandals and shorts and so forth.
Correct. There is even a correction that is used for comparing temperatures at two different elevations.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html
Morgan, and all believers in the CO2 greenhouse effect, should look up the defining equations of the Standard Atmosphere, which codifies the vertical temperature lapse rate that, together with the distance from the Sun, governs the atmospheric temperatures, and then look at
Venus: No Greenhouse effect
which confirms the Standard Atmosphere model precisely, and disproves the consensus greenhouse theory with definitive contrary evidence (and corrects climate, and atmospheric, science on a whole handful of basic points).
It is poignant testimony to the general incompetence in science today that this bottom-line truth is not front-page news by now, and instead is unknown in the public debates.
re: harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says April 30, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Morgan, and all believers in the CO2 greenhouse effect, …
I can’t believe this man has any idea how a television or radio works …
Abject Idiocy, thy name has been found to be harrydhuffman.
harrydhuffman, what does the field of IR Spectroscopy concern itself with?
.
Why don’t I speak up? Because feeding my family requires getting continued funding on my non-climate research. Getting blacklisted for speaking against the ninnies gets me unemployed and I would have to take a real job.
Not trolling… I’m funded by ONR now, and have worked under NASA, DOE, and NSF grants in climate-related inquiries. You wouldn’t believe that lies I had to tell in my PhD defense, mouthing the words as written on the UCS website re: anti-war hysteria and climate change. But I needed one more signature.
Why don’t I speak up? Because I am willing to let someone else be the martyr.
Does Venus have a climate science “greenhouse effect” ?
Venus is irradiated by ~2614 W/sqm solar radiation. The atmosphere is ~95% CO2.
It is claimed the high albedo of Venus means that the solar radiation provides less thermal effect than on Earth despite being almost double.
I say this is deliberate obfuscation and nonsense.
Venus may well reflect a large proportion of the visible light but it will strongly absorb infrared – especially the high energy near infrared.
CO2 has three strong absorption bands – 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. The 2 lower bands correspond to high energy infrared with temperatures calculated for this peak wavelength of about 1073 K and about 673 K respectively.
The solar radiation is about 50% infrared.
Therefore it stands to reason that Venus’ atmosphere is fiercely heated by the incoming solar radiation (which is not likely to directly reach the ground) even though a significant amount of the visible light is obviously reflected.
Combine that with the known and widely acknowledged atmosphereic pressure effect and Venus does NOT have climate sciences’ “greenhouse effect”.
Even NASA acknowledge the temperature of the gas giant planets increases with depth (ie pressure) in the atmosphere whilst the solar radiation is virtually insignificant at their distance from the sun.
Venus has 950,000 ppm CO2. Earth has 400.
Venus atmosphere is also 90 times denser than ours so 90 x 950,000 is 85 million
Venus has 85,000,000. Earth has 400.
Don’t be Muppet Hansen. Let’s don’t compare 85 million to 400, OK?
Even though the planetary mass of Earth and Venus is similar, the atmospheric mass on Venus is double that on Earth. That’s why Venus surface pressure is 92X higher than Earth at 92 bars, and why the ideal gas law explains the high surface temperature of 735K, 2.5X hotter than Earth at 288K, completely independent of “back-radiation greenhouse gas forcing” from CO2.
” Why Don’t Actual Scientists Speak Up? ”
I just have to say this … a two-word answer: “beat downs”.
More specifically, beat downs by the hive-minded mob.