Science In The 16th Century

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

  • Galileo Galilei

Ned Nikolov works for the US Forest Service in Fort Collins, Colorado. In 2016 he published the rather obvious observation that planetary temperature correlates with atmospheric pressure, not atmospheric composition.

Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught. – The Washington Post

While Obama was president, it was unacceptable for government employees to believe anything which strayed from the dogma of the global warming religion. Employees were implicitly threatened with termination for climate heresy.  So Ned used a pseudonym, and the Washington Post ignored their research on that basis.

Sally Jewell: ‘I Hope There Are No Climate Change Deniers In The Department Of Interior’ | HuffPost

I have lost several jobs (immediately) after the company I was working for discovered I was a climate skeptic. No company wants to be called out and boycotted by green fascists.  We live in dark times now – science and truth are for all intents and purposes illegal.

In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

– George Orwell

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Science In The 16th Century

  1. arn says:

    Who would have thought that the most obvious factors are responsible
    for the outcomes?
    One has to be a scientist to ignore and exclude the dancing elephant in the room.

  2. Cam says:

    Over at NSIDC, let the shenanigans begin: The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F18 satellite will be undergoing testing from June 25 to 29 and from July 9 to 12. During this time, data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) sensor on F18 may have degraded quality or may not be collected. DMSP F18 is the primary sensor that provides NSIDC with near-real-time data for sea ice monitoring (nsidc-0081, the Sea Ice Index, and the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis web page). If the data quality does not meet operational standards, NSIDC will remove the resulting sea ice fields or NSIDC may not distribute data from the F18 SSMIS during the test periods.

    • stpaulchuck says:

      “If the data quality does not meet operational standards, …”
      that is, if it does not support the melting ice meme, it gets dumped

  3. Colorado Wellington says:

    Saboteurs! Wreckers! Bloodsuckers!

    Catch them!

    • arn says:

      Whatever the red hand touches turns into shit.
      Culture,Language,Education,Families,Marriage,Universities,Media and of course Science(Comics and Star Wars have been ruined by them.They turned SW into SjW)
      Even Genders are no longer save.

      Once infected with the inflamatory virus of Karl Marx and his brilliant skills to use inflamatory speech hidden as good intention
      to divide people and use his followers+minorities+well paid screaming
      claqueurs as actors,politicians and anchormen(who do not suffer the consequences as they do not live among common people)
      a country goes fast down the shithole and straight into fascism.

  4. Johansen says:

    That’s why we appreciate your efforts, in spite of your financial hit. It’s on forums like this where the real innovation and information exchange takes place.

  5. Ed Bo says:

    Unfortunately, Nikolov and Zeller give skeptics a bad name. I would reject that work outright if it came from any of the undergraduates I teach. Anyone with a basic grasp of high school physics and math would not produce that work.

    • Spiritus Mundi says:

      In what journal was it published? Was it peer reviewed?

      • Ed Bo says:

        Here’s a link to the (withdrawn) paper.

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715005712

        It was not in a journal that published much climate-related contents.

        • Robert Austin says:

          Ed Bo,
          The link merely shows that the paper was withdrawn “not related to the scientific merit of the study”. From your comments you imply that you have the actual paper and having studied it, and have a sound scientific basis for condemning it. If you could tell us how we might access this withdrawn paper, we might have a dialogue on its merits.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Robert:

            The curve they fit to the data points has about as many coefficients as data points. In addition, the equation containing the coefficients is of a completely arbitrary nature, with no physical justification for the form selected.

            This means that there are far more “degrees of freedom” in computing the fit than there are data points. This means you can always produce a fit, but you have demonstrated no more meaning than a kid playing connect the dots.

            In any decent introductory undergraduate math course, you are taught that these techniques are a huge NO-NO. N & Z are oblivious to this.

      • Douglas Hoyt says:

        Another paper by Holmes reaches much the same conclusions as Nikolov and Zeller.

        http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf

        In the presence of a gravitational field, a gaseous atmosphere will have to follow the law of conservation of energy. It naturally leads to a vertical temperature gradient. It is called an adiabatic process. No need for greenhouse gases to explain why the surface is 33 K warmer than the top of the atmosphere.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Douglas:

          Over 150 years ago, the great James Clerk Maxwell showed that the idea that a gravitational field alone would create a temperature gradient led immediately to blatant 2nd Law violations:

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

          This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics, for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be the same; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of itself, the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same. In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of temperature, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be uniform, whatever its material.”
          (Theory of Heat, 1877, p.320)

          In Feynman’s Lectures on Physics (Vol 1, #40), he concludes the same thing, and only considers it worth a paragraph to make the same point:

          “Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium by connecting a rod to some balls at the bottom (Fig. 40–1), where they would pick up 12kT from the molecules there and would shake, via the rod, the balls at the top and those would shake the molecules at the top. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.”

          These lectures have been used to train generations of scientists and engineers.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            If you toss a ball up, it slows down. The kinetic energy decreases and the potential energy increases. The same is true for a single molecule. Since it kinetic energy decreases, we can say its temperature decreases, the higher it goes. The same is true for any number of molecules. A temperature gradient will form in a gravitational field because energy must be conserved.

            It appears Maxwell and Feynman were wrong. There is no possibility of creating an isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field since it would violate the conservation of energy, by requiring the highest molecules to have the highest amount of total energy.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            High-speed centrifuges create the equivalent of massive gravitational fields. Centrifuges for isotopic separation of gaseous UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) have been used for 75 years now.

            Any temperature gradient would totally screw up the process. None has ever been observed. Maxwell and Feynman were correct.

            Your analytical error is in not accounting for the pressure, and therefore density, gradient that occurs as you go up. While the (KE+PE) per unit mass increases as you go up in an isothermal atmosphere, the (KE+PE) per unit volume DOES NOT.

            So the upward and downward energy transfers across a horizontal plane section in an isolated isothermal atmosphere are the same.

            To use a toy example: the molecules crossing the plane in a downward direction accelerate slightly and have an average KE of 100. The molecules crossing the plane in an upward direction decelerate slightly and have an average KE of only 99 (your point).

            BUT! There are only 99 of the downward-passing molecules due to the density gradient, and there are 100 of the upward-passing molecules.

            So the downward transfer of energy is 100*99=9900, and the upward transfer of energy is 99*100=9900. This means there is no net transfer of energy, and the system is at equilibrium in the isothermal case. (I emphasize this is for a thermodynamically isolated system in a gravitational field, which is not the case on earth.)

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            The Loschmidt Effect accurately describes temperature gradients in atmospheres. Doug Cotton offers a $7500 award if you can prove him wrong. Here is a quote from him:

            “Josef Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher) was the first to realistically determine the size of air molecules – quite a feat in the 19th century. There is no correct peer-reviewed published refutation of his gravito-thermal effect, which is based on and derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that law also never proven incorrect. There’s a US $7,500 reward offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com if you or any reader can prove me wrong and produce a study confirming water vapor warms to the extent implied by the IPCC. Furthermore, the Loschmidt effect is now proven empirically in hundreds of 21st century experiments. The existence of this gravitationally induced temperature gradient means the IPCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on regarding CO2.”

            See http://www.klimarealistene.com/in-english/the-climate-realists-of-norway/ for more discussion.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            If you actually engage Mr. Cotton, you realize that he is completely in competent, and struggles to analyze the simplest of problems. I have given him disproof, and he refusess to acknowledge it.

            A couple small points, because it is not worth wasting time on him. Maxwell (who was NOT Loschmidt’s student) disproved the gravitational temperature gradient idea with the development of the kinetic theory of gases in the mid 19th century. Boltzmann added some mathematical rigor to the idea.

            It has not been seriously challenged since, which is why Cotton cannot find any peer-reviewed refutation of his idea. (I can’t find any peer-reviewed refutation of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system either.)

            There’s an interesting story of Maxwell’s struggles in developing a kinetic theory that was in accordance with the 2nd Law (which Cotton’s theory most certainly is not).

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            Your basic contention is that an atmosphere in a gravitational field that contains no greenhouse gases will be isothermal.

            There are atmospheres that contain no greenhouse gases and they are not isothermal. They are called stars. We know that they are not isothermal, because of their limb darkening. It just so happens that these atmospheres have vertical temperature gradients that follow the Loschmidt effect.

            There is no evidence that any atmosphere in a gravitational field will be isothermal.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            The contention of people like Cotton is that a gravitational field ALONE will create a temperature gradient (lapse rate) in an atmosphere. This predicts that a thermodynamically isolated atmosphere will have a temperature gradient in a gravitational field at equilibrium.

            Maxwell showed that this prediction would lead directly to 2nd Law violations. Feynman considered the point so obvious he did not think it was worth more than a paragraph.

            The presence of greenhouse gases means that atmosphere is not thermodynamically isolated, but it is by no means the ONLY means of eliminating isolation.

            We have a negative lapse rate in our atmosphere because the atmosphere gains energy primarily at low altitudes and loses energy primarily from high altitudes, due to greenhouse gases being more transparent to shortwave solar than to longwave infrared.

            The plasma “atmospheres” of stars also gain energy primarily at low altitudes and lose energy primarily from high altitudes, because the energy source is from the star’s core.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            You will have a temperature gradient in gravitational field even in the case where there is no radiation. Consider the simplest atmosphere consisting one non-radiating atom. Assume the atom has energy, and it doesn’t matter where that energy comes from. It is likely to move both horizontally and vertically. As it moves vertically it loses kinetic energy and gains potential energy, because energy is conserved. The loss of kinetic energy means that as it rises, its temperature has effectively decreased. Thus, a temperature gradient is formed. There is no need to consider radiation. There is a need to conserve energy.

            In the hypothetical isothermal atmosphere, this atom would rise and never lose any velocity or kinetic energy, yet would gain potential energy. Thus, energy would be appearing out of nowhere and the law of conservation of energy would be violated.

            The same principle that applies to one atom would apply to all atoms, as would occur in atmospheres usually considered.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            You cannot conclude anything about the statistical behavior of gas from a single-molecule example.

            Here is a link to a paper by physics professors explaining how they teach students who think like you do why they should think like I do ;-)

            https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.14138

            Right now, I can’t find the full paper on-line without a paywall, but I downloaded it several years ago and could send it to you if you give me any contact info. Still, there is enough info on the opening page to give you the sense of their explanation.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            A later article by Liao contradicts your paper:
            https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979209052893

          • Ed Bo says:

            Hmmm. The abstract doesn’t even lay out their fundamental line of reasoning. Not a good start. Do you have a link to the full paper, unpaywalled?

            But here’s the bigger point. Even if you grant that gravity is causing the lapse rate (and I don’t, because of the 2nd Law “loophole” that would present), there is still no mechanism for it to transfer continuous power to the surface — and that is needed in order for the pressure to explain the elevated surface temperatures.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            For the Earth, it is not the atmosphere transferring power to the surface to heat it. It is solar radiation heating the surface that then transfers power to the atmosphere, as manifested by convection.

            The convection has limited power and only extends to the tropopause. As it rises it weakens and cools. A temperature gradient is formed. The temperature gradient appears because it is in a gravitational field. This is the Loschmidt effect that occurs in every atmosphere that has ever been observed. As Holmes states “gravity forms a density and a temperature gradient; pressure is a corollary”. Arrhenius seems to have neglected convective transport of heat in his formulation of the greenhouse effect.

            An isothermal atmosphere has never been observed on any planet or star with a sufficiently thick atmosphere.

            As for heating the Earth from thermal radiation, that is very difficult because the high index of refraction of water allows only a few microns penetration by thermal radiation. It will be quickly converted to radiation at all thermal wavelengths and much will escape to space. The Earth is wet nearly everywhere.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            All atmospheres we have examined have IR radiatively active (aka “greenhouse”) gases.

            The (metaphorical) “greenhouse effect” occurs when an atmosphere is more opaque to longwave infrared radiation than it is to shortwave solar radiation. (This is true of every atmosphere in our solar system.)

            When this is the case, the atmosphere gains energy on average at a lower altitude (often from the surface) than it loses energy (largely from the tropopause). As with any object heated at one end and cooled at the other, there is a temperature gradient between the two ends.

            In the atmosphere, we call this gradient the lapse rate, and it most cases it is a negative value (decreasing temperature with height), except in the case of temperature inversions.

            If the negative lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate (that is, an “unstable lapse rate”, convection starts and tends to bring the lapse rate back to adiabatic. The thermal resistance of greenhouse gases to upward energy loss to space is great enough in these atmospheres that it would create an unstable lapse rate that induces convection.

            This means that all of these atmospheres have a lapse rate pretty close to adiabatic. But this is only due to the fact that they are primarily heated from below, and cooled from above, due to “greenhouse gases”.

            Without the ability to radiate away energy from high altitudes, which requires these greenhouse gases, any convection cells would provide no net cooling, with the downward half returning as much energy to the surface as the upward half removes from the surface.

            The proposed “Loschmidt effect” says that gravity ALONE will produce a lapse rate. It does not even mention convection. It is a misunderstanding of the idea that if you throw a ball up, it slows down.

            You quote Holmes (who’s he?) as saying “gravity forms a density and temperature gradient; pressure is a corollary”. I’m sorry, but your Holmes does not understand basic physics. Gravity forms a pressure gradient, as the pressure at any point in the atmosphere simply comes from the weight (mass in a gravitational field) of the atmosphere above that point. Many other factors can affect the temperature, and therefore the resulting density according to the gas law.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            If the Earth’s atmosphere had no greenhouse gases, the sun would heat the surface and this would induce convection. This would occur very rapidly (in a matter of minutes) and there would be no chance for an isothermal atmosphere to form. Since there is no way to radiate away the heat, the atmosphere would become hotter and hotter. As it gets hotter the height of the atmosphere will increase and the entire atmosphere will get thinner and thinner. I think a lot of the atmosphere would get blown off into space. That is quite different that an isothermal atmosphere.

            The Earth has always had water, which is a greenhouse gas, which is why the above scenario has never occurred.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            Forgot to mention in the last message, there will be no clouds, so the intensity of radiation reaching the surface will be much higher. Still, the surface will moderate this somewhat by emitting thermal IR. The no greenhouse atmosphere will still be much higher and thinner than the present atmosphere.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            And one final note. Your hypothetical isothermal atmosphere can only exist if the surface over which it exists is flat, has a uniform albedo, and is not rotating.

            If the surface is curved (say spherical), it will have a non-uniform heating since the sun’s rays will strike it at different angles, leading to different rates of surface heating. That means adjacent portions of the isothermal atmosphere will have different surface temperatures, which means the isothermal atmosphere cannot exist over any distance. It will be quickly destroyed by horizontal heat flows that will lead quickly to vertical heat flows.

            If the surface has spatially varying albedos, exactly the same problem arises.

            If planet is rotating, non-uniform, time-dependent heating will occur, leading to horizontal flows, cyclonic motion, and so forth that quickly will cause vertical heat flows.

            In short, the hypothetical isothermal atmosphere is possible only in the one-dimensional and static case.

    • gregole says:

      N and Z gave …. a bad name.

      Says who? If I recall, they simply showed the relationship between atmospheric density and temperature. So what? Wouldn’t you at least give them partial credit for their nice graphing and demonstration of lapse-rate?

    • kyle_fouro says:

      Either the relationship exists or it doesn’t.

    • Rosco says:

      You can easily verify the data presented in NASA’s Planetary Fact sheets by application of the Universal Ideal Gas Law.

      Take the relevant data from each Planet listed here – https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html.

      Use PV = nRT – use unit volume and calculate the answers as shown here :-

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/83y0ew6jv0x80dy/Analysis%20of%20Blackbody%20Temperatures%20versus%20Universal%20Gas%20Laws.docx?dl=0

      Why is it that the answers coincide with the listed data if the idea of gas compression defining temperature is nonsense ?

      After all the study of gas laws lead to the concept of absolute zero and the advancements of science that followed.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Good grief, Rosco!

        That analysis you cite has no idea what the ideal gas law means or how to use it. They completely botch the use of both the V and n terms. And they have no clue as to what the law fundamentally means.

        Yes, the ideal gas law will hold over a wide variety of conditions, but it says nothing about what “caused” the particular set of P, V, and T values in a particular conditions.

  6. Brian D says:

    I guess my question concerning pressure/temperature relationship would be in light of weather patterns. High and low pressure systems bring a variety of temperature scenarios, depending on season and location.

    • Robert Austin says:

      The pressure-temperature- net impinging radiation relationship for the surface temperature of a rocky planet would be just a crude first order relationship. Then we get into the chaotic complexity of a planet with vast quantities of H2O in three phases, the biosphere, planetary motions etc. But we do know enough to laugh at Hansen’s diagnosis of CO2 being responsible for the alleged “runaway” greenhouse effect on Venus.

  7. Ed Bo says:

    N & Z are a bit cagy about what they think the underlying mechanism would be for the relationship they “found” (or tortured from the data), but they at least imply that it is the pressure itself that explains the elevated temperature levels.

    But if you understand the implications of basic high school physics, you would realize that pressure alone cannot elevate surface temperature. Basic physics teaches us that for a force (pressure times area) to transfer energy, it must cause motion (i.e. act over a distance). So the static pressure of the atmosphere on the non-moving surface transfers no energy to the surface.

    (If static pressure could transfer energy, we would not need to let water out of dams to create hydroelectric power. But for some strange reason, the dam engineers insist on letting water from the reservoirs pass through the turbines to create electrical power.)

    But increased surface pressure of an atmosphere of a given composition means increased total “optical thickness” (opacity). This is like adding additional layers of radiative insulation. But this is the “greenhouse effect”.

    • RAH says:

      Yet when I look at Venus through my 10″ reflector telescope I see nothing more than a brilliant featureless white ball. Typically in the moonless night sky when Venus is up it’s luminescence is adequate to see shadows. Talk about Albedo! The atmosphere of Venus has it in spades.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Your point would be?

        Seriously, I don’t see what your comment has to do with my arguments.

        • RAH says:

          That Opacity your talking about works both ways is the point. The atmosphere is so thick that the surface temperature remains pretty much constant from equator to poles and be it night or day.

          • Ed Bo says:

            The opacity of these atmospheres is greater to longwave infrared than to shortwave solar radiation. (That is the whole point of the greenhouse metaphor — which is just a metaphor.)

            So the atmospheres primarily gain energy in the lower altitudes, and lose energy primarily from the higher altitudes. Increased thickness of the atmosphere increases LW opacity more than SW opacity, which leads to higher surface temperatures.

          • RAH says:

            Up higher where lighter gases are found under less pressure there are winds well over 200 mph. That is the area where there is actual weather. But below the higher surface temperatures that don’t vary hardly at all. There is no “run away green house effect”. It is a constant. A constant maintained by the pressure from the thick CO2 atmosphere.

          • Ed Bo says:

            By what physical mechanism does the physical pressure of the atmosphere transfer power to the surface that can maintain its very high temperatures and match its very high power losses at these temperatures?

          • David A says:

            “By what physical mechanism does the physical pressure …”

            Yes, perhaps an ill formed question based on a poorly or wrongly stated observation of disparate T recorded on planets of disparate atmospheric pressure.

            Perhaps we start with this law,
            ” There are ONLY two ways to change the energy content of a system ( system for planets equals earth – oceans – atmosphere) in a radiative balance; either a change in input, or a change in residence time of energy within the system”

            So ALL changes of total energy in a system not due to input flux
            ( solar cycle changes and other potential solar flux) are due to a change of residence time of energy within the system.

            So, per GHG theory, a GHG delays departing LWIR energy via redirecting some of that energy back towards the surface, increasing residence time of a portion of the energy input, thus raising T slightly.
            ( more on the complexity of this later)

            Now additional atmospheric matter, regardless of composition, can in a disparate way increase energy, also via a increase of said energies residence time, not due to pressure, but due to the capacity to hold more energy per square meter before reaching conductive convective equilibrium. ( conduction is a much faster molecular transfer process relative to radiation in a denser atmosphere) Thus, even though individual molecules may all be vibrating at the same rate, the denser molecules will impart a higher T – more total energy per square meter, or more equally vibrating molecules ( T.D.E. thermodynamic equilibrium) striking a thermometers glass transferring more energy to the mercury then fewer molecules vibrating at the same rate higher in the atmosphere.

            The residence time increase in the denser atmosphere is due to the capacity of individual molecules to hold energy; increase the numbers of molecules and the conduction process within each square meter is slowed down while input continues, thus increased total energy per square meter within the system.

            Oceans are a massive increase in residence time and total energy within the system. In terms of residence time they are a G.H.L.
            ( Greenhouse liquid) Instead of affecting LWIR, they affect SW radiation with potential residence time extending out to 1000 years.

            Now a curious thing happens with atmospheric GHGs. They not only delay the exit of radiative energy, they also accelerate it. How? Well atmospheric W/V also absorbs certain incoming SW energy, ( a non trivial amount) preventing it form reaching the GHL oceans, thereby greatly decreasing the residence time of energy in the entire earth’s system. Also in the upper atmosphere increased GHG
            molecules, relative to an equal numbers of non G.H.G. molecules which do not radiate said energy,
            decrease the residence time of that energy at that height in the atmosphere. Thus GHG molecules can both increase and decrease residence time, and thus total energy within the system. (In other ways as well via affects on conduction and convection)

            Please note the phrase “energy”, vs “temperature”, as they are two different things. Also note that the residence time of energy within the system depends on two things; the W/L of the incoming energy, and the materials encountered. ( another law?)

            The materials encountered often have dual affects, both increasing and decreasing residence time, as in the given example of GHG doing both, and likewise an increase in atmospheric density can increase residence time, or through reflective radiation, say clouds, decrease residence time.

            So the interaction between disparate W/L isolation and the materials encountered affecting residence time via affects on conduction, convection and radiation, is, IMV, extremely complex and above our current ability to accurately quantify warming and cooling due to CO2 flux.

          • Ed Bo says:

            David:

            See my (belated) response at the end of the comment thread.

    • Johansen says:

      Okay Ed, but the sneering title of the Washington Post article basically says, “Two scientists actually DARED to conduct research without going through US, the High Priests and Self-Appointed Custodians of Truth. It’s a good thing they were CAUGHT. They’re lucky they did it during off-hours, otherwise they’d be FIRED from the Forest Service.” It’s just snark and elitism on parade

    • Robert Austin says:

      Ed Bo,
      Certainly the Diesel analogy is wrong-headed just as the greenhouse analogy is a poor analogy for the action of “greenhouse” gases. The lower troposphere is almost completely opaque and to long wave radiation except for a couple of narrow windows. So additional greenhouse gases in the lower troposphere have negligible effect. Surface temperature is governed by the lapse rate over the height to the tropopause, the region where radiative gases can radiate an appreciable amount of energy directly to space. And the tropopause occurs where the atmospheric pressure is in the region of 1/10 bar. Go to the altitude of 1/10 bar in the Venusian atmosphere and you will find temperatures not radically different than those at the tropopause in our atmosphere. The difference is that on Venus the lapse rate extends down from 1/10 bar to 93 bar, thus the hellish surface temperature of Venus. So the scientist’s chart is likely correct to the first order but maybe their explanation or derivation is flawed.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Robert:

        The idea that thicker atmospheres lead to relatively elevated surface temperatures is nothing new. If that is all N&Z show, it would be like publishing a paper saying apples fall to the earth.

        • Robert Austin says:

          I agree that the idea is nothing new. The question is why did the authors feel it necessary to publish under pseudonyms? I doubt that the reason was because the authors thought their paper to be excruciatingly bad.

    • Former95B says:

      Ed:

      Would you care to comment on the countless accepted “studies” that violate ALL of high school physics?

      Or are you just being an elitist putz?

      • Ed Bo says:

        Former95B:

        I yield to no one in my scorn for the math that Mann used to create his hockey stick, where he calculated the variance of a data set about the mean of a different data set (really a subset), then used this exaggerated variance to overweight a couple of data sets that produced the blade of the stick.

        He did not disclose this “unusual” technique, and when finally called on it, he had the audacity to claim it was the “modern method”. (I wish I could have gotten away with this in my math courses, but my professors would have laughed me out of class.)

        I could cite many more of these problems with “establishment” climate science.

        But the way to defeat bad math and science is with better math and science, not worse.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “If static pressure could transfer energy, we would not need to let water out of dams to create hydroelectric power”

      Water is basically compressible.

      Pressurised air does transfer energy

      The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere 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

      • Ed Bo says:

        How does pressurized air transfer energy without creating motion?

        An isothermal atmosphere also obeys the ideal gas law.

      • Robert Austin says:

        “The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.”

        No, no, no, a thousand times no. The lapse rate is the result of active vertical convection. A static atmosphere with no convection nor radiation from the top of atmosphere would end up with a uniform vertical temperature profile.
        Also, I assume that you meant to say that water is basically in-compressible.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “A static atmosphere with no convection nor radiation from the top of atmosphere would end up with a uniform vertical temperature profile.”

          Never seen ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.. a figment of some mindless brain-fart

          YES, sorry you are unaware

          but

          The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself .

          The lapse rate CAUSES the vertical convection

          • Robert Austin says:

            I guess we differ on the basic physics. You also disagree with Dr. Roy Spencer among other noted climate/weather scientists. Well, good luck with your hypothesis.

          • AndyG55 says:

            CO2 GHE has never been measured or observed anywhere on the planet.

            The is no empirical evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 warming anything, anywhere.

            gravity/pressure based thermal gradient… measured every day many thousands of times.

  8. Rosco says:

    According to NASA – and I quote –

    “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!”

    There is absolutely zero possibility of anything even remotely representing a “Greenhouse Effect” on Jupiter.

    Again I quote NASA – see Planetary Fact Sheets :-

    Solar irradiance 50.26 W/m2

    Atmospheric composition (by volume, uncertainty in parentheses)
    Major: Molecular hydrogen (H2) – 89.8% (2.0%); Helium (He) – 10.2% (2.0%)
    Minor (ppm): Methane (CH4) – 3000 (1000); Ammonia (NH3) – 260 (40);
    Hydrogen Deuteride (HD) – 28 (10); Ethane (C2H6) – 5.8 (1.5);
    Water (H2O) – 4 (varies with pressure)
    Aerosols: Ammonia ice, water ice, ammonia hydrosulfide

    Almost no “greenhouse gases” and solar radiation equivalent to a Stefan-Boltzmann calculated temperature of ~172 K yet believers like Ed Bo claim the greenhouse effect explains the temperature of 24,000°C NASA claim exists deep in the atmosphere while the compression of a gas cannot ?

    Seriously – what next ? Pixies at the bottom of the garden ??

    • Ed Bo says:

      Rosco:

      I don’t believe the greenhouse effect explains the earth core temperature of several thousand degrees either.

      The outer gas giant planets emit more power to space than they receive from the sun. (This is not true of the inner “rocky” planets.) This means either they are still cooling substantially from their initial compression, or they have a significant internal energy source, or both.

  9. Rosco says:

    Ed Bo says “But if you understand the implications of basic high school physics, you would realize that pressure alone cannot elevate surface temperature.”

    He then, absurdly, says “If static pressure could transfer energy, we would not need to let water out of dams to create hydroelectric power”

    Come on Ed – don’t you know the laws of Physics of gases do not apply to liquids or solids and what does generating electricity have to do with anything being discussed ?

    That aside, this guy seems to disagree with your expert knowledge of high school physics :-

    https://www.universetoday.com/35664/temperature-of-the-planets/

    I’ll quote him :-

    Jupiter:

    “At the point where atmospheric pressure is ten times what it is on Earth, the temperature reaches 21°C, what we Earthlings consider a comfortable “room temperature”. At the core of the planet, the temperature is much higher, reaching as much as 35,700°C – hotter than even the surface of the Sun.”

    Saturn:

    “And much like Jupiter, the temperature in the upper atmosphere of Saturn is cold, but increases closer to the center of the planet. At the core of the planet, temperatures are believed to reach as high as 11,700 °C”

    Uranus:

    “Much like the other gas giants in our Solar System, the core of Uranus gives off far more heat than is absorbed from the Sun. However, with a core temperature of approximately 4,737 °C”

    Neptune:

    “With temperatures dropping to -218°C in Neptune’s upper atmosphere, the planet is one of the coldest in our Solar System. And like all of the gas giants, Neptune has a much hotter core, which is around 7,000°C.”

    Now NASA agrees with him on Jupiter having a temperature which cannot be explained by solar radiation or any other explanation except gravitational compression of a gaseous atmosphere which I showed above gives the answers NASA list using PV = nRT.

    The solar radiation or any mythological “greenhouse effect” cannot explain these facts.

    The funny thing is the “Universe Today” guy believes in the “greenhouse effect” and even quotes it as the reason for Venus having a standing energy of 16,728 W/m2 (sigma x 737^4) from an input of 130 W/m2 (using NASA 2601/4 x 0.2 – the albedo of Venus is apparently 0.8 which is why it is so bright in the night sky) yet he lists the very high temperatures for the gas giants in full knowledge there can be no greenhouse effect on any of them without even questioning the dogma ??

    If you are correct how do you explain the information readily accepted as right about the internal temperatures of the gas giants ?

    Or how do you explain that one can find the meteorological data for many places on Earth and calculate the atmospheric surface temperature using the gas laws alone ?

    Try it – you may learn something.

    I don’t claim this is even right but it is damned amazing how accurately you can get the measured data values and calculate temperatures and your criticisms mean nothing because you cannot explain the causation of the facts.

    • Ed Bo says:

      Rosco:

      You say: “Come on Ed – don’t you know the laws of Physics of gases do not apply to liquids or solids and what does generating electricity have to do with anything being discussed ?”

      This is one of your funniest statements yet! I just reviewed my physics textbooks on work transfers (Work = Force * Distance) and found no exception for gases.

      What does generating electricity have to do with this? I’ll break it down. Many people believe the static pressure of the atmosphere, by pressure alone, can maintain surface temperatures higher than if the pressure were less.

      At higher surface temperatures, the surface emits more power. So to maintain these higher temperatures, the pressure must therefore continuously transfer power to the surface. So let’s take a look at how this might be done.

      Pressure can transfer power by creating mechanical work (which could be dissipated into thermal energy). Pressure times area is force. And force on an object times the distance over which that force is transferred is the energy transferred to that object.

      But if the distance is zero, the energy transfer is zero. And the surface of the earth is not moving. So the pressure of the atmosphere is not transferring any energy to the surface, and therefore cannot explain the “elevated” temperatures seen.

      The above analysis is valid for solids, liquids, and gases. You don’t like my hydroelectric example, so I’ll give you another one.

      The high pressure of gas in an automotive engine piston transfers energy to the piston head. But it does so by moving the piston head. Your analysis claims that the energy could be transferred with no motion, that is, without the engine spinning.

      • AndyG55 says:

        So a building transfers no energy to the ground, is that what you are saying, Ed ?

        Therefore, it would not matter what the ground was made of, correct.

        • KevinK says:

          Dead Blow has a very bad understanding of physics… Must be a teacher, they only use physics on blackboards….

          “So the pressure of the atmosphere is not transferring any energy to the surface, and therefore cannot explain the “elevated” temperatures seen.”

          Never heard of a glider (the planes without engines that folks ride in and pilot) Dead Blow….. How does that their plane that is heavier than air (throw one up in the air and see how long it stays there) manage to RISE if no work is being performed by the air pressure gradients ????

          Sure hope Dead Blow is not actually teaching anywhere….

          • AndyG55 says:

            Junior high, maybe !

            Probably thinks it doesn’t take any work to hold a 40lb longbow fully drawn.

            Every structure build by man is based on the FACT that work is still being done when a structure is stationary.

            The concept of “internal work” is foreign to many people, yet kinetic energy and strain energy have the same units as the “work” defined by basic physics.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Kevin:

            You say: “How does that their plane that is heavier than air (throw one up in the air and see how long it stays there) manage to RISE if no work is being performed by the air pressure gradients ????”

            Gliders only RISE if the air is rising as well (updraft), and they rise less quickly than the rising air. If the air is static they fall.

            I do teach at a major university from time to time, and I would have no hesitation in flunking you out. I am thankful that the admissions office and the freshman math/science weeding out process has never presented me with a single student as confused as you.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            You say: “Every structure build by man is based on the FACT that work is still being done when a structure is stationary.”

            Absolutely false. You do not understand the most basic concept of work, which has a very particular meaning in physics.

            If work is being done continuously, there would be an ongoing power transfer, and this would require a continuous power source. What is this continuous power source for a building???

          • AndyG55 says:

            “What is this continuous power source for a building???”

            GRAVITY,

            roflmao !

            really Ed ???

            “So a building transfers no energy to the ground, is that what you are saying, Ed ?

            Therefore, it would not matter what the ground was made of, correct.
            :

            I notice you avoided some simple questions.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Andy:

          You still maintain your fundamental confusion between energy and power.

          A building sitting statically on the ground provides no ongoing transfer of energy to the ground. When it is set onto the ground it can provide a one-time transfer of energy, but not continuous power.

          If you set a 1 kg mass on the ground and it compresses the ground 1 mm, you can get an energy transfer to the ground, possibly represented in elastic strain energy, of:

          E = 1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 0.001 m = 0.0098 J

          But this is a one-time transfer. You confuse it with a continuous power transfer. Rookie mistake.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “A building sitting statically on the ground provides no ongoing transfer of energy to the ground. ”

            ROFLMAO

            !!! seriously !!!

            Tell that to the foundations.

          • Robert Austin says:

            Ed Bo,
            I agree with you. AndyG55 needs to take an introductory physics course where he would learn that Energy = force x distance.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I see that poor Robert has also dipped out after junior high.

            Stick to the very basic levels Robert.

            It suits you.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Robert:

            Andy clearly is completely confused on the difference between force, energy, and power.

            In Andy’s world, hydroelectric plants could generate electrical energy without letting water out from behind the dam just by “gravitational power”. In his world, a chair would need a power source just to hold up your weight.

            Mediocre high school students I’ve worked with understand these points quickly. But they are completely beyond Andy’s comprehension.

          • AndyG55 says:

            What is stored energy measured in Ed?

            No wonder you are only allowed to work with junior high school students !!!

            Even then, DK effect.

            Seems you are saying a balsa wood chair is the same an oak chair.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “In Andy’s world, hydroelectric plants could generate electrical energy without letting water out from behind the dam just by “gravitational power”. “

            You have a vivid imagination. Due to your lack of further education, it all you have.

            At least you know what potential energy is.

            That is small start.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            You ask: “What is stored energy measured in Ed?”

            Joules. But I’m asking about power, measured in Watts.

            And you keep confusing both of these with force, measured in Newtons.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Many people believe the static pressure of the atmosphere, by pressure alone, can maintain surface temperatures higher than if the pressure were less”

        And they would be totally correct.

        Mean free path is reduce at higher density, therefore temperature increases.

        You need to dig deeper than BASIC schoolboy physics text books, Ed.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Andy:

          You say: “Mean free path is reduce at higher density, therefore temperature increases.”

          Sorry, but temperature is not at all related to mean free path. You can have high mean free path at high temperatures, and low mean free path at low temperatures.

          You need to dig into BASIC schoolboy physics textbooks for the first time, which you obviously never have done.

          • David A says:

            Ed, curious as to your thoughts on this cogent comment above…
            https://realclimatescience.com/2018/06/science-in-the-16th-century/#comment-104889

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You need to dig into BASIC schoolboy physics textbooks “

            poor Ed, It is obvious that BASIC high school texts is all you have ever managed to read.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            I just checked back into my Newtonian Mechanics textbook from when I studied physics at MIT (heard of it?), and it agrees with everything I have said, and disagrees with all of your claims.

            But I’ll give you a chance. You claim that a building sitting statically on the ground is constantly transferring power to the ground due to gravity.

            To make it specific, let’s say it is a 10-metric-ton (10,000kg) building in earth’s gravity (9.8m/s2) sitting on a granite base. What is the steady-state rate of ongoing power transfer from the building to the earth, in Watts? If the answer would be any different for a base of sand, please show that answer as well.

            And please show your work, as I did above.

          • Nutation_discombobulation says:

            What has this to do with Zeller and Nikolovs’ assertions other than a chest puffing and thumping exercise.
            Their conclusion rested upon the interaction of surface pressure AND solar radiation.

            The relationship however small or tortured deserves serious investigation. Insolation proxy to stratospheric, and EM effects upon clouds has been seriously downplayed.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yawn

            Learn some structural analysis, Bo-Zo

          • AndyG55 says:

            BTW, an updated version of the Nikolov, Zeller paper was republished in 2017

            Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. Doi:10.4172/2573-458X.1000112 (https://tinyurl.com/ydxlfwn7)

          • AndyG55 says:

            Eb, the whole AGW farce is built on sand, quicksand.

            You are welcome to go and build on sand if you wish.

            The force transferred from the foundations to the building must equal the weight force of the building….. or else.

            Where does that force come from, Ed. ?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Ed must be supa-doopa man.

            He can lift 100kg above his head, and so long as he holds it steady and not moving, he doesn’t have to expend any energy to keep it there.

            Amazing !

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            You say: “Yawn. Learn some structural analysis, Bo-Zo”

            I well aware of structural analysis. And from that analysis, I conclude you have no idea what you are talking about.

            You also say: “The force transferred from the foundations to the building must equal the weight force of the building….. or else. Where does that force come from, Ed. ?”

            I wasn’t asking about the force. I gave you the force in the problem statement. I was asking about the power transfer induced by that force.

            And you keep dodging the question. If it’s so obvious, it should be trivial for you to answer. But you obviously don’t have a clue.

            Like a struggling high school physics student, you have no idea what the difference between force, power, and energy is.

          • Ed Bo says:

            ND:

            This has everything to do with N&Z’s assertions. They claim that atmospheric pressure by itself can cause elevated surface temperatures for a given amount of insolation.

            I’ve given it all the attention it deserves, which is not much.

  10. Ed Bo says:

    David:

    I never see the concept of “residence time” in any serious thermodynamic analysis, and I don’t consider it a useful (or even correct) concept. I believe it is much better just to keep track of all of the energy inputs and outputs for a system, as you are taught to do at the beginning of any formal thermodynamics class.

    The direct analogy is financial accounting based on “conservation of money”. You keep track of the inputs and outputs in balancing your checkbook, but there is no concept of the “residence time”of money in your bank account.

    For any system — often called a control mass — the 1st Law equation for the energy balance of the system can be expressed as:

    DeltaEnergy = Sum(EnergyInputs) – Sum(EnergyOutputs)

    This is true for any period of time. Applying it to an infinitesimal time increment, we get:

    dEnergy/dTime = Sum(PowerInputs) – Sum(PowerOutputs)

    We know from satellite measurements that the earth/atmosphere system is absorbing about 240 W/m2 from the sun’s radiation, averaged over time and area, so 240 * Aearth (surface area of the earth) Watts. This is the only significant power input (geothermal is negligible).

    We also know from satellite measurements that the earth/atmosphere system is emitting about 240 * Aearth Watts to space by longwave infrared. This is the only significant power output.

    So the earth/atmosphere system is in at least approximate balance. (No one thinks we’re out of balance by more than 1 W/m2. Even James Hansen estimates the imbalance at 0.85 W/m2.)

    But looking at the earth itself, our measurements say that the earth’s surface is emitting about 500 * Aearth Watts on an ongoing basis. Almost 400 W/m2 of this is (gross) radiative output, the other hundred being evaporative and conductive/convective output.

    But the most power the earth’s surface can be getting from the sun is 240 * Aearth Watts (even less directly by the surface, as some is absorbed by the atmosphere). And no one thinks the earth’s surface is out of balance by more than 1 W/m2. So where do we get the 260 W/m2 to bring the surface into balance?

    Many of the people here think that the atmospheric pressure (regardless of composition) can supply this power. But even the most basic analysis shows that this cannot be the case. The force on the earth from atmospheric pressure is (Pressure * Area). The energy transfer from a force is the amount of force times the distance over which the force causes motion. And the distance is zero, because the surface is not moving inward. So any amount of force times zero distance is zero work energy transfer. And the power transfer is dWork/dTime, so that is also zero.

    And that is the only physics you need to know to reject the idea that static pressure can transfer power to the earth.

    So what can close the gap? Well, so far we have not taken into account the radiative properties of the atmosphere. We do know that several atmospheric molecules absorb LWIR, and that they can radiate it in all directions, including downward toward the surface.

    We have good measurements that this downward radiation has a power flux density averaging over 300 W/m2, with the bulk of the power coming in the emission bands of H2O and CO2. This does close the gap, and put the surface in at least approximate balance. There is no other plausible explanation.

    Keep in mind that higher thermal capacitance can reduce the rate of temperature change in response to input or output changes, but will NOT affect steady state temperature (just how long it takes to get to a new steady state).

    I emphasize that this analysis says almost nothing about the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *