Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have sparked a storm of controversy in climate science by publishing a study describing a mathematical model that accurately predicts Global Mean Annual near-surface temperature for all rocky planets in the Solar System, including the Earth. The controversy: the model is accurate irrespective of atmospheric composition, undermining the widely accepted theory of Climate Change driven by the Greenhouse Effect. A further study by Robert Ian Holmes details a comprehensive climate model based on adiabatic compression of gases by gravity, in which changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases have negligible influence on atmospheric warming.
The paper at the centre of the controversy, titled Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres, was published in Advances in Space Research under pseudonyms (actual names of the authors spelled backwards). The true identities of the authors were soon discovered and the journal withdrew the paper for reasons “not related to the scientific merit of the study”. The pair explained that the pseudonyms were used only to avoid prejudiced peer review on account of the authors’ earlier research. An expanded version of the paper was subsequently published in Environment Pollution and Climate Change under the title: New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model.
Zeller & Nikolov identified a range of parameters that could influence the energy balance of a planet (including the atmospheric density of greenhouse gasses) and conducted parametric curve-fitting for different combinations of parameters. The study specifically excluded “non-monotonic functions such as polynomials because of their ability to accurately fit almost any dataset given a sufficiently large number of regression coefficients while at the same time showing poor predictive skills beyond the calibration data range.” All parameters specific to greenhouse gases resulted in lower accuracy than the model based on atmospheric pressure alone, by a wide margin. The surprising result: partial density of greenhouse gasses had negligible influence on atmospheric temperature and the planetary thermal enhancement. The authors conclude that the Global Mean Annual near-surface temperature must be a function of solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure under a constant gravitational gradient, independent of atmospheric composition and the concentration of greenhouse gasses. If this is correct then Pleistocene glacial cycles (ice ages) must correspond to anomalies in Earth’s atmospheric pressure. Since there are no known geo-chemical proxies for historical surface air-pressure changes, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed at this time. Another source of doubt is the set of dimensionless variables used for curve-fitting as it may have failed to capture the critical variables in their critical mathematical arrangement. For example, the dimensionless parameter for the Greenhouse Effect [P^3/(ρ.S^2)] includes solar irradiance on the inverse side of the partial pressure of greenhouse gases, one essentially opposing the effect of the other, and yet both these variables could be positively related to atmospheric temperature. A more representative account of the effect of greenhouse gases could be captured with a dimensionless parameter consisting of (Mgh/Mp).(S/Sr), where Mgh is the total mass of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Mp is the mass of the planet, S is solar irradiance per unit area, Sr is some reference value of irradiance. Alternatively, the mass ratio could be replaced by a density ratio, based on average near-surface greenhouse gas density over some reference density value, as I have done below. To obtain the independent dimensionless parameter (X-axis) I divide greenhouse gas density by a reference value of 1.0 [kg/m^3] and solar irradiance by 1.0 [W/m^2]. Changing the magnitude of the reference did not affect the results.
The main difference between my analysis and that of Zeller-Nikolov is that I have used a different estimate for Mars’ average surface temperature, at 240K instead of the unusually low 190K assumed by the authors. I was also able to obtain an excellent fit using only a 2-parameter exponential curve-format instead of the 4-parameter format used by the authors which was criticised by some for overfitting. Incidentally, reproducing the regression analysis of Zeller-Nikolov Model 12 (based only on atmospheric pressure) with a different estimate for Mars’ surface temperature has resulted in a poor fit. The results are very sensitive to the estimated temperatures and this is likely to be the primary source of error.
Apart from objections about methodology and the lack of a comprehensive climate theory to ground the results, the pressure-driven thermal enhancement model faces another serious objection. If greenhouse gases pose no special resistance to the outgoing thermal radiation then, for a constant planetary albedo (thermal reflectivity), any thermal enhancement at the surface would result in higher emission of thermal radiation (black-body radiation), progressively cooling the planet as if it had no atmosphere at all Holmes (2018) argues that atmospheric thermal enhancement via adiabatic compression of gases by gravity is perfectly consistent with the idea that greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit long-wavelength thermal radiation, precisely as claimed by proponents of the Greenhouse Effect theory, but the excess greenhouse gases do not result in anomalous warming. Any addition of heat causes expansion of the atmosphere because the atmosphere is not constrained in volume. Consequently, any increase in temperature would cause upward gas expansion and thus “increase potential energy at the expense of kinetic energy – so cooling the air again.”
According to the classical Greenhouse Effect theory, Earth’s surface absorbs shortwave solar radiation and re-emits a significant portion of the absorbed energy as longwave thermal radiation. While this radiation does not affect certain gasses, like oxygen and nitrogen, which are transparent to infrared radiation, it is absorbed by greenhouse gasses (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone) and then re-emitted in all directions, some of it being emitted back towards Earth’s surface, thereby trapping heat within the lower atmosphere. This is known as radiative forcing; the degree of warming is said to depend on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Holmes’ adiabatic auto-compression model of thermal enhancement is consistent with the premise that longwave thermal radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases at the same rate as it is re-emitted when in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium; Schwarzschild’s equation of radiative transfer applies only under this condition. The critical implication of the auto-compression model is that if the amount of energy absorbed by greenhouse molecules exceeds the equilibrium value, the affected gas gains marginally higher kinetic energy and therefore marginally higher pressure, and converts any excess kinetic energy (heat) into potential energy via upward expansion; this is (allegedly) possible because the atmosphere is not constrained in volume. The Ideal Gas Law dictates that unconstrained marginal volumetric expansion of a thermodynamically isolated system causes marginal cooling, rapidly re-establishing equilibrium. If this is true then doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases at a constant pressure, density and thermal irradiation doubles the amount of kinetic energy absorbed by the gases, but the excess kinetic energy now forces the system to expand against gravity towards a new thermodynamic equilibrium. In the process, half of the absorbed kinetic energy is converted to potential energy while the atmospheric temperature and the overall rate at which thermal energy is re-emitted by the greenhouse gases do not change. This would nonetheless show up in the spectrum of longwave radiation emitted into space, as depressions in the outgoing black-body radiation profile of the planet, precisely as if the bands of radiation specific to greenhouse gases were reflected back to Earth. The fact that the intensity of some bands of radiation is reduced by doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases does not mean that the associated energy is converted to heat, as proponents of the classical Greenhouse Effect theory assume. This would happen only to a mixture of gases in a sealed container, but since the atmosphere is unconstrained in volume the ‘missing’ energy does the work of atmospheric expansion instead.
Clearly, the same bands of thermal radiation must be emphasised in the downgoing frequency profile at the surface of the planet, since only greenhouse gases can emit longwave thermal radiation, but they do so ONLY insofar as the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Any radiative forcing beyond the equilibrium (all else being equal) simply causes atmospheric expansion, according to Holmes. On this account, the only capacity for thermal forcing by greenhouse gases is related to their slightly higher molar mass than oxygen and nitrogen. This accounts for only 3.7% of the expected thermal forcing under the classical Greenhouse Effect model (Holmes 2018, 115).
I have serious doubts about this part of the argument. When heat is slowly added to greenhouse gases as thermal radiation, isobaric expansion follows and equilibrium is re-established, but not ALL of the added heat is used to do the expansion work. In order to maintain constant pressure only about 30% of the excess heat is required to do the work while the remaining 70% manifests as an increase in the temperature. So in that regard the official story prevails. There may be a lot of negative feedback in the system, as per the discussion below, but greenhouse gases evidently do contribute some thermal forcing, and not necessarily just radiative forcing because convection and conduction may also play a role. The question therefore is not if but how much forcing occurs on account of greenhouse gasses.
The phenomenon of atmospheric expansion and contraction is uncontroversial. It is known that “contracted thermosphere, where many satellites, including the International Space Station, operate… reduces atmospheric drag on satellites.”(Phys.org) In the thermosphere, the phenomenon of atmospheric contraction is caused by cooling associated with the build up of CO2: “CO2 is the primary radiative cooling agent and fundamentally affects the energy balance and temperature of this high-altitude atmospheric layer.” (Emmert et al. 2012) Currently there is a “global increase in COx (CO2 and CO, combined) concentrations of 23.5±6.3 ppm per decade at an altitude of 101 km, about 10 ppm per decade faster than predicted by an upper atmospheric model.” This suggests that a substantial portion of CO2 migrates to altitudes where, according to Emmert (2012), “thermal energy is transferred via collisions from other atmospheric constituents to CO2, which then emits the energy as heat that escapes to outer space.” Continuous migration of CO2 from the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it acts as a cooling agent suggests that until full mixing occurs the upper atmosphere will be subject to ongoing cooling. The net heat flux for the planet is thus likely negative at this point in time.
The upper atmospheric cooling in turn extracts heat from the troposphere via convection/mixing. This contributes to the negative thermal feedback associated with the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Another possible source of negative thermal feedback is the positive relationship between albedo and cloud-cover (Stephens et al. 2015). Warming causes increased evaporation which may in turn result in increased cloud-cover, causing the atmosphere to reflect a greater fraction of the incoming solar radiation back into space, therefore atmospheric cooling. “The effect is not small, a mere 1% change in albedo being a greater forcing than all the anthropogenic forcing claimed by the IPCC from 1750 to date.”
Despite almost univocal acceptance of the Greenhouse Effect as the primary driver of climate change, there is no empirical evidence that greenhouse gasses contribute to net [global] changes in the atmospheric temperature. There is only one study (Feldman et al. 2015) which has quantified correlation between changes in downward heat flux (0.2W/m²) and changes in CO2 concentration between 2000-2010, at two measurement sites. The study nonetheless ignores the already discussed stratospheric cooling associated with CO2, which in turn cools the lower troposphere via convection. Looking at radiative forcing alone is by no means indicative of an increase in the global temperature as it does not capture all the energy inputs and outputs affected by CO2.
As discussed above, the adiabatic auto-compression model described by Holmes is not negated by the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, but differs only in the effect this has on the atmosphere. In the classical Greenhouse Effect model, increased radiative forcing causes Global Mean Annual near-surface temperature to rise; in the adiabatic auto-compression model it causes incremental expansion of the atmosphere and no net warming. But the adiabatic auto-compression model fails to explain how 70% of thermal energy which is not needed to re-establish pressure-equilibrium does not immediately cause the local temperature to rise. Similarly, Zeller & Nikolov may have failed to consider the most relevant combination of terms in the right mathematical relation. A good fit to empirical data based only on pressure and arbitrary parameters does not tell us much without showing that other variables do not matter, a something that the authors did not do.
The overall conclusion is that changes in atmospheric temperature are determined primarily by solar irradiance, gravity, molecular mass and the concentration of greenhouse gases. The authors of both papers fail to convince that the official story is false, but they could still be close to the truth if there is a sufficient amount of negative feedback in the system. Taking account of CO2-induced stratospheric cooling could be crucial to accurate modelling of Earth’s energy ballance. Negative feedback to anomalous warming via the greenhouse effect has not been adequately quantified, nor is there any credible evidence that the present climate is anywhere near a point where it could become unstable (switch from negative to positive feedback). While intensification of the greenhouse effect could put some stress on the ecosystem and create new challenges for certain communities, the hypothetical threat of a sudden or irreversible ‘climate catastrophe’ in foreseeable future, short of an external planetary disturbance, is currently not supported by evidence.
Possibly the strongest evidence against anthropogenic global warming comes from the following climate sensitivity study by Humlum et al. (2013): The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. The authors demonstrate, by analysing the official data-sets, that the seasonal variations in the rate of change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have no measurable effect on the rate of change in the mean global temperature; a result which is radically inconsistent with the athropogenic warming model. Another way, if CO2 is the dominant cause of tropospheric warming then adding CO2 faster should cause temperature to rise faster, but this second-order correlation is not there. The three critical responses to this paper misrepresent the claims made therein and fail to convince why the results should not count as a refutation of the popular hypothesis that CO2 is the “control knob” of Earth’s climate.
Cultural Analysis & Philosophy 
MK
I have made my papers freely available here;
Click to access 10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf
Click to access 10.11648.j.earth.20180703.13.pdf
Robert Holmes
LikeLike
Thanks Robert.
LikeLike
Robert,
Your calculated temperatures using pressure, molar mass and density prove nothing other than that the estimates of density on planets other then earth have been calculated using an equation of state. Atmosphere density on these bodies is not an independently measured variable. It is calculated from pressure, temperature and atmospheric composition using an EOS.
LikeLike
Leigh
“..prove nothing other than..”
.
Nonsense. The Ideal Gas Law is correct.
And if you read my papers you certainly did not understand them
They show that for a GHE to occur in an atmosphere, an anomalous change must happen in the density, pressure or both.
No anomalous changes have been seen in any planetary atmospheres.
This is not really a surprise, since anomalous changes are actually forbidden by the ideal gas law and its derivatives like the molar mass version.
To provide more detail;
Different concentrations of gases at the same or at different times can provide the same temperature or different temperatures;
BUT – the same concentrations of gases cannot provide different temperatures at different times. The formula T = P M / R ρ forbids it.
This fact disproves the greenhouse gas hypothesis, as it is presented by the IPCC.
Robert Holmes
LikeLike
Postulates for the above;
• The Ideal Gas Law is correct.
• The same external conditions such as insolation and auto-compression prevail.
LikeLike
Of course the ideal gas law is correct. I didn’t say it is not correct. But if you wanted to be completely accurate you would at least allow for the fact that no gas is ideal (especially at high pressure such as exists on Venus) and include a gas deviation factor. The point I am making is that the gas densities you are putting into the equation are not independently measured. They are calculated from estimated pressure and temperature using an equation of state. When you then back-calculate temperature from the ideal gas equation using as inputs the pressure, molar mass and gas density all you are doing is generating the temperature that was used to estimate density in the first place and that’s also because the ideal gas law is itself an equation of state. All you have done is run around in a circle.
LikeLike
Leigh,
I have heard this “circular” argument before.
All you are doing is saying, without any evidence at all, that the Ideal Gas Law is incorrect.
LikeLike
I was trying to reply to Roberts comment, are you saying the ideal gas law is incorrect. My answer is yes and no. You see the ideal gas law is limited to sufficiently dilute closed systems, that being systems where the most dominate collisions are between the gas molecules and wall molecules rather than between gas molecules. If the dominate collisions are between gas molecules than the ideal gas law fails i.e as happens in high density gases such as stars
In such sufficiently dilute gases the relatively massive vibrating wall molecules then impose their kinetic energy upon the gas molecules molecules thus giving the illusion of collisions being elastic, when in fact all intermolecular collisions are inelastic. See my (kent mayhew) papers concerning the rewrite of kinetic theory in journal progress in physics:
1) http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2017-03.pdf : starts on page 166
2) http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2018-02.pdf : starts on page 75
or visit my website: http:// http://www.newthermodynamics.com and click on my papers
Not only does inelastic collisions enable us to understand why the temperature increases as the pressure increases as pointed out by Zeller-Nokolov. Note Zeller-Nikolov nor does traditional thermodynamics have a proper explanation for T-P relationships.
So the point remains that the ideal gas law, Avogadros hypothesis, Maxwell velocity distributions etc etc are all limited to sufficiently dilute gases in enclosed systems, which is to say most experimental systems. However they do not necessarily apply to truly open systems like our atmosphere or any atmosphere on any other planet.
And I repeat Robert. I appreciate what you are trying to do but your use of the ideal gas law is absolutely wrong. And for the most part you use circular arguments in your papers.
I realize that rewriting thermodynamics is not what you want to do but it is a necessary evil; especially if we are to understand global warming. Ever wonder why no model works. The reason goes beyond Roberts arguments, goes beyond Zeller-Nikolov.
The only thing that you two have right is that global warming based upon greenhouse gases is shoddy science. Again I repeat that the atmosphere as a whole is Earth’s thermal blanket. Our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen both being diatomic gases that adsorb and re-radiate thermal energy as vibrational energy. That being dominated by energy in the thermal infra-red. We see this in their heat capacities but NOT so much in their vibrational energy in the visible infra-red.
Understand that so-called greenhouse gases absorptions are often in the visible infra-red which is not necessarily true thermal energy as measured by a gases heat capacity. Take methane for example. It has very strong adsorption in the visible infra red but its heat capacity is not excessively high rather it somewhat fits theoretical predications for heat capacities. Okay there is more involved here but for now we can leave it. The same can be said of carbon dioxide, ozone or any other so-called greenhouse gas.
It has to be further emphasized that once we accept that the atmosphere as a whole acts as a thermal blanket, and that man’s activities are located upon Earth’s surface then one can envision that man’s activities may help explain global warming because global warming is about the heating near the Earth’s surface.
If you actually want to save our planet from us humans then we humans have to learn common sense and then learn how common sense applies to the sciences. Presently we put a bizzare combination of what we have been taught backed by illogical mathematics ahead of logic. This has to stop.
Thanks for your time Kent W. Mayhew
LikeLike
Sadly, the heuristic ‘common sense’ cannot be applied to a unique system, such as climate, without significant bias and error. The similarity of the physics of a blanket compared to atmospheric gases cannot be assumed, and by doing so would reflect your own bias.
LikeLike
Hi Prof. Holmes,
I really liked your theory and I find your explanations far more clear than those from Nikolov, I found your empirical demonstration as smacking evidences of the importance of the ideal gas law. I like seeing people contesting this cult of the global warming to push a left agenda.
However, I have still difficulty to make it coherent with thermal radiation. In fact, I started to do a thought experiment in the hope to solve this conflict between the standard model based on radiations and your model based on the gas law. But in the end, I still end with a paradox I cannot solve.
This is a thought experiment in which I imagine our beloved Earth without a greenhouse effect but with the same atmospheric pressure. The key point of my experiment is that the Earth is analyzed or watched by an external observer. Imagine a very sophisticated satellite in geostationary orbit for example.
My experiment uses a few simple postulates:
– Holmes and Nikolov-Zeller theories are correct and planetary temperature depends strongly on the atmospheri pressure according to the ideal gas law.
– Thermal radiation is true, it concerns all the matter and the quantity of energy emitted depends on the temperature of the matter.
– Solar radiation reaching Earth is constant.
– Earth atmosphere is removed of greenhouse gases, replaced by nitrogen to keep the pressure the same. The atmospheric pressure does not change from today. Therefore, atmosphere has NO interaction with any thermal radiation. It is absolutely transparent for thermal radiation. Like a vaccum will.
– Earth albedo is reduced by the absence of clouds and reaches an average albedo of 0.2.
– Earth average surface temperature is maintained constant by the atmosphere pressure and not from greenhouse theory.
Solar radiation reaches the Earth with 345 W/m2 in average and with an albedo of 0.2, only 80% really reach the ground: so 276 W/m2.
Thermal radiation of the surface must happens and it depends on the temperature. The only way I know to calculate this is by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. To my knowledge, the average temperature of the Earth’s surface is 15°C. By using an emissivity of 0.96, it gives through the formula a thermal radiating power of 376 W/m2.
So it produces this paradox: for an external observer, the Earth is radiating more energy than it receives from the Sun. Here a sketch:
I am thinking hard on where it could have gone wrong but I don’t see a solution. In my model, the atmosphere do not interact with the thermal radiation of the surface. The temperature of the surface is kept to 15°C by the pressure of the atmosphere. If I add interaction from the atmosphere with the thermal radiation, it means that I am using the greenhouse theory. In fact, the only thing the atmosphere can add that I didn’t took in account is even more thermal radiation from itself.
Is there another way to calculate the thermal radiation of the Earth?
I am not a physicist. So please stay simple and helpful with me.
I really want to solve that paradox from the point of view of the external observer. I want to prove that the pressure and radiation models can be coherent for an external observer. My question is basically: How an atmosphere being absolutely transparent to infrared radiation could keep the temperature of the ground above freezing conditions from its atmospheric pressure while keeping the balance in radiation of the system?
Thank you for your help,
LikeLike
I never try to break my head like this.
Simplicity is what we need in climate science.
Suggest reading my latest paper, which is only 4 pages long, and destroys the greenhouse effect in two totally separate ways;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338393205_On_the_Apparent_Relationship_Between_Total_Solar_Irradiance_and_the_Atmospheric_Temperature_at_1_Bar_on_Three_Terrestrial-type_Bodies
The Earth’s average surface temperature is easily calculated by knowing just two numbers, neither of which have anything to do with Earth’s atmospheric make-up or albedo.
These two numbers are the temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1 bar, and the relative distance (solar insolation) of Earth and Venus from the Sun.
Te=∜0.523 x Tv
= 0.8504 x 340
= 289 Kelvin
The Earth’s temperature is easily gained to within 1c of the correct number – regardless of the atmospheric make-up of either planet!!!
Best Regards
Dr Robert Ian Holmes
LikeLike
Hello,
Your experiments are very interesting, but I thing we cannot so easily suppress the water. She has so much various effects with the changes of phases, stockage of energy regulation day/night. And H2O has a molecular mass of 10 instead of 14 for N2; we should also use the new specific masse of the mixture,… Try first with pure greenhouse gas effects. Regards
LikeLike
Hi Guy MC,
Thanks for trying to solve my problem.
I am trying to see the whole balance of the system from the eyes of the external observer. I know water has a huge role for the weather notably because of the adiabatic lapse rate. But in regards of the ideal gas law, the water vapor is still a trace gas with a short residence time. Water vapor does not explain Venus temperature as well. It is the high pressure that explain it. So the question of the water vapor is a detail here.
I know the greenhouse theory relies on water vapor but their explanations are much more complex and are relying on the different layers of the atmosphere. They are relying on numerical modelling. This is not something easy to test and they are relying on that.
Prof. Holmes proved that a simpler explanation works better. Ideal gas law is the key and all the parameters must “add up”, notably with the pressure.
So replacing water vapor and CO2, two trace gases, by nitrogen wouldn’t change the temperature that much. Even if it is the case, how much it will change? A few degree? It still doesn’t solve my paradox with 100 W/m2 in excess, >20°C of difference for a surface radiating infrared.
I think it is really the missing piece to convince everyone.
LikeLike
Hi Guy MC,
The article of Holmes is referring to the wikipedia page about the density of air and it says:
Water vapour ~0.25% by mass over full atmosphere, locally 0.001%–5% by volume.
LikeLike
Moreover, Holmes is using in his article “Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity” the molar mass of dry air. So I really do not understand your argument about the water vapor.
LikeLike
Hello Alexandre. I’ll say Holmes must use the mean molar mass of air. That would change the molar mass by something like 0.01 kg/mole. Arrhenius is not so precise !
LikeLike
Arrhenius made his work in 1890s, it’s no wonder his work is so imprecise. But I don’t see the point of talking about this.
Anyway as you see, using dry molar mass or mean molar mass of the air doesn’t change the result of the temperature. Holmes is able to find the right temperature by using the ideal gas law while using dry air molar mass.
Finally, doubling CO2 has such small effect on temperature according to the ideal gas law (~0.3K in Holmes work), removing it will not have any effect.
If you think it has a bigger effect to change the trace gases of the atmosphere, please demonstrate because I don’t see how it could from the point of view of the ideal gas law.
My issue is still the same! This imbalance in energy from the point of view of the external observer is bothering.
I really want to make my thought experiment working.
Is there another way to calculate the thermal radiation emitted by the Earth surface?
Regards,
LikeLike
Alexandre, you must understand that for the gas to remain a gas it must preserve his temperature at the floor level to remain warm enough. It is the properties of a gas to assure that. So certainly it is not transparent to all frequencies for the energy balance to be correct. You are right we should understand how the energy balance is realized, but that is the 2nd level. In others worlds if the gas cannot maintain enough temperature at the flow level it cannot maintain enough pressure and his total mass/weight will decrease (by escaping) until a new equilibrium is reached. In the opposite case the equilibrium will need same more losses by convection – as it cannot increase his mass. Or he will contract for his weight (not mass) to remain. Certainly, that must be studied in more details. But forget Arrhenius model, it is too old as you have noticed! (Mais nous allons continuer en français sur Le Temps)
LikeLike
“So certainly it is not transparent to all frequencies for the energy balance to be correct”
You are suggesting that the gases must be greenhouse gases to preserve the energy balance?!?
“Or he will contract for his weight (not mass) to remain. Certainly, that must be studied in more details.”
You are suggesting here that the parameters of the ideal gas law should follow the temperature and not the reverse. If the air density change then it is in contradiction with Holmes theory!
By the way, I don’t think anyone follows the Arrhenius model anymore.
LikeLike
And I prefer to discuss here because we can share links and pictures. Like this everyone can participate. Moreover, here the comments are not moderated by an old woman validating the comments once a day.
LikeLike
My last reply ĥere: 1)Yes greenhouse gas will help, but not only. (2) In the PGlaw, the density is a parameter together with molar mass and R and p, T.
(3) happy to read this.
Nota: You made me partially change my mind. (Voir LeTemps)
LikeLike
I don’t have an answer for your paradox, at least at the moment, but I do have an observation about the problem statement.
If you mean to compare a GHE situation to non-GHE conditions, then it is essential to eliminate water vapor as well. This is because IF there is a significant GHE on the earth, THEN water vapor is the greatest single contributor to it.
For a waterless planet, Nikolov and Zeller conjecture that its albedo would likely be about 0.1 — the same as the moon.
In a later reply in these comments Robert Holmes stated “A further problem for the greenhouse gas effect, is that down-welling IR is measured to be even greater than the incident radiation which Earth receives.”
Don’t know if that characteristic will be relevant to resolving the paradox, or perhaps to explaining why it cannot be resolved.
LikeLike
I think I have a partial answer to the paradox. Even under the GHE theory, the IR energy absorbed by GHGs is released into the parcel of surrounding air by collisions. Eventually, on average, it is radiated out at some other frequency after that parcel of air is lifted to the edge of space by convection and the blackbody-like emission of the parcel of air takes over. By conservation of energy the IR emitted from the surface must eventually find it’s way to space, via the mechanism described.
Here is a description of the Physics:
http://klima-fakten.net/?page_id=1245&lang=en
In summary: under a non-GHGs atmosphere all of the surface-emitted IR makes it’s way directly to space via direct radiation through the atmosphere. Under a GHGs atmosphere all of the surface-emitted IR *also* gets to space, only by a more circuitous route. But it still gets there.
There is no paradox!
The OLR from a GHGs atmosphere is the *same* as from a non-GHGs atmosphere.
The only question is whether the atmosphere is warmed by virtue of the indirect path in the GHGs atmosphere more than it is warmed by following the direct path in the non-GHGs? It would seem like the more circuitous path must have left more heat behind in the atmosphere, but I don’t see the Physics by which that would have happened.
LikeLike
I agree with much of what Joachim Dengler writes in the paper that you reference for the physics of the atmosphere. Namely that the whole of our atmosphere acts as a thermal blanket, as I have stated in my papers that I have referenced before in this blog.
And yes, all heat (infrared radiation) eventually radiates out into outer space, it is just how long it takes.
Once you realize that homonuclear gases (namely O2 and N2) do absorb and radiate thermal energy, as determined by their heat capacities (and not their infrared spectrums), then you begin to realize just how circuitous the route is, with most all atmospheric gas molecules absorbing and then radially radiating that energy.
So in conclusion it is this circuitous route that results in our elevated temperatures as witnessed here on Erath’s surface. Moreover, it is the heat generated by man’s activities that explains the witnessed temperature change ( since our 19th industrialization) in global warming.
And yes the slow down due to Covid 19 will allow the planet to cool somewhat. But once industry starts up again, well we will be back to where we were
Sincerely Kent W Mayhew
LikeLike
“The OLR from a GHGs atmosphere is the *same* as from a non-GHGs atmosphere.”.
.
This being the case, there cannot possibly be a warmer atmosphere in the GHG atmosphere.
Case Closed!
Dr Robert Ian Holmes.
LikeLike
Of course the energy that earth receives from the sun escapes into space sooner or later. This is trivially true. If it were not the case, earth would heat up to infinity.
The temperature at equilibrium is determined by the amount of incoming radiation according. From the Stefan-Boltzmann law we can calculate the temperature which a blackbody must have to radiate at this particular power.
By adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, what happens is that the radiance received by earth’s surface increases due to back-radiation from the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Think of it this way:
If you lie on your bed, the heat emitted from the surface of your body escapes to the surrounding environment. If you cover yourself with a blanket, the heat from your body still escapes into the environment, it just takes a more circuitous route because it has to travel through the insulating blanket.
And yet you will be warmer with a blanket.
Is the conservation of energy violated by the blanket? Of course not! The simple fact is that by covering yourself with an insulating layer, you make it more difficult for your body to shed heat into the environment. As a result the temperature at the surface of your body increases to dissipate energy at a higher rate into the environment to overcome the resistance of the insulating layer.
The same is true for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By adding gases which absorb electromagnetic radiation, you make it more difficult for the surface of the earth to lose heat into space. As a result, the temperature increases to compensate for the increased resistance.
LikeLike
The analogy used is a false one Jack “Think of a blanket” That is getting as tired as on NASA’s website about a greenhouse. A more correct analogy would be adding to the density of the atmosphere and keeping all the other variables constant, a temperature rise is calculated. The is defined in Holmes paper with a value for doubling of Co2. His paper is not a circular argument in any way since the linear temperature curve was measured by 2 separate Venus landers. The calculations work for several terrestrial bodies with atmospheres with or without high or low GHG’s.
Have you seen the falsified experiment by Bill Nye? with an IR lamp and 2 cookie jars? The jar loaded with CO2 was 2F cooler than the one with normal air concentration. No such heat trapping effect was occurring at levels over 4000PPM. Also the many comment here overlook AGW failing a logic test since it is already clear that CO2 increase is almost all due to temperature increase. Co2 was many times greater than today with no evidence of a warming effect then either. Apparently although there is no law of physics to explain how adding 1 part of something can heat 2500 other parts surrounding it, Using the SC constant for a gas is also cheating by contriving layers. Climate scientists never explain where the saturation effect left the room or why the testing of over 2000 mini suns (nukes) is never in any of their equations about….heat.
The is one form of manmade global warming and that comes from inventing data from non existent temperature stations in a similar way to ridiculous alarmist claims to keep the hype going. Please publish a paper that shows how the Ideal gas law is wrong in this application and while you are at it E=MC2 being completely wrong too. The ‘blanket’ does not exist since it is thin layer off heavy mass with a great deal of air trapping in between the fibres. a small % of a small % trace gas is no “blanket” Your argument lacks common sense let alone science. Stefan Boltzmann was the way to contrive AGW since for a start is based on how solids behave so a fraud right there. SB also claims all matter emits 459Watts per Square M at room temp of 27°C. So 5x 100watt light bulbs of energy are given off? Nonsense. It is inappropriately applied to the atmosphere where there is no surface and where a transparent gas emits radiation much more readily than a surface does. Also Climatologists claim IR to be the only way heat escapes yet as observed the wavelength of the IR spectrum are those that GHG have NO effect.
If GHG’s have such a profound effect as suggested then this would be seen in the CO2 Proxy vs temperature proxy! No such effect is there with 325PPM average <1939 (lows of 152 highs of 790) 500AD at about 400PPM or 425PPM 13000 years ago. Foegt the 4000 6000PPM before mankind since that old "Irrelevant" argument is often used to justify fraud. AGW is the most unscientific fraud of modern man. Holmes paper shows is not because of CO2 and measurements throw a circular claim out the open window of the greenhouse with no glass.
Warm Regards
LikeLike
Paul, you’re wrong on pretty much every account.
“A more correct analogy would be adding to the density of the atmosphere and keeping all the other variables constant, a temperature rise is calculated.”
You cannot just arbitrarily keep all other variables constant.
The fact that two gases with different compositions have nearly the same temperature at the same volume and pressure is trivially true and does in no way shape or form disprove the greenhouse effect.
The ideal gas law is only valid for a steady state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If you change the amount of energy that is absorbed by changing the gas composition you create a disequilibrium by offsetting the energy balance.
“AGW failing a logic test since it is already clear that CO2 increase is almost all due to temperature increase.”
Your logic test is too simple to make sense. CO2 is not the only variable that influences temperature. Without solar irradiance, albedo etc you cannot make useful comparisons.
One thing is certain though: all other things equal, more CO2 means higher temperature. This follows from the basic laws of physics.
“Apparently although there is no law of physics to explain how adding 1 part of something can heat 2500 other parts surrounding it”
O2 and N2 do not absorb infrared and therefore cannot absorb radiant heat from the surface of the earth. CO2, H2O, CH4 and the other greenhouse gases DO absorb infrared. Part of the energy they absorb is transferred to surrounding air molecules which heats up the atmosphere.
“Climate scientists never explain where the saturation effect left the room”
There is no saturation in the upper atmosphere where energy is radiated into space.
“why the testing of over 2000 mini suns (nukes) is never in any of their equations about….heat.”
The amount of energy of a nuclear bomb is vanishingly small compared to the amount of energy contained in the entire atmosphere. A few thousand nuclear bombs make no measurable difference.
“The ‘blanket’ does not exist since it is thin layer off heavy mass with a great deal of air trapping in between the fibres. a small % of a small % trace gas is no “blanket” Your argument lacks common sense let alone science.
Conservation of energy doesn’t care whether your energy transfer is convection or conduction or radiation. If a blanket doesn’t violate the conservation of energy then neither does the greenhouse effect. The analogy stands.
“Stefan Boltzmann was the way to contrive AGW since for a start is based on how solids behave so a fraud right there. SB also claims all matter emits 459Watts per Square M at room temp of 27°C. So 5x 100watt light bulbs of energy are given off? Nonsense.”
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is well-established, fundamental physics, proven by experiments. You can’t just deny the laws of physics.
“Also Climatologists claim IR to be the only way heat escapes yet as observed the wavelength of the IR spectrum are those that GHG have NO effect.”
Wrong. If you look at the blackbody spectrum of earth from space you can clearly see the parts of the spectrum where greenhouse gases absorbed IR radiation.
LikeLike
Hi Executor55,
You hit upon an un biased critical thinking point and the weak spot (and strong point) for your analysis seems to have been missed by many.
The Stefan Boltzmann constants says how much radiation is given off by a square meter of any substance at a particular temperature. It is inappropriately applied to the atmosphere where there is no surface and where a transparent gas emits radiation much more readily than a surface does.
Kind Regards
LikeLike
There is no paradox. Dr. Holmes is wrong. Your analysis is exactly correct and it completely disproves Dr. Holmes theory.
The fact that he does not even try to explain it and simply evades by saying “I never try to break my head like this. Simplicity is what we need in climate science.” should tell you more than enough.
He cannot solve your paradox. No one can. Because there is no paradox. Dr. Holmes is simply wrong.
There are actually several problems with his argument. I’m not going to go into too much detail regarding the physics but I’d just like to highlight some general points:
1. The ideal gas law is strictly speaking only an approximation. There is a reason why it’s called the *ideal gas* law. It’s a description of a simplified or “idealized” gas.
The ideal gas law does not consider any interaction between the gas molecules beyond perfectly elastic collisions. Any *real* gas will deviate more or less strongly from the expected behaviour of an ideal gas. The approximation is quite good for example dilute noble gases. For more denser gases at higher pressures the real behaviour deviates more and more strongly from the expected behaviour of an idealized gas.
2. The ideal gas law is only valid *in thermodynamic equilibrium*. When you change the composition of the gas such that the gas absorbs more (or less) heat (for example from the sun) you deviate from equilibrium. The system will then adopt a new equilibrium state which is again described (approximately) by the gas law.
All that the ideal gas law says is that for a certain number of gas molecules at a certain temperature, the product of volume and pressure of the gas is constant.
However, the earth is an open system. The volume and the pressure of the atmosphere are not constrained.
If the atmosphere absorbs more solar radiation because we introduce gases that can absorb infrared radiation, the atmosphere heats up. As a result, volume and pressure of the atmosphere change. Volume and pressure are NOT constrained.
To make it very painfully obvious, consider the following thought experiment:
We could build a million nuclear reactors and vent their heat directly into the atmosphere. The planet would undoubtedly get warmer. Temperature, volume and pressure of the atmosphere would all change without changing the composition. And yet at no point along the way is the ideal gas law violated.
The ideal gas law contains no information about how the system has been heated to its temperature. Whether its solar radiation, internal heat from the planet’s core, intense radioactive decay. It doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
Rational Climate. Since the IR longwave recording of heat leaving the atmosphere are not in GHG wave territory, relevance of GHG is only for local events. There is no doubt cloud cover coming in before the heat escapes after a sunny day keeps the heat in more at night locally than with no clouds yet the whole AGW point seems to now be on a path of finding man to blame as Kent suggests, just not via Co2 but the air bouncing off cars for example and the thrust / heat produces by Jet engines and cars and etc etc. A reframe to relabel a lie with another one?
So I am thinking what caused heating in the past for it to “remain” for a while without industry and what would be different now with industry since GHG’s in particular CO2 are irrelevant. If science looks at a conclusion (Evil man and his -Ve effects on the climate) and finds a way to link that conclusion then it’s doing things in the wrong order. We have been here before. It suggests some serious financial interests at play here with “Science stuff” searching for the wrong reasons (once again) to fit a predetermined conclusion.
The climate reaches an equilibrium in the end but after additional energy is taken away. That additional energy though can be seen stored up and released. What I mean by this is since Holmes paper clearly shows a law with baked in points changing one variable shows CO2 as a GHG has hardly any effect. Climate cycles happened and the one we are leaving now is surely the point of delay. Co2 is not driving temperature and if man is, it’s probably though data manipulation!
LikeLike
That 376 W/m2 number is not observed, but modeled. They claim CO2 is “blocking” the satellite from seeing the actual total output in the moment of observation, so they use a radiative greenhouse model to adjust the observed number to the “correct” one.
It’s nonsense. Almost all climate science does tricks like this.
You’re trying to conceptualize reality using what amounts to fraudulent data.
LikeLike
As previously stated: I agree with your work that so-called greenhouse gases are not responsible for global warming: see my paper google “EJERS” click “archives” click “July 2019” see paper “New thermodynamics: Global warming…”
Also I agree with Nikolov-zeller that one must understand pressure-temperature (P-T) relations, which can be best explained by inelastic intermolecular collisions (note traditional thermo treats such collision as being elastic hence cannot explain P-T relations) see my paper google “EJERS” click “archives” click “Jan 2020” see paper “Illusions of elastic collisions….” Also see online journal Progress in physics in April 2018 and July 2017, I rewrite kinetic theory based upon elastic collisions
An inelastic collision just implies that momentum is conserved and that a thermal photon (heat) is given off with every intermolecular collision thus adhering to conservation of energy, and higher pressure would then mean more heat is associated with intermolecular collisions, hence higher P means higher T
Now in your paper “On the apparent relationship between TSI…” bring up the interesting point that the Total Solar Irradiance also explains temperature. And herein you are correct, in that earth’s temperature is due to a combination of P-T relation and Sun’s isolation (if u prefer TSI). Of course, the influence of the Sun’s TSI should be most pronounced when the sun is shining in the day, and the P-T relation should start to dominate when the sun is not shining i.e. night
You also mention albedo, which is correct. The sun’s rays are centered around visible light as peak in sun’s blackbody radiation. Here on Earth this then is either:
a) reflected (i.e. ice/snow great reflector) back out towards space as blackbody radiation centered around visible light, or as a particular color i.e. blue of a car, red of a bike, yellow of a dandylion .
b) Or, adsorbed by Earth, matter and/or surrounding atmosphere, turned into intermolecular vibrations within that condensed matter and/or polyatomic gases. And this is then re-radiated as longer wavelength blackbody radiation who’s peak is centered around the infra-red i.e. what we would call thermal energy.
So although I like this paper much more than your other papers, I am not convinced that you have fully thought this through. I.e. you should not jump to the conclusion that based upon the quaternary root you can then go and claim that this proves something. In order for me to believe it as real proof then the albedo of Venus, Earth, and Titan would have to be shown to be identical. And that the effects of the atmosphere are the same.
Please remember that the Sun’s isolation (TSI) is blackbody radiation whose peak is centered around visible light. And that this is not what one considers as heat. The majority of it only becomes heat once adsorbed and re-radiated as a lower temperature blackbody radiation whose peak is centered around the infra-red, that being what we call heat or thermal energy
It may also be of interest to you that the part of the Sun’s TSI that can be called heat (infra red) can be approximated by a linearly decreasing line (on a graph) as a function of increasing wavelength
I also want to emphasize that man’s contribution to global warming is real, it is just small in comparison to either the P-T relation or the suns isolation (TSI). So yes your analysis does carry weight but at the same time it loses this point.
Specifically man’s activities are responsible for a few degrees (maybe even several) degree but here on earth we are talking about a system that is naturally at or near 300 K. Can you simply say that the this means that we are responsible for roughly 3/300 = 1% of Earth temperature, well no, because that makes to many assumption like thermal energy density is proportional to temperature for all temperature regimes but it is not. As temperatures approach absolute zero (say below 100K) any direct linear relation between temperature and energy density is lost, Ditto for high temperatures like a blast furnace it is now temperature to the fourth power. And it would be in these temperature regimes that your quaternary root would be best applied
In conclusion: Does your quaternary root not apply to the Sun’s blackbody radiation, well it does because the sun is like a very hot blast furnace. So I appreciate what you write, but I emphasize that drawing conclusion based upon it is a rough analysis, but arguably a start in the right direction.
Sincerely Kent W. Mayhew
LikeLike
Reply to Kent;
“I.e. you should not jump to the conclusion that based upon the quaternary root you can then go and claim that this proves something.”
.
Hi Kent, I want to address this point you made.
First please note some real numbers;
The Earth’s average surface temperature is easily calculated by knowing just two numbers, neither of which have anything to do with Earth’s atmospheric make-up or albedo.
These two numbers are the temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1 bar, and the relative distance (solar insolation) of Earth and Venus from the Sun.
Te=∜0.523 x Tv
= 0.8504 x 340
= 289 Kelvin
The Earth’s temperature is easily gained to within 1c of the correct number – regardless of the atmospheric make-up of either planet!!!
I would maintain that clearly, if the atmospheric temperatures of Venus and Earth (at the same pressure) are directly related through TSI – as the numbers say they are – then the vast relative differences in “Greenhouse Gas” content in atmospheres can’t have any effect on relative temperatures.
According to the so-called “Greenhouse Theory” the atmospheres of Venus with 96.5% vs Earth’s mere 2.5% of “Greenhouse Gases” MUST have vastly different temperatures determined by these differences; and yet when Insolation is allowed for, they actually have IDENTICAL temperatures!
As shown in my paper, neither variations in ‘Greenhouse Gases” nor “Albedo” appear to have any effect at all on the determination of atmospheric temperatures. Titan confirms this.
Dr Robert Ian Holmes
LikeLike
Dear Robert
I completely agree that greenhouse gases have squat to do with global warming. I repeat its all based upon a series of horribly misunderstanding concerning infra-red spectrometry.This is briefly in my July 2019 in EJERS titled “New thermodynamics:Global Waring and Man’s activities” Robert if you care to read what I write concerning this stuff, I have it written in book form one chapter on global warming and one chapter on blackbody. I will gladly email you those chapters just email me kent.mayhew@gmail.com. Now I certainly preferred your latest paper over your earlier one and that one by Zeller & Nikov. However as far as I am concerned some of what you say is muddled. As for Titan being colder than you expected please realize that Titan is dominated by Ice so much of the Sun’s isolation (TSI) would be reflected back out into space, also the fact that Titan is colder would mean that any blackbody radiation that it actually emits will be of longer wavelength than that of here on Earth.
Note that the Sun’s isolation is centered around visible (or if u prefer its peak is in the visible i.e. blackbody of 5800 K source). and when the Sun’s isolation hits Earth’s surface it is either reflected as visible light back out towards space or is adsorbed by the Earth becoming intermolecular vibrational energy and it is then re-radiated back outwards towards space as blackbody radiation radiation whose peak is now in the infra-red (or if u prefer blackbody radiation of 300K source). and it is this infra-red radiation that is adsorbed and re-radiated by the whole atmosphere and not just the so-called greenhouse gases
Sincerely Kent
Please note my book is a rewrite of thermodynamics of which global warming and blackbody radiation are only a small part, but as you can imagine when one rewrites thermodynamics then it also changes atmosphere physics. BTW I just had another paper accepted this morning by Ejers – it is aimed at engineers it shows why entropy is illogical and the second law is a false postulate, it should be open sourced by peer reviewed on-line journal EJERS in a few days i.e. in their Feb 2020 edition
LikeLike
Hi Kent,
I will leave changing thermodynamic theory to yourself, I have enough on my plate to expose the lack of evidence for any greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases.
I have been pondering why Titan’s atmosphere is slightly colder than one should expect from the numbers, since the numbers are so close on Earth and Venus despite their very different albedo, I do not think this is an albedo issue.
This could be related to the body’s size in that smaller Titan is likely to be cold in the interior, whereas Earth and Venus are hot in their interior.
This could be the subject of a new paper!
Dr Robert Ian Holmes
LikeLike
Hi Robert You are probably right about the albedo of titan not explaining its ;ow temperature. I am now pondering since Titan is just under 100 K, then the blackbody radiation that Titan emits would be centered in the far infra-red approaching the microwave. this would be very different than here on Earth where our 300 K radiated blackbody radiation is centered closer to the near infra red and extends throughout the thermal infra-red. Remember planets adsorb some of the sun’s isolation (TSI) (high temp blackbody) and this adsorbed energy is transformed into lower temperature blackbody radiation via molecular vibrations, In plain english the Sun’s radiation is predominately in the visible and Earth transforms it into infra red.
Conversely The sun’s insolation that is adsorbed by Titan will be transformed into predominately microwave energy, and microwave is not necessarily thermal energy in the same way as infra-red is
In my new thermodynamics I also discuss how a system’s thermal energy density is no longer proportional temperature as temperatures approach absolute zero. This effect becomes particularly noticeable below say 150 K and is actually starts to be slightly noticeable starting at near 250 K
food for thought
Kent W. Mayhew
LikeLike
Kent, Some cracks appear in your own arguments against Holmes’s paper. Ice causes cold now? (reference to Titan)
Sorry I am a direct communicator and ex military. You write this:
“I will gladly email you those chapters just email me kent.mayhew@gmail.com. Now I certainly preferred your latest paper over your earlier one and that one by Zeller & Nikov. However as far as I am concerned some of what you say is muddled. As for Titan being colder than you expected please realize that Titan is dominated by Ice so much of the Sun’s isolation (TSI) would be reflected back out into space, also the fact that Titan is colder would mean that any blackbody radiation that it actually emits will be of longer wavelength than that of here on Earth.”
Some points I want to make.
Science is not a ‘preferential’ subject regardless of how many books you have written.
You lose credibility fast in “Circular arguments” about Holmes’s work when doing it yourself by claiming titan is cold because of ICE. Your words:
“However as far as I am concerned some of what you say is muddled. As for Titan being colder than you expected please realize that Titan is dominated by Ice so much of the Sun’s isolation (TSI) would be reflected back out into space, also the fact that Titan is colder would mean that any blackbody radiation that it actually emits will be of longer wavelength than that of here on Earth”
So how did Titan get cold while we discuss circular arguments? Muddled
So what you need to do with Holmes and a few other experts (including the team at NIPCC that formed to counter BS) is to get off your high horses and work with Holmes and come up with what happens when (including delays from stored ocean heat) we set off 2000 nukes (for example) and talk about THAT contribution in an equation about HEAT!!!
Such educated, trained people abandoning science such as yourself is a low point Kent when you apply that to “Belief” or what you like/don’t like.Sort it out man! in the name of science and discuss “”un popular”” opinions with fellow scientists around a table instead of the muppet show an engineer like myself can bare witness to on the political world stage of idiots!
You are supposed to be the smart guys and impartial correct? What I witness from every orifice of the online and media world is the opposite of what science is.
I also wait for your reply on the reasons for warming as written by Holmes and your comments there please sir in your critical analysis of his paper.
A focus on popularity by reframing something without credit will just move the problem that really is man made.
Not all people are sheep, so please do not expect all people will behave as such! I don’t care how smart one paints themselves to be in a self inflated way, I care about reality and facts.
May I remind you of the wright brothers in front of any ignorance/pre judgement you may have of myself because I don’t have a PHD.
may I also remind you that Intelligence came before the wheel, fire, writing, written information (knowledge) religion and ALL things that enable man kind to be on the “Here” list and not the “Extinct” list.
Final note, I respect your achievements in academia! do not get me wrong here!! I really do but perhaps you need a good shouting at when you loose track of the goals of humanity in favour of personal endeavours. Science has seen enough of that!
Warm Regards
LikeLike
Mister Holmes,
Admirer of your work and discoveries, I see myself obliged to point out to you
that your demonstration in 2.9 of “Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and
the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the ideal Gas Law to the Null
Hypothesis of Climate Change” is not real.
If the “IPCC effect” based on infrared radiation in the atmosphere and the lines
of its gases existed, then the doubling of the level of CO2 in the air by the
combustion of 200 billion tons of carbon with oxygen from air would not cause
any discernible change in air pressure or molecular weight. On the other hand,
if it were true that the temperature would have to increase by the “IPCC
effect”, by 1% or 3K approximately, it is of course the density of the air which
would decrease by this 1% CQFD.
I insist: the pressure is proportional to the mass of the air which has barely
changed and so are the composition of the air and its molecular mass.
In conclusion, at this point, I must write that you have not demonstrated
anything, neither for nor against the “IPCC effect”.
To apply your discovery, you need a planet where sufficient change has taken
place. This planet is the earth! During the last 30 years, the CO2 level may not
have doubled as in your theoretical model, but it has increased by around 30%.
From 1990 to 2000, the correlation between increase in CO2 and temperature is
impressive. Unfortunately for the IPCC, from 2000 to 2020, the temperature
remained almost stable while CO2 continued to grow steadily.
If the air density decreased between 1990 and 2000 with increasing temperature
and stopped decreasing between 2000 and 2020, the demonstration of the absence
of a role of the level of CO2 in the air will be established.
Do you find it interesting to look in this direction? Here, it would be the
absence of variation in the parameters of the Boyle Mariotte equation between
2000 and 2020 which would eliminate the existence of the “IPCC effect”.
I would be especially happy to see you study this and definitively demonstrate
the IPCC error!
LikeLike
Re Mars GMAT:
The reason your calculated temperature for Mars is low is not because the MArs atmsopheric pressure is low but because it is highly variable (seasonal variation is from 0.4 to 0.9=87 kPa) and the parameters (pressure, density & molar mass) you have inserted into the ideal gas equation are not internally consistent
LikeLike
previous comment should read 0.4 to 0.87 kPa
LikeLike
See my last paper; the temperature for Mars is explained in the manner you described.
.
“no gas is ideal (especially at high pressure such as exists on Venus..”
.
This is more nonsense. The Ideal gas law even works at the pressures existing in the center of the Sun, never mind Venus.
.
“The point I am making is that the gas densities you are putting into the equation are not independently measured. ..”
.
I know that is the point you are making. And this fact, if true, is irrelevant to my actual argument.
.
“All you have done is run around in a circle…”
.
Nonsense.
You cannot see the wood for the trees.
You have totally misunderstood what my papers are actually about. They are about the conflict between the physical reality of the ideal gas law and its derivatives, and the demands that the IPCC’s so-called greenhouse effect must place on it, if such as effect exists.
They are not about proving the ideal gas law, we already know that it is correct.
Read my last post, and my last paper if you are still confused.
LikeLike
You have used for your calculation an average pressure of 0.6 kPa, density of 0.02kg/m3 and molar mass of 43.34, which gives you the temperature estimate of 156K.
However, the molar mass should be 43.48. Since the Mars atmosphere is 95.3% CO2 its density will be essentially that of CO2 at the same conditions. At 0.6kPa and 210K the density of CO2 is 0.015 kg/m3 (not 0.02)
Thus your temperature estimate for Mars should be:
T=0.6 x 43.48/8.314/0.015 = 209K
LikeLike
“This is more nonsense. The Ideal gas law even works at the pressures existing in the center of the Sun, never mind Venus.”
I never said the Ideal gas law doesn’t work. But for non-ideal gases it is more accurate when the gas deviation factor is included so that the equation becomes PV=ZnRT
LikeLike
“Nonsense.
You cannot see the wood for the trees”
These words better describe yourself and your papers.
How do you think the densities have been obtained that you are using to back-calculate temperature? They are not measureed. They are themselves derived from temperature which means your calculations are circuitous and your conclusions total nonsense.
LikeLike
Leigh
“How do you think the densities have been obtained that you are using to back-calculate temperature? They are not measureed. They are themselves derived from temperature which means your calculations are circuitous and your conclusions total nonsense.”
.
This line of argument has been made before, starting over a year ago.
I do not see your point. Are you saying that the ideal gas law is wrong? Are you saying the densities, pressures and molar masses on the planet’s are NOT those stated? Are you saying that the molar mass version of the ideal gas law is incorrect?
You have failed to appreciate that your argument that the calculations are circuitous is separate from the conclusions I make, since the conclusions are NOT based on the calculations! They are based ONLY on whether the ideal gas law and its derivative the molar mass version is correct or not.
This is the point; the ideal gas law forbids ‘special’ classes of gases such as greenhouse gases.
And there is also a prediction (a test of the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ if you like);
Anomalous changes are not observed in either density or pressure over time due to the addition of greenhouse gases.
Why? – This is postulated to be true because because given the same planetary conditions of insolation and auto-compression;
The same concentrations of gases cannot provide different temperatures at different times. The formula T = P M / R ρ forbids it.
Best Regards
Robert Holmes PhD
LikeLike
“They are not about proving the ideal gas law, we already know that it is correct.
Read my last post, and my last paper if you are still confused.”
I am not questioning the correctness of the ideal gas law I am questioning your application of it.
The only person confused here is yourself. You are confused by circuitous reasoning.
LikeLike
“See my last paper; the temperature for Mars is explained in the manner you described”
Where exactly in your paper do you explain that the atmospheric density for Mars should be 0.015 kg/m3 rather than 0.02 kg/m3?
Where exactly in your paper do you explain that the mean molar mass for the Martian atmosphere should be 43.48 rather than 43.34?
LikeLike
Robert,
Thank you for the discussion but your inability to understand makes it pointless to continue.
Best regrads
Leigh
LikeLike
Leigh, you have been very dismissive…..and tossing out a label like “circuitous” …..not at all helpful. Why not give the equation you claim was used to get the value for Atmospheric density….and the values for T and P used ( and where these were obtained)……and show that this gives the result you imply eg used 288K to find Earth’s atmospheric density and got 288K as the predicted average T for the Earth. …..should be easy for somebody as aware of this type of difficulty as you to do……and helpful for the rest of us! I don’t think this problem applies to Earth’s T calculation and this should force the proponents of the CO2 greenhouse model to sharpen up their explanations and back up their statements with good, repeatable data,
LikeLike
Robert you walk dangerous logic. I agree with your thought that all gases behave similarly, specifically our atmospheres gases are primarily diatomic (O2, N2). And based upon their heat capacities we know that they adsorb and re-radiate thermal energy (probably mainly in thermal infrared) – accordingly they too act as part of the thermal blanket known as our atmosphere. What are called greenhouse gases tend to also adsorb in near infra red. But we cannot limited thermal energy to near infrared (730 nm to 3000 nm) especially when the majority of thermal energy is in the thermal infrared (3,000 to 100,000 nm). The point becomes anyone who limits Earth’s thermal blanket to so-called greenhouse gases is misguided. Note mans activities are on Earth’s surface where global warming occurs.
What is the main problem with your paper. I call it circular logic. You use versions of the ideal gas law as proof. Sadly you fail to understand that things like density of the air are derived using the ideal gas. So you cannot use values obtained from the gas law (wiki density of air) and then put them into the same ideal gas law as proof for anything. I repeat that this is circular logic. No wonder your temperatures match theoretical values i.e. theoretical values are wrongly based the same ideal gas law!
Btw I have also shown that the ideal gas is limited to dilute gases in closed system in my papers on kinetic theory (google on-line journal “Progress in Physics” “Kinetic theory: Flatlining of Polyatomic gases” “A new perspective for kinetic theory and heat capacity”
All the best
LikeLike
You write: “Despite almost univocal acceptance of the Greenhouse Effect as the primary driver of climate change, there is no empirical evidence that greenhouse gasses contribute to net changes in the atmospheric temperature. There is only one study (Feldman et al. 2015) which has quantified correlation between changes in downward heat flux (0.2W/m²) and changes in CO2 concentration between 2000-2010, at two measurement sites.
The local effect was small and by no means indicative of an increase in the global temperature.”
You claiming the measurements can ‘by no means indicate an increase in global temperature’ – doesn’t make sense.
Makes me think you are saying there was something unique about those two sampled atmospheric columns.
Are you really claiming their results can’t be extrapolated to the atmosphere over all? Can you explain why?
LikeLike
Local measurements over a short period of time do not allow for any long term negative (or positive) feedback to be accounted for. It is a well documented fact that greenhouse gases reflect some thermal radiation back to the surface, but we do not have a clear picture of how this contributes to the global energy balance. Only recently we have discovered that CO2 tends to migrate into Strato- and Thermo-spheres at higher rates than non-greenhouse atmospheric gases, and that the thermal effect is reversed there, causing cooling. Over time, via convection, this is likely to cause some cooling in the troposphere.
I am inclined to believe, all things considered, that CO2 indeed does cause some global warming, although evidence from geological proxies suggests that it is almost certainly not the driver of climate but only a
minorsecondary contributing factor.If I recall correctly, without re-reading the following paper, a doubling of CO2 in comparison to today was allegedly balanced by only 4% difference in net solar irradiance (although the author inexplicably claimed this was evidence to the contrary): droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
I am not sure what is the evidential value of the US Airforce report you have linked. Would you be able to summarise the findings and show how they prove your claim (what is your claim?)?
EDIT: I just came across this excellent evidence-studded article which concisely covers the related doubts: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/13/global-warming-morphs-into-the-solar-minimum/
LikeLike
I know that your question was not directed towards but I feel I can add to this. I was taught about greenhouse gases in university (mid 1980’s) and firmly believed in its merits until a few years ago. I am currently challenging the way thermodynamics is structured (I am challenging both entropy and the second law in both peer review papers and my website http://www.newthermodynamics.com).
Concerning greenhouse gases I am not longer comfortable with the claim that they are directly responsible for warming our planet. But unlike what is discussed here, I come at it from another perspective. One must understand that the claim that greenhouse are exceptional at adsorbing and reradiating (radially) that heat are based upon their known adsorption in the visible infra-red.
One thinking logically might think that since they adsorb so much in the visible infrared then you would also see a spike in their heat capacity but we do not. Instead they have heat capacities that are expected by kinetic theory [note I have rewritten kinetic theory in online peer reviewed journal progress in physics http://fs.unm.edu/PiP-2017-03.pdf . (page 166) and http://fs.unm.edu/PiP-2017-03.pdf (page 75)]
The point becomes that greenhouse absorb no more thermal energy than other polyatomic gases in part because most of the actual heat in infra-red is in the thermal infrared (longer wavelengths than visible infrared)
Most importantly our atmosphere is dominated by diatomic gases (O2 & N2) and these also adsorb and reradiate thermal energy (heat). And this is easily confirmed by their heat capacities. In other words the atmosphere as a whole acts as thermal blanket, rather than just the so-called greenhouse gases
Since global warming concerns heating close to Earth’s surface and the whole atmosphere behaving as a thermal blanket then we must reconsider how man’s activities heats our planet because our activities are also close to Earth’s surface
There is more. In my papers on kinetic theory I show that intermolecular collisions are inelastic rather than elastic. hence we can now understand why temperature increases with increasing pressure, specifically heat is now given off in intermolecular collisions so greater pressure more collisions and/or greater forces involved.
There is yet more. In rewriting thermodynamics I realized that work done onto the surrounding atmosphere (PdV) by expanding systems is work/heat into the atmosphere.
Combining the above with our other new understandings means that we will have to rethink how we structure global warming theory. So unlike Zeller-Nikolov I realize that humans are most like responsible for global warming
For yet more discussion see my website where I discuss global warming
http://www.newthermodynamics.com/thermowebsite3_038.htm
Thank you for your valuable time Kent
LikeLike
Another question, are you saying all the intensive atmospheric studies conducted by the US Air Force post WWII and into the 1970s – didn’t produce empirical evidence? (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164501.pdf)
LikeLike
Hi Peter
You are right in saying that Robert’s analysis is circular logic. I believe that the atmospheres on most other planets have not been directly measured, rather what is believed to be has been inferred and Robert uses the same inferred data to calculate his inferred conclusions
Comment concerning ideal gas law. The ideal gas law (along with, accepted/taught kinetic theory, Avogadros hypothesis, Maxwell’s distributions etc etc) are all wrongly based upon elastic collisions. The reality is that intermolecular collisions are predominately inelastic, it is just that in sufficiently dilute experimental systems (the kind that the ideal gas law based), the system’s walls imposes their kinematics ie kinetic energies, onto the gas molecules which they surround. This wrongly gives the appearance of elastic collisions. Note by sufficiently dilute I mean that the dominate interaction are collisions between the wall molecules and gas molecules (see my papers on kinetic theory as previously given in earlier reply)
High density gases do not obey the ideal gas law even in experimental systems. The reason is that the dominate collisions are now between gas molecules themselves rather than between walls and gas molecules (case of dilute). So in high density gases there is no appearance of elastic collisions and the reality of inelastic collisions becomes apparent. This is why one must use the polytropic equation rather than the ideal gas law when experimentally dealing with high density gaseous systems (experimental or otherwise)
So what is our reality here on Earth’s surface. Well atm gas molecules (predomiately N2 and O2) do bounce off of rigid bodies e.g earth’s surface, cars, houses, trees etc. And the atmosphere’s polyatomic gases do adsorb and re-radiate surrounding thermal energy as part of their vibrational energies. And the atmosphere’s gases do collide with each other exchanging energy/momentum etc in inelastic collisions. And part of the energy exchange will include the molecules vibrational energies. And in inelastic collisions thermal energy is given off thus explaining why the P-T relation even exists. This is something not previously explained.
Again I must repeat the ideal gas law does not apply here on Earth’s surface except for in sufficiently dilute enclosed systems i.e. most gaseous experiments. How the laboratory room itself. I am not sure but I will say that rooms tends to be surrounded by six walls and as such the atmospheric gases may or may not be approximated by the ideal gas, it would all depend upon to what extent inter-gaseous collisions vs gaseous-wall collisions dominate
it must be emphasized that in systems where inter-gaseous collisions (gas hitting gas molecules) the ideal gas law may be a rather rough approximation. Of course the more inter-gaseous collisions dominate the gas’s overall energetics, the less valid the ideal gas law becomes. I.e. if one accepts stars as gaseous bodies then the ideal gas law would have little validity, while here on the outside air on Earth where our atmosphere strikes the Earth’s surface and other rigid bodies the ideal gas law would be a better approximation, and of course in labs surrounded by walls the approximation would even be better.
I hope this helps
Once you realize that stuff then and only then can one start to understand global warming. But before you do you must relearn thermodynamics and this time do so based upon logic. Like I state in previous replies: there is little reason to think that global warming has anything to do with greenhouse gases . Logic dictates that if it did it would show up in heat capacities of these gases and it simply does not. But humans are most likely warming the planet with our activities whether it be:
1) flying in a jet expulsion of hit energy gases is direct heating of the atmosphere
2) driving a car = drag is heating of atmosphere
3) boiling water: latent heat = dE +PdV, herein PdV is lost work which is energy added to the atmosphere, specifically PdV is a combination of potential energy and kinetic energy into the atmosphere: So even steam turbines in nuclear plants is direct heat into atmosphere
4)etc ety
The claim is that man’s annual activities only account for 1.5 hrs of the solar input. But much of the solar input is adsorbed and re-radiated by ALL atmospheric polyatomic gases, so not all of it reaches Earth’s surface. And conversely for heat generated by man’s activities, not all of it escapes Earths thermal blanket AKA Earth’s atmosphere
Its time to start thinking people, but only if you actually want to save the planet from us humans. To what degree all this means man’s activities should be slowed down. I really do not have all the answers but I do know that all models currently discussed belong in the category of ship of fools logic!
Cheers and thanks for your time Kent W Mayhew
LikeLike
Kent,
The question of ‘circular logic’ is irrelevant here. What matters is whether we can use the molar mass version of the ideal gas law to invalidate the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’;
Evidence That Our CO2 Does Not and Can Not Cause ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change*’
Appreciation of the evidence presented here requires knowledge of climate terms and concentrated thought.
Postulates;
• The Ideal Gas Law, and its derivatives such as the molar mass version are correct.
• The same external conditions such as insolation and auto-compression prevail.
*Note that neither man-made nor natural CO2 cannot possibly cause any climate change unless they cause global warming or global cooling in the troposphere first. And there is no solid empirical evidence in the scientific literature that man-made or natural CO2 causes a measurable tropospheric temperature change.
i.e.; There is no published, peer-reviewed paper in the scientific literature which quantifies a tropospheric warming, and then attributes that warming wholly, or even in part, to rising atmospheric CO2, whether that extra CO2 is ‘man-made’ or not.
I am in the process of writing a paper which will show that doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases does not cause any measurable atmospheric warming, but only causes atmospheric expansion. Here are the reasons for this;
1) The ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE) of ‘greenhouse gases’ is not what causes or contributes to global average surface temperatures.
2) The atmosphere is ‘unrestrained’ and can expand and contract or convect at will. An illustrative and relevant example can be imagined; for example, picture two cars side by side in the sun. One has its windows wide open, the other has them wound shut. What is the shade air temperature in both? How do these temperatures compare with the shade air temperature outside the vehicles, and why?
3) For the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ to work, there must exist a special class of gases known as greenhouse gases, which must cause anomalous changes to density, pressure or both. However, the ideal gas law and its derivatives such as the molar mass version, do not permit special classes of gases.
Some means by which the molar mass version of the ideal gas law prevents a ‘special’ class of gases such as ‘greenhouse gases’ to operate;
i. Anomalous changes in pressure or density or both caused by a special group of gases are not seen in the data. It is here suggested that this is because special classes of gases are forbidden by the Ideal gas law and its derivatives – all gases are treated equally, and only their molar mass, pressure and density matter. The case of Venus where its temperature at 1atm directly relates to Earth’s at 1atm (once insolation is taken into account), despite the Venusian atmosphere being 96.5% greenhouse gases, is suggestive of this result. Therefore, the presence or absence of an anomalous density and/or pressure change, is proposed as a test for the existence or the non-existence of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’.
ii. Given the same circumstances of gravity and insolation, a certain temperature can be formed by a certain mix of gases, and the same temperature can be formed by using a different mix of gases.
However, logic demands that different temperatures cannot be formed at different times by the same mix of gases. The same mix of gases will always result in the same temperature, – given the same non-gas external conditions (gravity, auto-compression, mass of atmosphere and insolation levels etc). This directly contradicts the ‘greenhouse effect’ as proposed and described in the IPCC reports, where such effects as TCR (Transient Climate Response) and ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) are widely discussed as being certain consequences of the supposed ‘greenhouse effect of CO2’.
Different temperatures at different times from the SAME mix of gases is totally disallowed by the molar mass version of the ideal gas law, (given the same set of external conditions); yet this ‘different temperatures at different times with the same mix of gases’ is a feature of and is an integral part of the ‘greenhouse gas’ warming hypothesis, due to equilibration. It is disallowed by the gas law, because the gas law demands a very rapid response to any changes in the three gas parameters of pressure, density and molar mass. However, in contrast, the greenhouse hypothesis says that considerable ‘equilibration time’ of the CO2 ‘radiative forcing’ is needed, which may extend for hundreds or even thousands of years – so resulting in an impossible paradox; two different temperatures forming at different times from an identical gas mix (under the same conditions of gravity and insolation).
iii. A further problem for the greenhouse gas effect, is that down-welling IR is measured to be even greater than the incident radiation which Earth receives. And for Venus, the situation is far worse, with the surface receiving less that 20W/m2 in direct insolation and yet back-radiation from the atmosphere down to the surface is a massive 15,000W/m2. These figures make no sense at all with regard to a greenhouse effect, but fully make sense in the case of atmospheric auto-compression.”
iv. Other problems for the greenhouse effect involving measurements taken in the Venusian atmosphere at 1atm are detailed in my last published paper.
Summary;
My papers show that for a GHE to occur in an atmosphere, a large and easily measurable anomalous change must happen in the density, or pressure, or both. Yet no anomalous changes have been seen in any planetary atmospheres due to the presence of greenhouse gases. This is not really a surprise, since both anomalous changes and the existence of special classes of gases are actually forbidden by the ideal gas law and its derivatives like the molar mass version of the ideal gas law.
To recap – under the same external conditions;
Different concentrations of gases at the same or at different times can provide the same temperature or different temperatures;
BUT – the same concentrations of gases cannot provide different temperatures at different times. The formula T = P M / R ρ forbids it.
This disproves the greenhouse gas hypothesis, as it is presented by the IPCC*.
*It is disproved because in all IPCC reports, there is said to exist a long-time delay to reach a final temperature due to ‘equilibration’ – the time involved being dependent on sensitivity. That is, there is a claim that the GHE operates slowly, causing warming over centuries to millennia, with the same gas concentrations, and not rapidly as the Ideal Gas Law demands.
Robert Holmes PhD
LikeLike
Dear Robert
I agree with you that there is no real strong evidence that CO2 (or any other so called greenhouse gas) causes global warming.
Moreover if greenhouse gases actually adsorbed and radiated thermal energy (AHA heat) then one would expect that greenhouse gases have exceptionally high heat capacities. Truth be known that greenhouse gases have heat capacities that one would expect for any polyatomic gas i.e. CO2 heat capacity is similar to other triatomic gases
So why the illusion. Well such gases i.e. CO2 adsorb strongly in the visible infra red but the vast majority of thermal energy (probably around 80% – my educated guess but has not been calculated) is in the longer wavelength thermal infra-red. And CO2 adsorbs no different in thermal infra-red than other triatomic gases as shown by its heat capacity
So I agree that greenhouse gases is an illusionary poor science.
However so to is the ideal gas law. As I have previously stated the ideal gas is limited to idealistic experimental systems (sufficiently dilute gases) where intermolecular collisions are wrongly consider as being elastic. Truth is that intermolecular collisions are inelastic and this explains why temperature increases with pressure.
And this brings me to my other point that you seemingly have not read. All polyatomic gases adsorb and re-radiate thermal energy (primarily in the thermal infrared) So N2 and O2 must also do so and this is clearly shown in their heat capacities.
Accordingly all polyatomic gases adsorb and reradiate thermal energy, and this applies to the vast majority of our atmosphere’s gases. Hence our atmosphere as a whole acts as a thermal blanket i.e. the concept of thermal blanket should not be limited to greenhouse gases
So Robert I agree with you about greenhouse but our reasons are somewhat different. Even so we do agree
However we seemingly are in complete disagreement concerning whether or not mankind is responsible for the few degrees of temperature change that we call global warming. I believe that it is probably the case that mankind in our infi9nite stupidity is responsible for global warming, because once you realize that even N2 and O2 adsorb and reradiate the thermal energy that man creates then everything changes as I have stated in my previous replies.
I do discuss global warming here in my website: http://www.newthermodynamics.com/thermowebsite3_038.htm
Anyhow all I am trying to do is get you good folks who are studying global warming to open your eyes to the reality of a new logic. And then to recast your models and see if it explains what we see. Christ I am having enough of a problem trying to teach those in charge of the science that thermodynamics is in need of an overhaul. Even so I do feel the need to try and save our planet from us overly arrogant humans.
Cheers Kent
LikeLike
“However we seemingly are in complete disagreement concerning whether or not mankind is responsible for the few degrees of temperature change that we call global warming. ”
.
The alleged amount of warming since 1750 which has been attributed to us by the IPCC is just 0.8c.
I agree that a part of this may be due to human activity; but NOT involving the so-called greenhouse gases.
.
“All polyatomic gases adsorb and re-radiate thermal energy (primarily in the thermal infrared) So N2 and O2 must also do so and this is clearly shown in their heat capacities. ”
.
Do you have a paper which you can reference for this?
Many thanks in advance,
Robert Holmes PhD
LikeLike
A paper that references that of what I say about global warming = not specifically but as previously stated I do however know the heat capacities of polyatomic gases they have been measured and listed
Moreover I also have my papers that rewrite kinetic theory and in so doing I provide a theory that is a much better fit to the empirically verified/known heat capacities. Online Journal I am published in for kinetic theory is Progress in Physics
1) http://fs.unm.edu/PiP-2018-02.pdf . go to page 75 for my paper
2) http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2017-03.pdf . go to page 166
Not only does my new kinetic theory better fit empirical findings; my theory does not require those horrid exceptions that traditionally accepted kinetic theory requires e.g. the illogical traditional claim that monatomic gases have no/little rotational energy because they have such small radii. This is so illogical because a small radius object can have the same rotational energy as a larger object it is just that the smaller radius object much have a greater rotational velocity in order to do. I repeat my theory requires no exceptions to explain empirical findings. Note traditional theory is based upon equipartition which is an illogical mathematical conscript
The point remains that if gases like CO2 actually adsorbed way more thermal energy than other triatomic gases then it should show in their heat capacities but it simply does not
So I repeat CO2 and other greenhouse gases have strong adsorption in the visible infra red which is not true heat like the longer wavelength thermal infra red. Moreover because thermal infra red covers such a massive number of wavelengths when compared to visible infra red, our reality is that there is way more heat in the thermal infrared than one may think.
Like I have said my battle is not yours. Your battle is in in global warming, mine is in thermodynamics. My most recent paper challenged thermodynamics at its most fundamental level and was published in the Hadronic journal (Oct 2018). I have also recently (few weeks ago) submitted another paper for consideration by the Hadronic journal but that paper is a rewrite for both Helmholtz free energy and Gibbs free energy – showing that traditional thermodynamics got these free energy concept sort of right but for the completely wrong reasons.
I am sorry but I only have 2 hands and 24 hrs in my day so I have to pick my battles. I am not saying that I am doing so wisely (i.e. I am challenging the second law and entropy) but I am saying I am doing what I believe. It is just that when rewriting thermo I came to realize that what I have to say has so many implications to global warming. I can chip in but I cannot do it all by myself sort of thing.
Cheers Kent
LikeLike
Hi Kent,
You write that “if gases like CO2 actually adsorbed way more thermal energy than other triatomic gases then it should show in their heat capacities [C] but it simply does not.”
This would be true only if CO2 absorbed more thermal energy ‘per unit of temperature’. Having the same C still allows for different rates of energy absorption under different modes of energy transfer. In the context of radiative transfer, CO2 has an additional mode via which it can absorb energy, in comparison to O2 , but it does not absorb any more energy ‘per Kelvin’ than O2, irrespective of the mode of transfer.
LikeLike
Robert
I agree with what you are saying concerning CO2. And I think that we can agree that this different mode shows up in the visible infra red. And neither O2 nor N2 absorb all that much in the visible infra red. And I will also say that CO2’s adsorbed energy is often reradiated (radially) at lower frequencies (longer wavelengths), which is true thermal energy.
There is no argument to the above
My argument remains that the vast majority of what we call thermal energy/heat is in the thermal infra red. And CO2 adsorbs no differently than any other triatomic gas, just as N2 and O2 adsorb no differently than any other diatomic gas.
For some strange reason the sciences has taken the view that adsorption in the visible infra red is more important than adsorption in the thermal infra red even though the thermal infra red spectrum is vast. ie infra red has wavelengths from approx 750 nanometer to 1 millimeter
visible infra red (AKAK near infra red)is approx from 750 nanometers to 1.4 micrometers
thermal infra red (mid to long infra red) is basically from 1.4 micrometers onward
If one looks at the radiation curve (Planck radiation style graph) visually you may expect that there is alot more energy in the visible infra red range. However this is only true on a per wavelength (or frequency) basis. Since the range of wavelengths is vast for the thermal infra red when compared to the visible, if you do the rough calculation you will find that there is alot more thermal energy associated with the thermal infra-red than there can ever be in the visible infra red.
Understanding that the majority of thermal energy is in the thermal infra-red bodes the question as to why do we limited our thinking of Earth’s thermal blanket to greenhouse gases which absorb in the minority of energy that being visible/near infra-red. Okay they also adsorb in the thermal infra red and this is what you Robert describe as temperature or per kelvin.
Well last time I looked global warming is about excessive heat which is thermal energy as measured per kelvin by a thermometer i.e. something we call it temperature. Are you now claiming that adsorption of thermal energy (primarily thermal infra-red) is irrelevant i.e has no correlation to the temperature that we witness
Robert can you not see the inherent weakness in what you are saying. Temperature increase is global warming, and this is about thermal energy. Moreover the question is to what extent do gases adsorb and re-radiate thermal energy, and yes a gas’ ability to adsorb thermal energy is measured by its heat capacity, just as a rocks ability to hold thermal energy is measured by its heat capacity
My point remains You cannot ignore our whole atmospheres ability to adsorb and radially re-radiate thermal energy based upon different gases adsorption in the visible infra red. We are talking heat not infra red that arguably behaves more like light than thermal energy.
So I repeat both N2 and O2 adsorb and radially reradiate thermal energy because they are diatomic hence have vibrational energy.
The lunacy of thinking otherwise is no different than that stated by traditional thermodynamics that
a vacuum has no temperature, yet if I put a thermometer in it I measure a temperature. Why the insanity because the science claims that thermal radiation/energy is not part of a system’s temperature. The ignoring of thermal radiation is illogical and in part based upon the horrid mathematical construct of thermodynamics. It is time that we stop the insanity of putting mathematical conscripts ahead of logic. We must learn to formulate the logic and then find the math that fits rather than doing things the other way around, as is the current state of the sciences.
Point remains man’s activities creates heat near Earth’s surface and all polyatomic gases within our atmosphere adsorb and then radially re-radiate that heat. And this is the only logical way to assess to what degree man is actually responsible for global warming.
And I agree that so called greenhouse gases have little bearing on the matter namely because there is so little thermal energy in the visible infra red when compared to the thermal infra-red. Moreover since the Sun rays are at higher frequencies than the thermal energy leaving Earth’s surface, then greenhouse gases may act more to cool the Earth by adsorbing the visible infra red and reradiating it back into outer space like ozone does with UV rays.
thanks for your valuable time Kent
LikeLike
Robert
I am not sure to what degree you understand what I am saying so try this. An object has color (green, red , blue) etc because it adsorbs certain frequencies and reflects others and we do not necessarily think of visible light as heat. Yet a black car is hotter than a white one so there is something about the adsorption of visible light and its reradiation as heat (longer wavelengths)
Now so-called greenhouse gases adsorb certain frequencies in the visible infra red AKA near infra red as in near visible infra red. So are we talking adsorption frequencies that behave as more as light or as heat. One could certainly argue it both ways.
No matter the Suns’ rays hit the Earth’s surface with the highest energy per wavelength/frequency close to visible light along with a bunch of thermal energy that gets adsorbed by the upper atmosphere and radially redistributed
Now much of the Sun’s visible light makes it to Earth’s surface and is also reradiated at longer wavelengths, some in visible infra red but the majority in thermal infra red. Certainly the re-radiated thermal infra red is adsorbed by our atmosphere (N2 and O2 and other polyatomic gases) and reradiated by the atmosphere’s polyatomic gases back towards the Earth. Herein our atmosphere acts as a thermal blanket.
Added to the above is heat created by man. And this is mankind’s contribution to global warming, Remember intermolecular collisions are inelastic (explains P-T relations) so even drag from a moving car is heat, as is boiling and expanding systems giving energy (I call lost work) into the surrounding atmosphere
The point I am making is on several levels.
First of all heat/thermal energy is not necessarily part of the visible infra red – I mean is it heat or just wavelengths of light too long for our eyes to witness
Secondly heat is adsorbed and re-radiated by all polyatomic gases such as our atmospheres, hence our atmosphere is a thermal blanket while greenhouse gases may just be visible infra-red blanket, this assumes that they act more as a blanket than a protector from the Sun’s visible infra-red rays
thirdly, man’s activities are close to Earth’s surface and the thermal energy generated by our activities will be adsorbed and radially re-radiated by the atmosphere’s polyatomic gases
fourthly when we wrongly claim that N2 and O2 are invisible to infra-red what we are really saying is that they are invisible to visible infra-red AKA near infra-red
fith thermodynamics needs a rewrite because of its structure
six if we are going to save this planet from human arrogance then we must make proper models and this requires people like you Robert to change the way you think. yes you are part way there in realizing that greenhouses gases are probably not the culprit, but you still have a ways to go in your thinking
cheers and thanks again Kent
. Much of this enbergy
LikeLike
Robert
One more point
I have stated that I have rewritten kinetic theory as published in online journal Progress in Physics two papers one July 2017, and the other April 2018. (see my earlier comments for links).
I previously gave as an example for traditional degrees of freedom based kinetic theory lunacy that there are those who claim that monatomic gases have no rotational energy because of small radii and this allows their kinetic theory to match empirical findings . To which I counter that small radii just means larger rotational velocities so that accepted explanation is complete hogwash
Well in order for diatomic gases to also match empirical finds traditional kinetic theory requires one of the following
a) diatomic gases to have no rotational energy because of small radii
b) diatomic gases to have no vibrational energy
Again both are hogwash. Again at various points I have read articles that use one or the other as their preferred feeble pet excuse. And again my kinetic theory does not require any hogwash exceptions that traditional kinetic theory requires in order for theory to match data.
Now Robert perhaps you will know but could it be that your peers are wrongly thinking that diatomic gases have no vibrational energy, so then N2 and O2 would not act as a thermal blanket which is complete nonsense.
I am not making excuses for them but I am wondering if you have ever heard of such ridiculous conjecture, and if so perhaps this helps explain why our perception concerning global warming are so bloody irrational.
Is my published kinetic theory accepted. Well of course not because so-called experts in kinetic theory just happen to be human and as such they never will admit that they were completely wrong, especially after being told that they are brilliant. All the time forgetting that they are only smart for a human being. Christ we all make mistakes, I probably made at least half a dozen yesterday.
Sorry to keep going but perhaps this helps
all the best Kent
LikeLike
Hi guys. I have reviewed what I stated and found a few errors in thought and have written and then had published a paper on climate change. It discussed Nikolov and Ze;ller as well as Holmes (to a lesser extent)
It is now out in an open access peer reviewed journal, here is the link. Enjoy
link: https://www.ejers.org/index.php/ejers/article/view/1432
cheers Kent
LikeLike
All the talk of nonsense greenhouse gasses make this a joke, the only way liars can make the greenhouse hypothesis work is by eliminating convection, its unscientofic nonsense, thats why CO2 has no evidence of warming in the history of earth
LikeLike
Chris
Yes greenhouse gases are not logical. And herein Nikolov and Zeller are right but their biggest mistake is putting their graph through Earth because Earth has more data than Titan. Truth be known that Earth has more data than all planets that they use and Titan is no different. Moreover if you want to know what heating man’s activities cause on Earth then their graph should have gone through Titan and then said that the elevated temperature of Earth may be due to man. In my paper its Man’s activities that contribute to our planets extra temperature and all atmospheric polyatomic gases (includes oxygen and nitrogen) act as a thermal blanket, thus keeping man’s created heat in (along with other sources of heat) .
Kent
LikeLike
A point of clarification: Nikolov and Zeller decided to go without Titan in their final set because “we chose the one without Titan as final for Model 12 based on the assumption that Earth’s GMAT is likely known with a much greater accuracy than Titan’s mean annual temperature.”
That may be a consequence of the amount of data available, but it wasn’t a decision based directly on the amount of data available.
LikeLike
yes but if the question is to see if Earth’s climate is affected by man’s activities then your baseline has to use Titan and not Earth’s data. If they used Titan on their curve then and only then camn Earth be compared to it, and then the conclusion would be that Earth’s temperature is slightly high and that may then explain global warming which is only an increase of 0.85 degrees (or so) and climbing
LikeLike
The following is from a section of a book that I am writing
” The primary reason that gases (particularly homonuclear gases) have been thought of as to not to absorb infrared radiation is because it did not show up in their infrared spectra. This is likely due to the calibration of spectrometers, which includes the subtraction of the blank, i.e., the subtraction of background spectral radiation that obeys Stefan-Boltzmann’s law, i.e., the subtraction of the system’s blackbody radiation, i.e., the subtraction of the system’s thermal signature.
Seemingly, no one ever asked the right questions. One being, what does it mean if the gas’ thermal spectrum is blackbody in nature? Plain and simply the subtraction of the gas’s thermal spectrum/signature from their infrared spectra, often leaves no infrared spectra e.g., zero spectra for homonuclear diatomic gases.
In spectrometry the gases are in thermal equilibrium, and therefore the molecules absorb as much thermal energy as they radiate. Therefore, concerning infrared spectrometry, one is left with two choices. Either:
Polyatomic gases neither absorb, nor radiate, blackbody/thermal radiation.
Polyatomic gases do absorb, and then re-radiate blackbody/thermal radiation.
The accepted traditional assertion has been 1). Which is based upon the illogical mathematical based assertion that limits blackbody radiation to crystalline condensed matter.
As was discussed in both Chapters 2 and 5, and followed by Chapter 8. The heat capacity of all polyatomic gases clearly show that they all absorb thermal energy, as part of their intramolecular vibrational energy, which is clearly defined by eq. 2.16: E ̅_v≅(n”-1)kT. Remember, when measuring a gas’ heat capacity, the gas is not in thermal equilibrium.
One could argue that the gas molecules do not absorb thermal radiation, and that the above absorbed vibrational energy is all due to their collisions with wall molecules. However, such an assertion is completely illogical. Just consider all the various shapes, and sizes of the gas molecules. Is it logical to argue that they all approximately adhere to eq. 2.16, without absorbing and then radiating similar blackbody/thermal radiation, as part of their vibrational energy? It is not.
There remains only one viable solution. That being that all polyatomic gas molecules absorb and then re-radiate infrared centered blackbody/thermal radiation, when having their heat capacity measured!
Therefore, one must conclude that a polyatomic gas molecule absorbs, and then re-radiate infrared thermal radiation, when in thermal equilibrium with its surrounding, even when inside of a spectrometer. And that this is part of the polyatomic gas’ vibrational energy. And that this infrared thermal radiation is defined by the Stefan-Boltzmann law! In other words, the above 2) is correct, while 1) is plain and simply wrong.
The above means that in traditional infrared spectrometry, what one witnesses are the parts of a gas’s infrared spectrum that are not necessarily directly attributable to the molecule’s normal infrared blackbody/thermal energy, e.g., its dipole moments.
Interestingly, I have heard statements like, how does one then explain the spectra coming from the cosmological gases, i.e., spectra from a nebula? One must be careful here, and realize that such spectrums are from gases that do not reside inside a fully enclosed system. Of course, the other question becomes, “is that spectra also in excess of any blackbody radiation, e.g., in excess of the nebula’s thermal signature?”
Certainly, gases in a spectrometer, and/or in some heat capacity apparatus, are fully enclosed. Such enclosures will be filled with blackbody/thermal radiation, all of which polyatomic gas molecules can readily absorb and re-radiate. Arguably, the spectra from a fully enclosed gas may not necessarily match the spectra from a gas that is not fully enclosed. There may be more to this, but we will leave that up to those who study things like cosmological nebula.
In Chapters 1 and 8, followed by 16, it was discussed how illogical the assertion that the thermal radiation that resides in the freespace around gaseous molecules, is not part of the system’s temperature. To clarify, thermal radiation is part of the system’s energy! Specifically, thermal equilibrium exists for a gas when its walls, the enclosed gas molecules, and the blackbody/thermal radiation that surrounds the gas, all possess the same associated temperature.
Most importantly, thermal radiation often remains a dominate factor in thermal energy exchanges even though the total thermal radiation energy is often minuscule when compared to the kinematic energies held in the vibrations within a system’s polyatomic gases and/or any condensed matter. And this has to do with the very high speed (c) at which the thermal radiation travels.
Interestingly, the above synopsis does in some ways help us to understand why temperature was wrongly not associated with the thermal energy that resides within a vacuum. For example, the misunderstandings concerning the subtraction of a blank in infrared spectrometry, might have been misconstrued as proof.
It should be stated that John Tyndall initiated the mistake that occurred ahead of the dubious mathematically based association of blackbody radiation with crystalline matter, by Planck and others. Of course, this mistake was overlooked by all those who followed, such as John Shaw’s studies of greenhouse gases in the 1940’s. This mistake is still continued today.”
does this help explain that the whole atmosphere and not just polyatomic gases act as a thermal blanket. This applies to other planets with atmospheres. It is also discussed in my peer reviewed paper published in March edition of Ejers
Man’s activities create heat and we are on the side of the atmosphere (Earth’s thermal blanket) where global warming is measured
LikeLike
Interesting observations, with some important implications.
In recent weeks I did come across two legitimate-looking science papers, each referencing experimental results, one of which utilized laser measurements. One said O2 was a greenhouse gas, the other N2. Sorry that I could not find them again, but while searching I came across this blog column talking about both molecules.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/10/scientists-oxygen-nitrogen-radiatively-important-greenhouse-gases-with-ir-absorption-temps-similar-to-co2/
LikeLike
it is just common bloody common sense that all polyatomic gases absorb and radiate thermal energy aka heat. I am amazed at how silly the science has gotten all based upon infrared spectrometry foolishness. Of course different gases will absorb different amounts on a per molecule basis but based upon their heat capacities it is obvious that the more atoms a molecule has then the more thermal energy it absorbs on a per molecule basis. This stupidness in the sciences has to stop if we are to sare our planet
LikeLike
Hi all,
A few questions:
1. What is the response to the results of this experiment & analysis (A) from 2015?
A: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
2. What is the response to the observations that temperature anomalies from varying data sets show positive trends (B) while solar irradiance is observed to remain [cyclically] constant (C)?
B: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
C: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
Thanks,
Justin
LikeLike
The Feldman study is addressed in the article. Feldman ignores CO2 induced cooling in the upper stratosphere, so the results are not representative of the total difference in the downwelling and upwelling fluxes as relevant to the Earth energy ballance (in and out of Space).
Considering that all thermal data sets at the surface are “adjusted”, the trend in warming may be either partly or entirely entirely an effect of fictitious adjustments. This is indeed an accusation levelled by some commentators, that the alleged warning is actually faked by creative adjustments, lowering historical raw temperatures and increasing recent raw temperatures in a time-ramped fashion that seems to precisely resemble the warming trend. Studies like Humlum demonstrate that something does not add up; it is the most direct sanity test one can imagine. This could have two different explanations: either the warming is faked or the cause of warming is not CO2.
LikeLike
MK, can you provide some evidence that, “all thermal data sets at the surface are “adjusted”, the trend in warming may be either partly or entirely entirely an effect of fictitious adjustments. “? I would like to see how thousands of data sets, measured by all over the world by hundreds of scientific organizations are “faked”.
LikeLike
You are assuming that thousands of local organisations have independent control over adjustments related to global mean annual temperature. This is not even plausible. Nobody disputes the fact that temperatures are radically adjusted; the dispute is only how realistic those adjustments are. I cannot verify for you what is the true motivation behind these adjustments as this would require either reading other people’s minds or a direct confession. We know that several leading climate scientists have made such a confession (the Climate Gate emails), so it’s not a secret that “faking” data is probable, let alone plausible.
Here are several related articles, perhaps you can find what you are asking for by looking into their sources and methodology:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
https://principia-scientific.org/how-noaa-nasa-doctored-temperature-data-to-get-record-warm-years/
LikeLike
Feldman documented an increase in downwelling radiation during the decade studied, but only about 10% of that increase was attributed to CO2. I think that pretty much undermines the idea that CO2 is the master control knob for earth’s climate.
LikeLike
Hello,
(1) The argument saying that the density is evaluated through the gaz perfect law is irrelevant. Knowing the composition of the atmosphere it is easy to MEASURE the density (and the molar mass) in the laboratory at various pressures. So the circular logic argument is not valid.
(2) Astrophysicists says that the gaz perfect law applies well in stars. Is it low pressure ?
LikeLike
the argument against the ideal gas law is that it is a laboratory law for labratory experiments which are performed in fully enclosed systems that are also sufficiently dilute such as those used in experiments. Note avogadros hypothesis, the ideal gas law and kinetic theory are all restricted similar experimental systems
High density gases do not adhere to the ideal gas law rather one must use the polytropic equation
Kent Mayhew
LikeLike
Ok for the poliytropic equation if n ne 1.
I resume: the perfect law is theoretically not applicable to atmosphere, but Holmes shows that, experimentally, it almost applies.
LikeLike
listen the ideal gas law is a law for gases in a box – i.e. an experimental situtation I have listed my two papers on kinetic theory in online journal progress in physics (july 2017 and april 2018), my other paper that deals with idea gas is in online journal EJERS (jan 2020) titled “Illusions of elastic collisions in the sciences”
The real issue I have with Holme’s paper is that the data he uses was not measured on the various planets, the data used is inferred from things like idea gas law, and then this inferred data is used to prove other inferred data. you may as well throw a dart at a dart board
the dangers, Consider Zeller-Nikolov use of titan. They say that since we have all this measured data on Earth and non-from Titan, then we will ignor the implications to Titan and use Earth’s data. But every other planet used is not measured by inferred data, the crime becomes they throw out inferred Titan, and then say this proves man is not responsible for global warming WTF if they used inferred Titan instead of Earth to plot with then the graph would change and based upon the inferred data from all other planets then their graph would show that Earth is at a higher temperature than it should be and the implication then becomes that Earth’s temperature rise is due to human activity, as I state in my july 2019 paper in EJERS titled “New thermodynamics: Global warming and man’s activities”
Kent Mayhew
LikeLike
Kent,
Regarding your comment “They say that since we have all this measured data on Earth and non-from Titan, …”, I’m not following what you are implying.
N&Z write: “Thus, Voyager measurements of Titan from the early 1980s suggested an average surface temperature of 94 ± 0.7 K [41]. Subsequent observations by the Cassini mission between 2005 and 2010 indicated a mean global temperature of 93.4 ± 0.6 K for that moon [42,43]. Since Saturn’s orbital period equals 29.45 Earth years, we averaged the above global temperature values to arrive at 93.7 ± 0.6 K as an estimate of Titan’s 30-year GMAT.”
That’s the same kind of measurement as was used for the moon.
Just for clarification, are you considering that as non-measured data because an SB law calculation is required for converting the sensor results to temperatures?
LikeLike
The graph they use usdes Earth instead of titan as the data point, i.e. they did not plot the line thru titan although they recognized its temperature. The other issue with what they write is they use the principles of statistical analysis but such principles are based on huge data sets, the planets of our solar system with atmospheres does not constitute a huge data set.
Or is your comment concerning the ideal gas law
LikeLike
OK, when inferred data are used that’s incorrect. But for the earth data are not inferred ! And for Venus space probes were used, not ? On the other hand, if we know the composition, never mind how, we can measure on earth the physical characteristics of the mixture.
I will have a look on your EJERS paper and I’ll come back.
LikeLike
my point remains if Nikolov and zeller left Earth out of their graph, i.e., used Titan instead, then the implications would be that Earth’s temperature cannot be simply explained in terms of pressure temperature, i.e. the implication would be that Earth’s temperature is partially due to Man’s activities. Now I am not 100% sure how all the data was obtained, but I suspect similar resources were used for all the planets e.g., Venus, Mars, Titan etc etc
But it does not change my argument. Think of it another way, you are comparing Earth to the other planets and then use Earth as part of the other planets. It becomes a WTF comparison
cheers Kent
LikeLike
There is an easier proof more accessible to the non-scientist if you Gentlemen will permit me to put it before you for possible elimination. It fell out from an argument I was having with a lecturer from the Scott Polar Institute.
He confirmed that according to the theory of Manmade Climate change the Greenhouse Effect (GE) explains what was then considered to be the 33C Atmospheric Thermal Anomaly (ATE).
I simply said to him that since any and every gas body has its temperature enhanced when compressed pressure must have a role in the ATE. There followed a strong reaction attempting to force the conclusion that the atmosphere could not be above S-B255 except for the GE.
The key to unlock this assertion and cause total collapse of this position was then to be found as follows.
I put it to him that if the atmosphere were at a much lower pressure it would have the same mass and the temperature could still not be below 255K, but the atmosphere would then be much larger than now, so the heat-energy per cubic metre contained therein must be proportionately less. Accordingly in our current circumstance of 1 ton per sq. ft. the much smaller atmosphere that results causes a great deal more heat energy to be contained in each of the fewer cubic metres it thus comprises so the temperature has to be enhanced above 255K and that means participation in the ATE. This effectively shot his fox and he ran away and ceased communication.
The GE is ineffective in terms of the ATE to the extent that compression is effective as 1000Frolly has been saying for years. Accordingly any theory dependent on the thermal effect of the GE must fail unless and until a proper calculation is done. then approved by independent impartial fluid dynamicists, showing some derisive amount at best for the compression-based component- collapse of stout party if not.
When you start to consider it it seems that this compression effect must be far more than 33C which seems to support the finding that S-B255K is far too high.
Your elimination of all this would be much appreciated so I can move on. When; as I suspect you will find: this proof is shown to stand up, please feel free to adopt it as your own finding, because these things are your job to do not mine and all the components are from past others anyway. I tend to the view that anyone who understands a thing is as much its author as the person putting it to him when that person is not the originator of the elements that make the truth up.
I look forward to learning your reaction
LikeLike
Very glad to see a serious discussion of these two papers taking place. Their concepts warrant a careful review.
LikeLike
It seems to me the critical question is: Does the existence of the GHGs change the values of the other gas constants thus making the whole N&Z and Holmes thesis circular?
In brief if the GHGs heat the air, expanding it, that affects the other variables, no?
LikeLike
No.
This “circular” line of argument has been made before, starting over a year ago.
Are you saying that the molar mass version of the ideal gas law is incorrect?
You have failed to appreciate that your argument that the calculations are circuitous is separate from the conclusions I make, since the conclusions are NOT based on the calculations! They are based ONLY on whether the ideal gas law and its derivative the molar mass version is correct or not.
This is the point; the ideal gas law forbids ‘special’ classes of gases such as greenhouse gases, which can result in anomalous effects.
And there is also a prediction (a test of the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ if you like);
Anomalous changes are not observed in either density or pressure over time due to the addition of greenhouse gases.
Why? – This is postulated to be true because given the same planetary conditions of insolation and auto-compression;
The same concentrations of gases cannot provide different temperatures at different times. The formula T = P M / R ρ forbids it – therefore a GHE of the type proposed by the IPCC (involving the SAME mixtures of gases to provide different temperatures at different times; i.e. TCR and ECS) is not possible…ergo TCR and ECS cannot exist in the real atmosphere.
Why is the South Pole cold? It’s because of low pressure;
My paper shows that air density at the South Pole is 1.06kg/m3 in other words, only slightly below the global average – yet the pressure is a very low 68kPa. It’s the low pressure which mainly results in the low average temperature of -49C.
On Earth, temperature is determined by the interplay of pressure and density, with some influence from molar mass via;
T = P / (R * ρ / M)
Pressure, density and molar mass are mainly determined by insolation and auto-compression. Temperature on Earth is mainly the result of a fight between density and pressure.
A second ‘proof’ that there is no anomalous warming from the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is that the surface temperature on Earth (Te) can be calculated – from Venus!
All one needs to measure, is the average temperature on Venus at 1atm (339K) and measure the average relative TSI of Venus and Earth (a ratio of 0.523).
Then the formula;
Te = ∜relativeTSI x Tv
Te = ∜0.523 x 339
Te = 288K
Provides the average surface temperature of Earth; atmospheric constituents do not matter.
– The fact that Venus has 96.5% GHG and Earth has 2.5% GHG makes no difference!
Best Regards
Robert Holmes PhD
LikeLike
Following up on my prior post, it would seem the impact of GHGs (assuming they heat, and thus expand, the atmosphere), would be on DENSITY. While we can’t go back 200 years, we should be able to go back the better part of 100 years, and plugging the values for density and knowing the other changes due to different ppms of various GHGs discover if the Holmes thesis is just circular or that it disproves AGW.
LikeLike
Please ask yourself. Since nitrogen and oxygen (99% of our atm) absorb thermal energy as clearly shown by their heat capacities. then they must also absorb and radiate thermal energy in Earth’s atmosphere – i.e. the whole atmosphere except for monatomic argon keeps the heat in i.e. act as a GHG.
Homes and N&Z are somewhat circular arguments because they use extrapolated data and then apply the ideal gas law to obtain more extrapolations and then use this various extrapolation to extrapolate a theory.
N&Z even make the grandiose mistake of using Earths data (because it is actually measured) to compare Earth’s data to. If you want to know if Earth’s temperature is affected by mankind then you compare it to data from another place like Titan (note N&Z threw out Titan’s data and used Earth’s data instead to draw their graph. Truth be known that both Holmes and N&Z made mistakes, but are both right in saying GHG are not the root cause of global warming. Please feel free to read my most recent (peer reviewed) paper (May 2020) concerning these matters it is open access on line journal EJERS
https://www.ejers.org/index.php/ejers/article/view/1926
Sincerely Kent W. Mayhew
LikeLike
Dr Robert Ian Holmes
I agree when you say that there is no special class of gases. Specifically, as indicated by their heat capacities all polyatomic gases absorb thermal energy i.e., in the infrared. Of course, the foolhearty consideration that homonuclear do not adsorb thermal energy is based upon a grandiose mistake in infrared spectrometry as I discuss in the following three recent papers
1) May 2020: https://www.ejers.org/index.php/ejers/article/view/1926
2) March 2020: https://www.ejers.org/index.php/ejers/article/view/1806
3) March 2020: https://www.ej-physics.org/index.php/ejphysics/article/view/5
However, it is perhaps not so much that the ideal gas law prohibits it as much as kinetic theory prohibits it. I also must again emphasize that empirically known laws such as Avogadros hypothesis, the ideal gas law and kinetic are actually limited to experimental systems where the illusion of elastic collisions occurs. I discuss the illusions of elastic collisions here:
1) Jan 2020: https://www.ej-physics.org/index.php/ejphysics/article/view/5
And the need to rewrite kinetic theory in the following two papers:
1) http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2018-02.pdf starts at page 75
2) http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2017-03.pdf starts at page 166
Now I agree that there is a pressure temperature relationship but this is need in need of clarity, i.e. it is NOT simply based upon the ideal gas law because the ideal gas law is limited to experimental systems where the gas is enclosed by four walls and is sufficiently dilute , i.e. an experimental system. This is clearly not the case when discussing atmospheric physics i.e. our atmosphere is not surrounded by four walls.
This is all discussed in my most recent book
And the kindle version of new book
The paperback version
Now Robert you also discuss why the south pole is cold and say because it is low pressure. I should think that you are jumping to conclusions. The best explanation is because our Sun’s rays are more concentrated around the equator than the poles. Yes it is our Sun that has the biggest influence upon the temperature that we witness
So you may ask why is the pressure lower at the poles. I should think that a spinning body like the Earth would a thicker atmosphere near the equator than the poles = of course that is just my guess, and yes there may be other factors, but just because the south pole is lower pressure (if your claim is right) does not allow you to jump to such conclusions.
All the best Kent W. Mayhew
LikeLike
Hi Kent,
Of course it is the sun’s angle which results in the different temperatures found at the equator and the poles; this is clear.
Nevertheless, through the molar mass version of the IGL, – this simple formula –
T = P / (R * ρ / M)
We can see that a gas temperature can be found in virtually any part of any planetary atmosphere – i.e. this formula applies not only to the average surface surface temperature of a planetary atmosphere, but to any separate part of it as well. Therefore this derivative of the IGL is not limited to experimental systems; it exactly applies in the real world.
For example; To get the average surface temperature of a terrestrial planet (or a gas giant at 1atm) which has an atmosphere, one needs to measure only three gas parameters; the average surface pressure, the average surface molar mass and the average surface density. So for Earth;
T=101.3/(8.314 x 1.225/28.97)
Earth calculated surface temperature = 288.14K
And if we pick any spot on Earth it also works; i.e. the South Pole we get;
T=68.13/(8.314 x 1.06/28.97)
Earth’s South Pole average calculated temperature = 224K (-49⁰C) which is correct.
The formula tells us that it’s cold at the South Pole relative to the equator, because of the low pressure. The low pressure at the South Pole is caused by the altitude.
This derivative of the IGL basically works everywhere there is gas.
We can go on through the planets;
Jupiter at 1atm;
T=101.3/(8.314 x 0.16/2.2)
Jupiter calculated temperature at 1atm of pressure = 167K
Calculate for Saturn at 1atm;
T=101.3/(8.314 x 0.19/2.07)
Saturn calculated temperature at 1atm of pressure = 132.8K
Calculate for Uranus at 1atm;
T=101.3/(8.314 x 0.420/2.64)
Uranus calculated temperature at 1atm of pressure = 76.6K
Calculate for Titan’s surface;
T=146.7/(8.314 x 5.25/28.0)
Titan calculated surface temperature = 93.6K
Calculate for Venus at surface;
T=9200/(8.314 x 65/43.45)
Venus calculated surface temperature = 739.7K
I know you will say that it’s the density which has been calculated here, from the pressure and the temperature; and I am back-calculating temperature from a calculated density. I would like to see independent density measurements from anyplace here which is different to these numbers.
In other words; I would like to see the MM version of the IGL being tested to see if it is wrong or right in real atmospheres.
If the IGL is right, then the terminal conflict between it and the GHE means that there can be no anomalous GHE from gases.
Regards,
Rob
LikeLike
As an independent researcher following what seems to be almost competition here, it is at least healthy to see science being taken back from (perhaps) political ideologies or Malthusian roots, saying that Kent seems adamant it’s man made issue. Probably the best way to reach fame or infamy such as the Mr Mann’s of this world or the Al Gores that have immensely profited from a propaganda machine we pay for.
The circular argument against Holmes paper is surely non existent since the MM version of the IGL shows what is confirmed by actual measurement as with the 2 Venus landers. I see this argument made several times here but don’t understand how it is valid a criticism of what is shown to be absolutely correct. Adding mass to the atmosphere is calculated in the paper with of course assumptions that natural effects do not take CO2 out of the air.
I have more reading to do but high and low pressure systems have in my lifetime always been a function of warm or cold weather systems. Have I missed something here? if air is heated, it expands, the spinning creating the 2 observable weather patterns in counter rotation north vs southern hemisphere and for our highly complex weather system redistributing heat, water vapour, even sand from deserts. A system that can have a overall warmer average or a cooler one. This is empirical with or without mankind.
Kent, Robert also shows why we have this warming period now as we have had in the past, could you please comment on that.
While Kent is re-visiting physics I wonder why the SB was even applied to a gas in the first place since a solid surface with the SB claimed radiated heat seems already way higher than in reality and solids liquids and gasses behaving in a different manor when heated. Climate scientists it seems had to contrive layers and lose saturation in order to frame CO2 and blame mankind. Now here i’m reading a blame mankind route once again by Kent.
At least there is agreement CO2 driving climate change is nonsense! but perhaps if Kent has his way Carbon tax will change to you exist tax, the results will be the same.
Kent touches on the heating still being manmade, I have posted many a comment of such influences such as >2000 Nukes tested during the cold war, with no mention in any equations about heat. It’s laughable. The record being the Tsar Bomb with a mushroom cloud of debris higher that the record braking Felix Baumgartner space jump. So the thought experiment there is how much heat that mankind generates is “Kept” in a system that is already shown to self regulate depending on IGL.
One final note to throw out there. E=MC2 was apparently too simple. Did Einstein actually rip off the works of lesser known scientists and re-badge it? Either way simplicity is well used when we base more complex processes on that foundation. I see Holmes has done that separately to other works.
All the best and many thanks for all of your work in the name of science. It is greatly appreciated!
(that is for Robert, Kent, All here)
LikeLike
not sure why my book did not show in my previous reply but the book is just out if anyone cares it is titled
“New Thermodynamics: Untangling Entropy’s Web: Treatise on Global Warming”
LikeLike
I don’t know what’s so hard about this.
“any thermal enhancement at the surface would result in higher emission of thermal radiation (black-body radiation), progressively cooling the planet as if it had no atmosphere at all”
Increased emissions at the surface are balanced by fewer emissions in the upper atmosphere because adiabatic convection converts solar heating into gravitation potential energy which is a store of energy that does not emit.
The mass of an atmosphere and the acceleration of gravity drive surface pressure, exclusively. Therefore, for a given insolation, surface temperature will relate to those parameters and not the particular composition of the atmosphere.
Radiative greenhouse theory cannot work because back-radiation lacks the energy to overcome the dominance of the high-frequency portion of the Planck curve. That’s basic thermodynamics. It’s why there’s a second law. The second law doesn’t explain why back radiation can’t heat, the fact that back-radiation can’t heat is why there’s an observed second law.
The entire premise of radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even well explained. “Raise the height of emissions” against what lapse rate? Where did it come from? Do greenhouse gasses cause it, interact with it, or react to it? All nonsense.
The S-B constant is an incredibly small number. The ability for an airmass to cool via convection is completely dominant over its ability to cool via radiation. IR absorbing molecules cause local cooling on the scale of hours. That’s it.
This nonsense needs to stop. Put your thinking caps on people.
LikeLike