Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.
From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.
This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER
Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.
[Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]
So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic.
Here is a table more precisely comparing the temperatures at various pressures in Earth's atmosphere (the standard atmosphere) with the corresponding temperatures in Venus's atmosphere:
(updated 12/02/10)
My uncertainty in finding T_Venus from the graphs is +/- 1.4 K, so any error less than about 1.2 K (in the last column) is negligible. I don't know why the comparison falters slightly between 600 and 300 mb, or why it improves suddenly at 200 mb (~60 km altitude), but the Venus cloud top is given as 58 km, between the 300 and 200 mb levels.
The Venus atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, and supposedly superheated due to a runaway greenhouse effect, yet that portion of it within the pressure bounds of the Earth atmosphere is remarkably like the Earth in temperature. This is student-level analysis, and could not have been neglected by climate scientists, if they were not rendered incompetent by their dogmatic belief in the greenhouse hypothesis. (Again, the overwhelming extent of fundamental incompetence exhibited by scientists today is the real underlying story.) This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth -- the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.) This denies any possibility of a "greenhouse effect" on Venus (or on Earth), much less a "runaway" one. This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who have written succinctly, "...since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses [sic] is not obeyed." Yet they are ridiculed by climate scientists, who thus behave like spoiled children who refuse to be chastised by their parents.
Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:
Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.
The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.
Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.
The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)
The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%.
There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.
There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide.
Mr. Huffman: Very interesting. How would it be if you turn it the other way around and go down to the surface of Venus? With more than 90 times the pressure of sea surface on earth, wouldn't this be considerably warmer than the actually 464 degrees Celsius?
ReplyDeleteThe primary point of this article is that we have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else (in particular, not due to the great difference in the amount of carbon dioxide in the two atmospheres). There is no such comparison to be made with the surface temperature of Venus, precisely because the pressure there is far outside the range of Earth's atmospheric pressure. From the results of the comparison I have done, we can say that if Earth had much more atmosphere, so that its surface pressure was equal to Venus's surface pressure, then we would expect the 463C surface temperature of Venus to be 17% higher than the surface temperature of the Earth with that much atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteThe precise factor is 1.176. Note that the Venus atmospheric temperature is actually slightly cooler than 1.176 times the Earth's, over part of the range of pressures compared here. As intimated in the article, this is likely due to thick clouds in that portion, with liquid water in them that would sequester enough heat energy to depress the temperature a few degrees from the precise 1.176 factor predicted by the distances from the Sun. Wherever the atmosphere is free of such water (presumably in the form of dilute sulfuric acid, as has been reported), that precise 1.176 factor should be closely followed, as I have reported here.
I like your idea, but...
ReplyDeleteSince you are using a multiple of Earth's temp as a comparison, aren't to thus including any GH effect on Earth as part of the basis? So in effect saying that if there is a GHE on Earth there is one on Venus, and vice versa?
Hello, Brian,
ReplyDeleteMy analysis does not just pluck "a multiple of Earth's temperature" out of thin air. It investigates the simplest physical hypothesis. It calculates the expected Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over a broad range of Earth atmospheric pressures, if the only contributing factor is the two planets' mean distances from the Sun (their common power source), and finds that this minimal hypothesis is precisely confirmed by both planetary atmospheres. Any attempt to explain this confirmation by another, more complicated hypothesis, will involve unrealistic assumptions, and a monumentally unlikely coincidence of several supposed additional factors having the same effect as no additional factors at all. For example, in the analysis, not only does the amount of CO2 not enter in (Earth has 0.04%, Venus a whopping 96.5%), but the albedo (from either cloud tops or the planetary surface) does not either (Venus has dense clouds that reflect much of the incident visible radiation, while Earth does not, and Earth's surface is 70% deep ocean, while Venus is solid crust). The real atmospheres don't care at all about these great differences in the two atmospheres and planetary surfaces, they only care, and quite precisely, about their distances from the Sun. So think of all the factors you can which might possibly affect the temperature, and then look again at the analysis, which shows they are not in fact effective overall.
Another way of looking at it: You are essentially saying, suppose that the multiplicative effect on the temperature due to the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is equal to the multiplicative effect of the 96.5% CO2 on Venus. That is obviously an unrealistic assumption, that the multiplicative effect of any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already reached by a concentration of 0.04% -- in fact, between 0.028% (the pre-industrial level of CO2) and 0.04%, as far as an anthropogenic effect is concerned. No matter how you try to slice it, there can be neither an additional warming effect (a "runaway" effect) on Venus, due to Venus's almost pure CO2 atmosphere, nor any further greenhouse effect with added CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. It is then but a small mental step to accept that, in reality, as my analysis very clearly and simply shows, there is no greenhouse effect whatsoever, of warming due to increases in atmospheric CO2, for any concentration of "greenhouse gases". Nor is there such an effect for surface absorption followed by surface emission, followed by atmospheric absorption and back radiation -- the current, complicated (!) "consensus" theory of the greenhouse effect. Thus my analysis enables one to immediately determine not only that there is no greenhouse effect, but that the atmospheres of Venus and Earth are both warmed, overall, simply by direct absorption of the same infrared portion of the incident solar radiation, not by the more complicated process of first warming of the planetary surface as most scientists believe. Most scientists appear to think that such infrared absorption, by itself, proves the greenhouse effect -- hence, scientists like me who deny the greenhouse effect are seen as denying an obvious physical phenomenon -- but of course if the warming is by direct absorption of solar infrared radiation, the effect is merely to fill up the heat-retaining atmosphere to its ability to hold the heat (as determined by the hydrostatic, or "ocean of air", hypothesis, which imposes a simple temperature lapse rate on the bulk of the atmosphere -- see my previous posts, which explain that the real effect of infrared absorption and emission in the atmosphere is to enable a more efficient heat flow in accordance with the governing lapse rate, not to trap or slow down heat transfer to space).
You should submit this to WUWT as a feature article. Perhaps remove the bits about climate scientists to encourage them to read the paper. Maybe add a graph showing the results visually, as this helps a lot of folks to grasp the idea.
ReplyDeleteThis is the single most convincing piece of evidence that I have seen that atmospheric temperature is independent of CO2 levels.
Not all scientists are blind. Present them with convincing evidence. Like sales, the customer has to hear about it, read about it, talk about it, see it, touch it before they will consider buying.
I have submitted the analysis in a letter to "Physics Today" (on February 7, 2011), but have gotten no response.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very, very interesting, and totally correct in my opinion, because the scientific discovery by dr. Huffman, for a factor of 1.17 of atmosphere heating, for Venus in comparison with Earth, is a further evidence that GHE has no scientific ground, and no "backradiation" or "trapping" of IR radiations by atmospheric gases can heat further the surface of planets, but it’s all (or almost) connected to the quantity of energy released by the Sun into the atmosphere of a planet, according to the basic 1st law of thermodynamics: JQ = W + ΔU.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the discovery by Huffman is somehow complementary to the one from Miskolczi, in which some years ago he proved mathematically that inside a physical entity in hydrostatic equilibrium like Earth athmosphere, any changes of global averages temperatures can be caused just by changes in quantity of outside thermal energy coming from Sun, and NOT by simple changes in the composition of gases (like CO2), because density, thermal gradient, mass, gravitation, etc. are dominant factors in the Earth atmosphere, and any local changes (example: eruptions of volcanos, and increase in temperatures in the top of troposphere) trigger an "equilibrating" mechanism, and so whenever – for instance - a volcanic eruption makes top atmosphere temperatures higher, than surface temperatures are lowering, etc.
That’s very interesting, because it’s the evidence that GHE is a totally non-physical theory and it can be disproved in several ways.
I myself found another way to disprove the GHE on Venus, by observing that on Venus you have THE SAME temperatures, both on the radiated emisphere by Sun, and in the dark one.
Take into account that dark emisphere does not receive ANY solar radiation for 120 days!
And so, why there is no difference between temperatures in the two sides of Venus?
Why temperatures in the dark emisphere do not drop, without solar radiation?
Please, consider also that surface winds on Venus surface are very slow, and so there is no "convective transportation" of heat between the radiated and dark emisphere at surface.
The only possible explaination, is that on Venus surface huge density (65-67 Kg/m^3) of gases, huge atmospheric mass (nearly 96 times Earth atmosphere), and huge pressures (92 bars vs. 1 bars on Earth), are strong enough to heat the surface up to 737° K average (464° C), and that’s can be easily calculated by using the universal state equation of perfect gases: PV = nRT
(see the calculation in the last post in Steve Goddard’s blog http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/)
Of course, on Venus this is possible just because you have a very simple situation, only one gas 96.5% CO2 (+ traces of some others), while on Earth equation of perfect gases is useless, due to the water cycle, and the other chemical reactions connected with water (condensation, snows, rains, etc.) in the rarefied atmosphere.
I would like to underline very strongly that my analysis is NOT in contradiction with the one above from Huffman, because his analys is correct, but can explain the non existence of GHE just in the radiated side of Venus, and of course here on Earth.
But the problem is: "and what about the dark emisphere of Venus?", and so I think that temperatures in the dark emisphere can be explained just by pressures, density and atmospheric mass (i.e. general state equation of gases).
Alberto Miatello
Hello, Alberto,
ReplyDeleteYes, the observation that the dark hemisphere on Venus is as hot as the lighted one is a good one, since it underscores the fact that the temperature profile of a planetary atmosphere is determined quite simply by considering the atmosphere as like the ocean, with pressure (and hence temperature) increasing with depth. (Thus Venus's surface temperature is much greater than Earth's, simply because its atmosphere is much deeper than Earth's, and can hold much more heat.) This is known as the hydrostatic model of the atmosphere, which enforces a quite general "temperature lapse rate" structure upon the atmosphere, as long recognized in the definition of the Earth's own Standard Atmosphere. Everything else -- winds, precipitation, clouds and the water cycle, even day and night -- is secondary.
So what you have said is basically what I wrote in my previous post on the greenhouse effect:
"The temperature profile of the atmosphere is dictated solely by gravity acting on the ocean of air and the specific heat of the air, which imposes a temperature "lapse rate" (a declining temperature) with height given by -g/c, a constant rate, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and c is the specific heat. Note that this is entirely independent of the presence of any IR absorption by gases in the atmosphere. The available heat energy must be distributed in accordance with that constant lapse rate, and IR radiation is just one pathway for the heat to be distributed. Thus, IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere can only enable more efficient (faster) heat transport through the atmosphere, they cannot trap heat, or slow it down."
Presumably, in this simple view, both the great mass of Venus's atmosphere and its greater efficiency of heat transfer around the planet (due to its almost pure CO2 composition), account for the equal temperatures in both lighted and dark hemispheres.
The fact that Earth's (and Venus's) troposphere exhibits the simple temperature lapse rate structure, should have ruled out, from the very beginning, the greenhouse effect hypothesized by climate scientists. I know it quickly convinced me so, when I came across it just last year. But the Venus/Earth comparison makes it obvious, and definitive. It also rules out the hypothesis (of Velikovsky) that Venus's heat is due to an internal heat, in addition to the Sun's effect, since only the latter is necessary to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio.
The high pressure makes the carbon dioxide becomes a hypercritical gas that works as a supercoolant, not as a warmer. At lower partial pressures, like its pressure on the surface of the Earth, the carbon dioxide has a very low emissivity/absorptivity potential, which makes it a coolant, not a warmer, of the surface and the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteThe greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide is not true.
Hello, Biocab,
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting theory, perhaps, but I want my readers to understand that evidence trumps theory, and decisive evidence trumps all, even a "friendly" theory. In your case, the Venus/Earth temperature comparison shows not only that Venus is not warmer than it would be with less CO2, but that Earth is not cooler. Their temperatures at any given pressure level depend only on their distances from the Sun. No theory is needed to understand that, it is obvious from the data, as I have shown as simply as possible. So increased atmospheric CO2 neither warms nor cools, it only increases the efficiency of heat transfer within the atmosphere, distributing the available heat in accordance with the governing temperature lapse rate more quickly, but not to a different temperature-versus-pressure profile. The fact that the dark side of Venus is as hot as the sunlit side confirms this understanding, again very simply, as I pointed out in my previous post.
Thanks for considering my post is friendly.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's not a hypothesis, but it's not important to the purpose of your article.
Regarding the amount of energy that each planet receives from the Sun, here some data that demonstrates that you are correct (not friendly, but impartial):
Venus receives 2644.5 W/m^2 of solar radiation.
The Earth receives 1396.42 W/m^2 of solar radiation.
Venus receives 1.9 times much more solar radiation than the Earth. So your argument is correct.
Thanks, Biocab, but two points need to be made. First, without knowing where you got these numbers, we don't know whether they are strictly experimental observations, or theoretical calculations (the Earth number certainly agrees with widely quoted observations). Second, it is important for readers to understand that we know Venus receives, on average, 1.9 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, simply from their relative distances from the Sun, as my article discussed. What is truly remarkable is, a good portion of that power is reflected back into space by Venus's thick cloud cover (which makes the planet particularly bright to Earth observers), yet the Venus atmosphere is still heated by 1.9 times the power that heats the Earth atmosphere, as the temperature data shows. Thus we know that the visible portion of the Sun's radiation is not what heats the two atmospheres (because Venus doesn't take in 1.9 times as much visible light as the Earth, it takes in substantially less). Both atmospheres do, however, absorb infrared, and the comparison I have made shows they both must absorb the same portion of the incident infrared from the Sun, thus preserving the 1.9 power ratio calculated from their distances from the Sun. Furthermore, they must absorb this portion directly, not after absorption and emission from the surface, since the surfaces of Earth and Venus are likewise very different (deep ocean vs. solid crust) and would take up different fractions of the infrared, which again would spoil the 1.9 power ratio that is in fact indicated by the Venus/Earth temperature comparison. That the atmospheres must both be warmed by direct absorption of incident infrared radiation, rather than by prior warming of the planetary surface, is directly counter to common scientific belief, and is just as important as the primary finding that there is no greenhouse effect observed on either Earth or Venus. This underscores how badly "consensus" science has erred in understanding the thermodynamics of planetary atmospheres.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response to my query; it was intended to allow you to deal with that possible objection. Clearly it would be a bass-ackward way of analysing the data, but much ackwarder stuff has received broad circulation and acceptance.
ReplyDelete;)
Harry, I am impressed by your very clear explanation of the lapse rate phenomenon as being due to a combination of gravity and the intensity of incident radiation from the Sun, as exemplified by the common effect it has on the very different atmospheres of Earth and Venus. It's a neat and satisfyingly simple hypothesis based on sound science and is to me much more convincing than the CO2 theory based on "re-radiation".
ReplyDeleteWhere I come unstuck is:
1. My understanding is that diatomic gasses cannot radiate effectively at the atmosphere's comparatively low temperatures. If the tri-atomic gasses H2O, CO2 and NO2 are not involved, how is the Earth's atmosphere, consisting largely of diatomic gases (nitrogen and oxygen), able to radiate back to space the energy it picks up from the Sun without those gases having to heat up to enormous temperatures. On the ither hand, if the triatomic gases ARE involved, changing their proportions in the atmosphere would surely affect the energy balance and therefore the surface temperature!
2. How does your hypothesis explain the 33degC discrepancy between the Earth's theoretical black body surface temperature of -18degC, which assumes it has no atmosphere but nevertheless takes into account an albedo of 30% (to allow for real-world cloud cover, etc.) and it's actual measured temperature of +15degC, the difference being conventionally attributed to greenhouse gases?
So maybe the true answer is more complex with the fundamental lapse rate being sustained according to your hydrostatic hypothesis, and with the GHGs acting simply as the energy release funnel but for some reason having very low (or even zero) sensitivity to any changes in their concentration.
Perhaps this would neatly conjoin your "hydrostatic" hypothesis with the "low climate sensitivity" hypotheses of those very sane distinguished climatologists Prof Richard Lindzen and Dr Roy Spencer, at the same time satisfying the thousands of professional engineers and scientists like me whose basic physics training prevents us from buying in to fictitious "radiative amplification"!
Good Morning, David,
ReplyDeleteClimate scientists (including, I'm afraid, Lindzen and Spencer) are miseducating the world, and especially students of science, including other scientists. For example, your statements contain blatantly contradictory ideas: You first say, "if the triatomic gases ARE involved, changing their proportions in the atmosphere would surely affect the energy balance and therefore the surface temperature!" (My Venus/Earth comparison definitively says they don't, at least CO2 doesn't.) But then you speculate what seems to me the very opposite, "...with the GHGs...for some reason having very low (or even zero) sensitivity to any changes in their concentration." (Bingo, my analysis shows the CO2 temperature sensitivity, at least, is essentially zero; the huge difference in CO2 concentration between the Earth and Venus has no effect on the temperature vs. pressure profile, which is essentially the same for both planets.) Atmospheric proportion IS concentration, yet the one, you say, "would surely affect the energy balance" while the other can have (and in my analysis does have) "zero sensitivity". I hope the logical inconsistency in your two statements is clear (and, that my analysis shows which one -- the latter -- is in fact correct, while the other is simply wrong).
The above is where the climate debate is currently stuck, in my view, with any authorities who have seen my Venus/Earth analysis ignoring its (to me) plain implications, and people like yourself (and I'm talking about an entire generation of students, worldwide, at least) left holding contradictory ideas without realizing it. Once everyone accepts the validity of my analysis, then it is possible to go further; but until they do, I am in the untenable position of teaching people climate physics literally one at a time, and indeed as I uncover it for myself. Mine is the dilemma of every revolutionary discoverer, of how to gain recognition by the authorities of the day (or of the community of others in his profession), how to be accepted as one of them, and even as one whose understanding supersedes their own. It is a mess, or a work in progress, depending upon your philosophical outlook.
For what it is worth (and imagine this appearing in peer-reviewed journals, for all to see and study), I don't yet know all the details of atmospheric warming. Based upon my Venus/Earth analysis, I would say that, as soon as a portion (a photon) of the incident solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, by any element, then it is simply heat, which quickly goes to warm any other element that interacts with the first. I know that people think the infrared radiation is mainly absorbed by the triatomic elements, but I consider that just another myth of the current theorists. What they have observed is, I think, merely that the radiation portion of the heat transfer within the atmosphere is quickly concentrated in the triatomic elements, but that neglects the convection/conduction component of the heat transfer. It is indeed the main criticism of radiation transfer theory that it neglects the latter components of heat transfer, to focus only upon the radiative component, and thus entirely misses the real thermodynamics of the atmosphere. As I have already stated (in earlier comments here, and earlier posts), the thermodynamic effect of increasing CO2 (and other triatomic, or "greenhouse" gas) concentration is simply to increase the efficiency/speed of heat transfer within the atmosphere. As one of the earlier commenters has noted, the temperature on the dark side of Venus is just as high as on the sunlit side, and I attribute that to the increased efficiency of heat transfer due to the high concentration of CO2 in that atmosphere. So, in your terms, increased CO2 does NOT affect the "energy balance", it only quickens the attainment of the balance governed by the lapse rate structure of the atmosphere.
Harry Dale Huffman
David,
ReplyDeleteAs to your question about the theoretical blackbody temperature of the Earth:
The Venus/Earth comparison I have done does a lot to correct current theory, and this is another basic point. You will note that I did not include albedo in my calculation of the effective radiating temperature of the Earth, or of Venus, and there is no room for an albedo effect in my results. Climate scientists (and presumably planetary atmospheres scientists) are wrong to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at the surface of the Earth; it can only be done outside the atmosphere, which is basically what I did automatically in my analysis. The S-B equation obviously can't be applied at the surface, because there is heat transfer by conduction and convection, not just by radiation, in the atmosphere, between the surface and outer space. Nor, it follows, can one use the planetary albedo to "correct" the S-B equation to make it applicable where in fact it is inapplicable. So it should be obvious (but is not, to climate scientists and other followers of the consensus theory) that you can't simply subtract the "reflected" light from the incident solar intensity to calculate the effective, or equivalent blackbody, temperature. The widely-quoted value of 255K is wrong, and should be 279K (use the mean incident solar intensity of 342 W/m^2, not 342 - 102, or incident minus reflected). This is very basic physics; only a dogmatic belief in the current interpretations of radiative physics, as applied to the atmosphere, makes it a blind spot for consensus followers. Make no mistake, the radiative physics must be fundamentally flawed, as currently interpreted and applied.
On the second issue of Stefan-Boltzmann-based calculations, again I agree that these are invalid except when applied to the Earth as a whole including all the
ReplyDeleteatmosphere (unless we are talking about a GHG-less Earth, as discussed above, in which case the atmosphere is transparent in both directions and therefore
irrelevant!). Again the issue for me is how best to 'un-persuade' reasonable people who have been indoctrinated by the apparently simple math based on Stefan-
Boltzmann theory and thereby beguiled into believing in the inevitability of GHG radiative warming. I have found that just stating that Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply
at the Earth's surface is unpersuasive. This is a conundrum of human perception that I don't yet know how to resolve.
All the best, and I look forward to a continuing interesting dialogue.
David,
ReplyDeleteI received the further comment you sent, and read through the paper you recommended, "How Greenhouse Gases Work" by Robert Clemenzi (2009), and I also went to his site and read some of his other articles, which present involved theory and speculations that I won't comment on here (I think it would be more appropriate for you to recommend my Venus/Earth analysis to him, and ask him as a theorist to consider the effect of my evidence upon his theories). I decided after some consideration not to publish your comment here, because I want to keep this page as clear and simple as I can, and focused upon the definitive evidence of the Venus/Earth comparison, and what it means to climate science. But thank you for your words of agreement and your recommendations for further reading.
Harry: If there is no greenhouse effect on Earth, how do you explain the observed drops (over time) in the Earth's outgoing radiation at the wavelengths expected by conventional theoretical expectations for CO2 and CH4:
ReplyDelete"Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present," Griggs and Harries, Proc. SPIE 5543, 164 (2004).
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no
and Chen 2007:
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
David Appell,
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is that I don't have to explain it, rather those who promulgate the conventional theory need to explain it (I made this point to "Physics Today", when I submitted a letter communicating my Venus/Earth comparison -- and they declined to put it before their readership). With my analysis of the Venus/Earth data, we are in the realm of new knowledge (but it is "new", only because a generation of physical scientists, specifically charged with knowing their subject, strangely neglected to do what I have done, and what any first year physics student should be able to do in a few hours). That knowledge needs to be accounted for in our theories, if those theories are to survive or become better. I suggest that students, worldwide, show their science teachers/professors their eagerness to know how this new knowledge fits into current theories, or requires a better theory.
That basic point having been made, let me tell you what I, and I would expect any competent physicist, would say to your specific question, without having to drag in the full theory of radiation physics as applied to planetary atmospheres. I would hypothesize that a drop in outgoing radiation specifically and uniquely attributable to CO2, simply implies an increase in atmospheric CO2, somehow. Wonder of wonders, that hypothesis would appear to have substantial experimental support already, as we are informed of just such an increase in atmospheric CO2 in recent decades. So far, so good.
Now if you want to go further, and hypothesize that an increase in atmospheric CO2 must cause an increase in atmospheric temperature, at any given pressure level, then you have your work cut out for you, because the Venus/Earth comparison clearly shows there is no such increase, on even a planetary scale, for even such a huge increase in CO2 concentration as from 0.04% (Earth) to 96.5% (Venus). I have already given my view of the real effect of increased atmospheric CO2.
If it seems that I am talking down to you, and to other scientists who promulgate and defend the current theory, it is because I am. I think I am talking to children, not adult professionals, who are simply wasting everyone's time by ignoring and dismissing my analysis. I don't know what else to make of a scientific community that has allowed the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis to go on for a generation, in the face of what I know to be clear and overwhelming evidence against it. Every first-year university physics class should have the Venus/Earth comparison I have done as a routine homework assignment, or as a lab exercise. It is tailor-made introductory physics, and science educators need to get on it, and stay on it.
No one has all the answers (and again, I only call myself a competent scientist -- who nevertheless has made great discoveries), but adult professionals don't whine about that, they get on with finding the answers, humbly and dispassionately, bit by agonizing bit. And they should be restrained from trying to drive the world politically, with their clearly inadequate expertise -- because they are doing great damage to the reputation and natural authority of science. And you and others on the internet should not be defending their science, but vigorously questioning it.
Harry,
ReplyDeleteYes, I now see that you are quite right to keep the discussion 'on topic', namely your major finding that the lapse rates on Earth and Venus match almost exactly (over the same atmospheric pressure range and after taking into account relative insolation levels).
My problem in the past with the 'PV=nRT' argument, if I may call it that, has been that protagonists never mention a vital piece of the jigsaw (perhaps it is too obvious?!) namely that the gas laws cannot themselves dictate a particular temperature at a particular pressure level in a planetary atmosphere because this also depends on the level of inflowing radiant energy from the Sun, and, of course, a balancing output flow of radiant energy to space. This I believe has caused a lot of confusion in the blogsphere hitherto with people (like me) worrying unnecessarily about the exact internal composition and behaviour of the atmosphere.
The genius of your proof is that in effect you have incorporated this further consideration intrinsically by including the Venus/Earth insolation ratio in your analysis. This ratio, of course, is all you need to get your results, thus avoiding the almost impossible job of having to justify any of the energy flows within the components of the atmosphere (GHGs, non-GHGs, clouds, aerosols), or having to include albedo effects.
This is truly excellent science - reducing the problem to the simplest level whilst intrinsically and correctly encapsulating all the physical uncertainties.
I am in awe. Congratulations!
P.S. I shall be in St Lucia from tomorrow lying on my back absorbing carefully controlled levels of insolation for the next 10 days but I'm happy to re-join the discussion thereafter.
David Socrates,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much. Obviously, I think it is pretty cool too, but I think the atmospheres of Venus and Earth should get the lion's share of the credit, for being so easy to compare and interpret. Too bad James Hansen or others did not have the expertise to do it 19 years ago or so, when it should have been done and generally accepted.
At the risk of sounding nitpicking, I should add that what I showed was not that the "lapse rate" of the two atmospheres matched almost exactly, but that their temperature vs. pressure profiles do (when the difference in their distances from the Sun is accounted for, and over the range of pressures found in Earth's troposphere, where both atmospheres show a hydrostatic structure, in the form of a negative lapse rate). The lapse rate for Earth's troposphere is -6.5K/km, while that for Venus is approximately -8.1K/km.
Harry, Your terminology is correct and mine was sloppy. When I get back I would like to re-engage with you on how we can best get this publicised. Handled properly, this is dynamite.
ReplyDeleteDavid S.,
ReplyDeleteHow to get it publicized is a political question, and anyone who wants to address that should, for now, e-mail me at newhdh@netzero.com, rather than posting here.
Roscomac,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your positive considerations, but they are not focused upon the Venus/Earth comparison put forward here, and unnecessarily complicate, and therefore confuse, the discussion. I am probably not the best one for you to be talking to at this stage, but if you want to e-mail me for an answer to your queries, I will respond that way.
-----------------------------
David Appell,
You are not engaging with the Venus/Earth comparison here, you are fighting. Think of this as a classroom, and you are just the student here. I will not allow anyone to disrupt my classroom. I told you this is new knowledge, which is not theory or speculation. It is fact, and needs no defense. Radiative transfer as applied in climate science is a theory, and must account for these new, definitive, and overwhelming facts.
Harry, thank you so much for such a simple observation. Yes, those two words: "simple" and "observation" are what make your findings so damned beautiful! Compare this to the ridiculously complex and continually tweaked climate models based on myriad assumptions (that are incomprehensible even to the modellers, hey Mr HarryReadMe) and a flimsy hypothesis - how ugly is that!
ReplyDeleteUp to this point I have always bought the "benign GHG theory" as promoted by well-meaning scientists like Jo Nova and Bob Carter et al - that the GH effect is real but small and unalarming - even dwarfed into insignificance by all the other influencing factors.
But your simple observation here - comparing Venus and Earth using simple physical data that we know and basic physics makes all other arguments redundant - and provokes anyone with a brain to draw the only sensible conclusion possible: It IS the Sun wot dun it after all! Thank you for alerting me to your blog via your comment at WUWT.
I do however also hope to see some opposing viewpoints from fellow sceptics (not from alarmists - I would expect nothing less from them) simply because right now it feels like this is almost too perfect to be true, and need to see a few minds brighter than mine converted too. I know, I know, consensus is irrelevant to science. But I'd like to see it all the same.
Good Evening, David in UK,
ReplyDeleteThank you. The earlier comments here show what other skeptics of the climate consensus think about my Venus/Earth analysis; the fact is, I haven't gotten any opposing views from them, they just seem to verify that my data and calculations are correct, and those interested in particular theories sometimes refer to those theories, but without opposition to my analysis, and you can see how I have dealt with such references so far. The truth is, the analysis is quite transparent (student level, as I said in the article) and the result is a simple, inarguable fact, and one's reaction to it is an indicator of the level of scientific competence of the individual -- one's ability to focus upon clear fact, and one's mental independence from the claims of supposed science experts or "authorities" (such as scientific institutions like the AAAS, NAS, NASA, etc., which have all been suborned by the incompetent climate "consensus"). My position is that science needs to properly confront and accept my analysis -- thus, establishing a true consensus -- in order to provide the necessary correction for any real progress in climate science from this point on.
So what about the supposed relationship between Earth`s geohistoric temperatures and CO2 levels as recorded in C14 decay? Is it simply that fewer animals are alive when the world is cold (therefore less CO2 gets produced)?
ReplyDeleteDid CFC gases ever have potential as greenhouse gases?
Having lived in India, i can attest that deforestation noticably increases temperature during the day and reduces it at night, so it seems there is certainly anthropogenic climate change (or e.g. city heat island effect), however your analysis has dispelled my belief in AGW.
Good Evening, Gaia Fusion,
ReplyDeleteI am satisfied with having dispelled your belief in the greenhouse effect, which is the purpose of my article here. Your questions do not bear directly on that, so I won't address them here, but will merely take the opportunity to say again that I don't have, nor do I claim to have, all the answers (though your first one is easy, and has to do with the solubility of CO2 in the ocean, which is temperature dependent). In other words, truth is where you find it, and not all of it is to be found in the Venus/Earth comparison I have done here. Nevertheless, as I have tried to bring out, both in the article and in subsequent comments here, the Venus/Earth comparison does provide a whole handful of corrective answers to fundamental mistakes in consensus beliefs about the warming of the atmosphere.
I am still wondering why this claimed earth-shattering finding has not been written up and submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A letter to Physics Today proves nothing, even it it were published (and it wouldn't be peer-reviewed). Only peer-review can do that. Any editor at any journal would be thrilled to publish such a finding, if it is true. It seems writing the paper would be easy now, largely cut-and-paste. And the only way any experts will ever take it seriously, or even notice it, is if it is published in a legitimate journal and put open to scrutiny. Why hasn't this been done?
ReplyDeleteGood Morning, David Appell,
ReplyDeleteYour comment does not address the science of my analysis, but it is an important question.
A scientist's professional charge is first, last and always to advance human knowledge. In my experience (I am now 63 years old), this requires not just the necessary education, experience, insight, discovery and verification of new knowledge, but having found such knowledge, being open and straightforward in my efforts to communicate it. I am, then, like heat energy, that flows along any path that is open and is the quickest, most efficient way I can find to alert others to what I consider critical new knowledge -- indeed, revolutionary new knowledge. I have simply not found peer-reviewed journals to be open channels for revolutionary knowledge.
And my simple Venus/Earth analysis is not my only experience in addressing the problem of how to bring revolutionary new knowledge to the world, just when the world badly needs it, but determinedly resists it.
You, for example, are not addressing my scientific analysis, so you are not acting like a scientist. The editor(s) of "Physics Today" did not act like scientists either. No academic authority or climate "expert" I have tried to inform of my analysis has acted like a scientist. Correction, make that "like an honest, competent scientist". My experience in this is long, and only getting longer, and it is an indictment of science and scientists on every level. While that is to be expected, with revolutionary knowledge, it does not change the fact that I will get my discoveries out, and I will see that it is done openly, honestly, and with as high a scientific standard as I can muster. I think real scientists would help me, recognizing me as one of their own.
Mr. Huffman
ReplyDeleteI like your basic analysis. It makes sense. If we accept that the higher you go the colder it gets then the reverse should also be true. I've always found the Venus analogy to be very dicey. Thanks for this information. I have another issue for you to ponder. Nowhere have I seen the absorption and re-radiation of photons in an atmosphere treated in a quantum mechanical manner. We all know that this is a quantum mechanical process. So here are basic questions/issues
1. Won't some of the re-radiated photons be transformed into lower energy photons?
2. How much do issues like the Zeeman effect affect the absorption and re-radiation in a body of gas?
3. Shouldn't we see stimulated emission effects in the Atmosphere?
Good Morning, Harpo,
ReplyDeleteThank you. Your comments remind me of the feel of college physics on campus, with free-wheeling discussions of fundamental physics that required only an empty classroom and a couple of fellow students (or one good instructor) to make great strides in physical understanding of any and all processes in the natural world. I know that's fun, and I hate to be an old party poop (or a useless instructor), but for the questions you bring up, you have wandered into the wrong room. This is just the machine shop (or maybe the steam plant), and we're trying to fix an important piece of equipment called climate science -- that is, just get it up and running properly. I'm afraid you will have to go over to the fancy new classroom building on the other side of campus.
Seriously, I will keep your questions in mind, but this page is really just for presenting the Venus/Earth comparison, and what climate science (and any interested physicist) can and should learn from that comparison. At the moment, I can only suggest you browse the net for information. (Tom Vonk writes about the quantum mechanics behind IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere, and of course the radiation transfer guys will talk your socks off with their models -- but none of them can yet hold a candle to the simple comparison here of Venus and Earth, to correct and advance our understanding of climate.)
Harry, I notice you're assuming that Venus's bond albedo (the fraction of reflected insolation) is not significantly different from Earth's. To see whether there was a significant difference I tried repeating your calculations taking the respective albedos into account. Here's what I concluded, let me know whether or not you agree.
ReplyDeleteWhereas Earth's bond albedo is around 0.3, Venus's bond albedo is around 0.75. Hence Earth is being heated by 0.7 of the insolation whereas Venus is being heated by only 0.25 of the insolation.
So the quantity you should be taking the fourth root of is not 1.91 but 1.91*.25/.7 = .682, whose fourth root is .909.
From this it follows that your table of Earth temperatures and their matching Venus temperatures should be as follows.
PRES T_E T_V T_V/.909 Error (K)
1000 287.4 338.6 287.9 85.1
900 281.7 331.4 281.8 82.9
800 275.5 322.9 274.6 79.7
700 268.6 315.0 267.9 77.9
600 260.8 302.1 256.9 71.5
500 251.9 291.4 247.8 68.7
400 241.4 278.6 236.9 65.1
300 228.6 262.9 223.6 60.6
200 211.6 247.1 210.1 60.2
In particular when the pressure is 1 Earth atmosphere (which occurs at 49.5 km altitude) the quantity T_V/.909 is 85 degrees hotter than the surface of Earth.
One might think at first that this was just the result of greenhouse warming by the mass of CO2 above 49.5 km. However it only takes about 11 doublings of Earth's .04% CO2 to bring it up to the 97% obtaining on Venus.
Assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling, the error should only be 33 degrees. How did it turn out to be 85 degrees? That could only happen with a climate sensitivity of 7.7 degrees per doubling, way higher than what atmospheric physicists expect.
If you have any ideas as to what's going on here I'd be very interested in hearing them.
Celeste
Good Morning, Celeste,
ReplyDeleteBecause we are dealing here with an entrenched incompetence in the generally-accepted science, in the face of which one of my watchwords is simplicity (of explanation), the short answer to what is going on here, is that you haven't understood my simple analysis, whose results turn consensus opinions like yours literally upside down -- in short, I have NOT assumed there is no difference in albedo, or that the difference in albedo is unimportant, rather you are assuming that the difference IS important. (Go ahead, reread the article, and prior comments, where I address the albedo directly, but shortly as it deserves.) My analysis clearly and simply SHOWS it is not important, and the simple physical reason why it is not: Because the two atmospheres must be heated by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, both of them by the same portion of that incident radiation (read my second reply to "biocab", above). So the ONLY PART of the incident solar radiation that matters for atmospheric warming is that common portion absorbed directly by both atmospheres -- NOT the portion that is "reflected", by either the planetary surface or cloud tops. I put "reflected" in quotes, because I even doubt you know what the true reflection coefficient is, or at least what it means physically, because once any part of the incident solar radiation interacts with the atmosphere, and comes back out, it is not just an innocent bystander to be subtracted out before you calculate expected warming. Even the visible portion is scattered, we know, because that scattering is obvious from the fact that it lets us see the blue sky.
This point is fundamental to exposing the incompetence behind the consensus, which insists upon treating the surface of the planet as a blackbody emitter (that is, using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, "corrected" by "albedo" or not, as it suits their purpose), even though any second-year physics student should know you can only replace an actual body by an equivalent blackbody when the only energy interaction the body has with the rest of the universe is electromagnetic radiation; and the surface of the Earth (or any planet with an atmosphere) does not fit that requirement (since its atmosphere intervenes between it and outer space, and that atmosphere transfers energy by convection and conduction as well as by radiation, scattering the latter all and sundry along the way). In short, you have to draw a shell around the whole Earth-plus-atmosphere system to use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and any radiation coming out of that shell, just like any radiation entering it, is part of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, unavoidably. The consensus is thoroughly deluded on this fundamental point, and I am here to tell the world that. The whole worldwide controversy over climate change is founded upon this pathetic truth about a fundamental sickness in climate science -- a mental sickness, due to entrenched, and clearly false, dogmas masqueraded as scientific facts. So I am sorry, your calculations are worthless (as are the corrections you also submitted).
Ah, my apologies. I had naively searched your article for the word "albedo" without success and inferred incorrectly that you had not addressed that difference. At your suggestion I reread it and realized that the following addresses it.
ReplyDelete"This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth -- the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely."
Let me run your argument by you just to make sure I've understood it. The direct evidence of the excellent agreement between Earth's surface temperature and T_V/1.176 proves that Venus must be absorbing the same percentage of the solar energy reaching it as does Earth, namely 70%. This good agreement shows that the claim by some astronomers, that Venus only absorbs 25% of that energy, is therefore wrong by a factor of 2.8. (Bond albedo is the relevant kind of albedo when talking about fraction of energy reflected, since it integrates the reflected energy over all relevant wavelengths and angles of incidence.)
Have I understood you correctly?
I am shocked at the extent of the incompetence in astronomy. Hopefully future generations will measure these things more carefully.
Celeste,
ReplyDeleteYes, that is precisely what I wanted you to see, and understand. Good work, I'm sure this will help others who read your comments to do the same. However, for the benefit of other readers, it does not just apply to the comparison at the pressure at Earth's surface, but over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, particularly outside of the Venus cloud region.
I hope you are in science, as it needs your kind badly right now. If I had my own research institution (and I need one for what I am trying to do), I would be trying to get scientists like you to work there, as one of the very few who have so far shown a willingness to look again, and focus on the evidence long enough to understand it physically. And don't be too shocked by the incompetence in Astronomy; the problem is a crisis of incompetence across all of the physical sciences, particularly the earth and life sciences, due to a general intellectual ingestion of bad theories taught as fact, and based upon a false paradigm, as my greater research has uncovered and proved.
Good, I'm glad we're on the same wavelength then.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you could make your argument even stronger by removing all circularities from it. Not that circularity is necessarily a bad thing, mathematical induction would not work without it.
The one small circularity I see here is that you infer that the bond albedo of Venus must be that of Earth, based on the good agreement you get in your table. From this it follows that the ratio 1.176 is applicable. You then apply that ratio to obtain good agreement between T_E and T_V/1.176. Some misguided people might grumble that this is circular.
I would imagine that if you reworded your argument to remove this minor circularity, even more people would find it convincing. But as I pointed out mathematicians are happy to use circular arguments so why not here? Those complaining about circularity evidently don't understand induction.
Celeste,
ReplyDeleteThere is no circularity, there is only you continuing to assume the albedo must be important ("guilty until proven innocent", I guess; only you're still assuming -- even after my answer to you concerning the proper use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, hint, hint -- and I am not, I am just being simple in my approach, removing the effect of the most obvious variables first; I remove the pressure variable by comparing the two atmospheres at points of equal pressure, and I remove the solar variable by calculating the expected Venus/Earth temperature ratio if that were the only variable, and by the way I automatically, without even having to think about it, remove the albedo variable by calculating the blackbody temperature properly -- and I find I have used up all of the variation with just the Sun, quite precisely). Now I suggest you read ALL of the comments above, paying particular attention to my reply to Brian, and my answer to David Socrates concerning calculating the equivalent blackbody temperature of the Earth-atmosphere system. My analysis corrects a whole handful of errors made by current climate theorists -- with no circularity, and nothing up my sleeve. That's why David Socrates said he was in awe, and the entire scientific community should be in awe at such simplicity and clarity, provided by the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, and an analysis by me that in my student days would have merely made me a particularly good student, nothing more. Thinking has gone down hill in science (even in physics, my field) since then. Or maybe, just maybe, I AM a genius, simply for seeing the obvious where so many (97%, I have read over and over) now are blind. But you haven't seen anything until you study, and understand, my greater research, into the objective origin of the "ancient mysteries". This, in contrast, is just a by-the-way correction of a single field of science, done with a minimal amount of effort, yet amazingly definitive.
David Appell,
ReplyDeleteLearn from others' comments here, and my replies to them, what a scientist does. I am telling the truth, and you refuse to hear it. You are not even the science journalist you claim to be, but only an emotionally biased defender of a corrupt system, suborned by an incompetent climate science. And your angry comments, which you admit don't address the actual science, would only disrupt honest truth-seeking, so just don't bother submitting any more like them.
Huffman's logic looks good to me (but neither do I have enough science background to be confident that I'm not being bamboozled.)
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the basic table of Venus and Earth temperatures shown (which can be verified as actual collected and unadjusted data) demonstrate that within the 1000 to 200mb range, Venus temperature is a constant 1.176 higher than Earth (K degrees) , and that factor happens to also be the radiating factor difference between Venus and Earth.
The radiating factor is determined by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, in this case the fourth root of 93/67.25, (ratio of average distances from the sun) No consideraion has been given to greenhouse gas, albedos, etc., so either both Venus (96% CO2) and Earth (.04% CO2) are either both already maxed out in terms of greenhouse effect, or... there is no greenhouse effect. ??
.. "max out" at something less than .04% co2
ReplyDeleteGood Afternoon, GoFigure560,
ReplyDeleteI debated a minute or two whether to publish your comments, since they cover no new ground, and repeat the false statement that "no consideration has been given" to this or that physical variable, such as albedo. I just went through this with Celeste, above (and see my reply to Brian H, earlier), and will just repeat, it is all in the original article, but reading all the previous comments might have saved you repeating this point. Nevertheless, you have made an honest effort to understand and summarize my analysis, I think, and that is worth recognizing. I know that the likes of Chris Colose, Jeff Id, and probably others have dismissed my analysis on the flimsy basis of the albedo question, which only means they have not absorbed what I actually wrote in my article -- which should be clear as day to any competent professional physical scientist -- and such critics have also tried to dissuade people like you from accepting my clear analysis by insinuating I am somehow bamboozling those gullible enough to consider me seriously. I won't be giving any further space to the unscientific misdirections of such deluded "experts", and they can ignore me all they want, at their professional peril. My readers should know I am not kidding or being otherwise eccentric in focusing upon the incompetence now rampant in science.
I hope you don't mind that I have sent your blog link to several relevant people (who don't otherwise know me, and - in any event, I'm certainly no authority on this issue), with the "dare" that, unlike some other physicists who arrived at the same conclusion but the involved mathematics probably put off even curious readers because it required a considerable level of expertise and time to investigate whereas you have made a very simple claim, backed with straight-forward logic and data.
ReplyDeleteThe"dare" being that it should therefore be quite easy to rebut if it is wrong, and if that is not the case, that itself speaks to the claims of the greenhouse effect being "settled" science.
Good Afternoon, denis,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with getting the word out about the existence of a definitive disproof of the consensus greenhouse effect, which scientists in the field should have performed, properly confronted, and unanimously accepted nearly 20 years ago. As I have told others who have lately inquired about reproducing the article itself, I would like to keep it here on my own site for now, where I can be aware of comments and reply properly to them.
It turns out that I'm both "GoFigure560" and "denis", the former occurs when I'm asked for a profile and I click on google. Sorry - no intent to deceive.
ReplyDeleteYou claim is very exciting. I've been a skeptic of AGW for some time just based on other information, went so far as to generate a google-doc so that friends and family, if interested, could pursue the issue.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
Okay, denis ables,
ReplyDeleteI checked your link (and saw your last name there). We won't be getting into the mountains of internet arguments in the climate debates here, which your tutorial goes into. As I have said in earlier replies, I want to keep this page focused upon the Venus/Earth comparison presented here, and its implications for correcting climate science.
I knew there was "experimental evidence" demonstrating the greenhouse effect, but was hoping some of my contacts might look at your claim, and discuss what's wrong, if anything, with it. The logic looked good to me, and I'm assuming the temperature/pressure profile data was accurate. ... but I haven't yet given up hope.
ReplyDeleteGood Evening, denis,
ReplyDeleteI decided to allow this comment, even though it adds nothing to the real science under discussion, because it can be used to show the avoidance behavior religiously practiced by defenders of the climate consensus. I assume the people you contacted rebuffed you with a vague statement about experimental evidence for the greenhouse effect. It doesn't sound like they gave you any details, but in fact those details aren't important, because the existence of evidence FOR something is not generally definitive (i.e., does not prove it), while the existence of evidence forbidding something is (does DISPROVE it). My Venus/Earth analysis denies any possibility of a greenhouse effect -- it is simply a demonstrated experimental fact in my analysis that, based upon the detailed temperature and pressure data of Venus and Earth, the only difference in their atmospheric temperatures, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is precisely due to the difference in their distances from the Sun, and nothing else. In particular, the difference (17%) is not at all due to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, since Venus has almost pure CO2 (96.5%), while Earth has only a trace (0.04%) -- a difference of more than 11 doublings of CO2 which, in the usual claims of 3°C of warming per doubling of CO2 (the consensus), would give a Venus temperature-vs-pressure curve over 33°C higher than Earth's temperature-vs-pressure curve, in the graph I presented. Yet the curves are on top of one another; Venus's curve is not 30°C, nor 10°C, nor even 1°C higher than Earth's. Inside Venus's clouds, it is even a few degrees lower than Earth's. So there simply is no CO2 greenhouse effect as claimed by the consensus. They WILL NOT admit this truth; I can even understand that most of them CANNOT admit this, it is simply too horrifying a revelation of their fundamental incompetence, for them.
But I am not surprised you were rebuffed, nor should you be, nor should you be disappointed; your contacts are only behaving no better than any other defenders of the consensus, and no more competently nor honestly. Remember, there was "experimental evidence" (naive observation) for the Sun moving around the Earth in Galileo's time, and he was harshly rebuffed by the authorities of his time for claiming otherwise. He is famously rumored to have murmured under his breath, defiantly, "nevertheless it moves", referring to the Earth. Perhaps you might have struck an honest nerve with your contacts if you had replied to them, "nevertheless there is no greenhouse effect". But almost certainly not; the order of the day for consensus scientists is avoidance behavior. See the first comment by David Appell above, and my reply to it. Anyone who has ever been in an untenured position, working under a tenured academic or well-funded principal investigator, can tell you they are well-trained in avoiding admitting anything of importance that they don't want to admit, and such behavior on the part of those in positions of power and authority is par for the course across all of science, and of course in politics too. This is the number one symptom of their incompetence, in my long experience. The practical impossibility of getting any anti-consensus articles through the peer-review process (particularly into "Science", or "Nature", or "Physics Today", or "Scientific American", etc.) is another. We are up against an essentially lawless system, for those outside of it, and they are exercising absolute control to the limit of their ability. That is why I see no better way to go than to go directly to the masses, with the simplest, clearest FACTS, not theory, I can find. They are playing Russian Roulette with the reputation of science in the world, and they are playing with a fully-loaded gun. The truth will out, and they WILL lose, disastrously for everyone on every side of the debates.
Firstly, let me just say I'm amazed at the simplicity and intuitiveness of your theory, always a good sign. I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here though, this being my first post I hope you'll indulge me.
ReplyDeleteSo, if we switched off the sun, the atmosphere would lose most of its temperature and volume but pressure will be kept a constant 1atm at sealevel by gravity. As we warm the sun back up, the atmosphere would increase in temperature and volume, regulated purely by the sun again with pressure held constant by gravity. As such, the composition of the gas is mostly irrelevant, it can be viewed as an ideal gas which will exhibit the same expansion behaviour and temperature differentials regardless of its constituent particles. The difference in composition would be in how well they conduct to equalise temp/volume at a given pressure.
I'm just a curious amateur, it would be nice if you could correct any and all of my thought experiment. It does seem incomprehensible that such a fundamental and simple explanation has escaped evaluation. The greenhouse effect never sat well with me, but I bought into the CO2 consensus even though I was skeptical of the dangers of warming. Not anymore. It seems obvious (and physically sound) that CO2 is more like a lubricant than a furnace.
Do you know of any data from other planets or moons? You have proven your case well already with just two planets, but more empirical verification is always good, right? Thanks for your blog, I love to have something this tasty to mentally chew on.
Good Morning, Nazlfrag,
ReplyDeleteI am torn between saying "congratulations" and "but you go too far."
Congratulations on your simile, that "CO2 is more like a lubricant than a furnace", which seems to me an insightful and particularly good one, for turning around the thinking of an alarmed public, on CO2's real role in enabling quicker heat transfer, rather than in adding heat to our environment, although it would be more accurate (but wordier) to make it a black and white contrast: CO2 is like a lubricant for spreading the available heat, not like a furnace, producing more heat.
In your thought experiment, rather than switching off the Sun, I would suggest you dial it down just part way, a little at a time; otherwise, at some point, on the way to freezing the atmospheric gases solid, the ideal gas law would cease to apply, and the temperature lapse rate structure would disappear. Just how far down you could dial it, without destroying that structure, is a good question for climate scientists. The other caveat I would add is that not all gas molecules are created equal -- CO2 is about 50% heavier than O2 or N2, for example -- and they have different specific heats, which affects the temperature lapse rate (the lapse rate in Venus's atmosphere is larger than that in Earth's atmosphere), so I wouldn't say that "the gas would exhibit the same expansion behavior and temperature differentials regardless of its constituent particles"; I would say, "expansion behavior and temperature differentials of the same form", but not "the same". But that may be nitpicking of what is a good thought experiment all around. Thank you.
As for looking at other planets, I only tried to look at Mars, and found its surface pressure is only about 6.5 mb, so its atmosphere would have to be compared with the upper stratosphere and above in Earth's atmosphere. That takes it out of the regime of main interest to climate scientists, the troposphere, and I haven't seen authoritative temperature and pressure profiles for Mars, but an emphasis on large surface temperature variations that do not allow for a precise comparison with Earth's atmosphere even at the 6.5 mb pressure level. So there is still a lot left for others to do; I have just opened the door.
I am curious about the following statement:
ReplyDelete"Yes, the observation that the dark hemisphere on Venus is as hot as the lighted one is a good one, since it underscores the fact that the temperature profile of a planetary atmosphere is determined quite simply by considering the atmosphere as like the ocean, with pressure (and hence temperature) increasing with depth."
In particular, the "like the ocean" piece. It is my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that the temperature of the ocean decreases with depth. I do understand that the pressure increases with depth, however.
Good Evening, Richard,
ReplyDeleteIt was merely awkward wording on my part, too closely juxtaposing two physically related but different ideas, in too few words: 1) That the air and water ocean are alike, in that the pressure increases with depth in both, due to gravity (this is called the hydrostatic condition) and 2) that, in the troposphere at least, the temperature of the air varies directly with the pressure, and so also increases with depth (this is the negative temperature lapse rate structure I have emphasized, which also follows from the hydrostatic condition for an ideal gas). You are right that the temperature of the water ocean decreases with depth. In hindsight, I should probably have changed the wording of the comment to something like, "...with pressure (and, in the atmosphere, the temperature too) increasing with depth".
This awkwardness came out in that comment because, in the article itself, I simply said, "the atmospheric pressure varies with the temperature...", in motivating why I compared temperatures at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres. What I didn't say, was that I knew that one could divide the water ocean into horizontal layers, each layer characterized by its pressure, due to overlying layers, and so I knew I could do the same with the hydrostatic atmosphere, and thus see that, if the radiating temperature of the whole Venus+atmosphere system was 1.176 times that of the Earth+atmosphere system, then the temperature of each pressure layer of the Venus atmosphere must also be 1.176 times that of the corresponding pressure layer of the Earth atmosphere -- which my results confirmed, all too splendidly. I tried to shield my readers from too lengthy a motivation, but I really wanted to bring it all out, so I ended up mangling that later comment (also trying to keep it simple, while hinting at the real physics behind it all). So there you have it, I am really a closet physicist, and if you scratch at my words too hard you will get a torrent of explanation. As Monk would say, it's a gift...and a curse.
I have no problem with wordiness. Better to say more and make it clear.
ReplyDeleteI have another question, though.
Since PV = nRT, and T is directly (>) proportional to the average energy, then haven't you simply stated a tautology?
That is, if CO2 does cause the atmosphere to retain more energy, then the 1,000 mB level will just shift upwards?
Richard,
ReplyDeleteMy abiding aim is to simplify an unnecessarily complicated situation in science, where an incompetent consensus now rules across the board. The reality is, it is better (for me, and for the situation in science) to use fewer words to start, and only add more as needed. Readers will note I haven't posted another article on this site since this one, on the Venus/Earth comparison, nine months ago now. That's because it is the definitive correction to climate science, the new zero point for real progress in climate science, and I am waiting for climate scientists, indeed the world of science and the wider world beyond that, to catch up.
For clarity on your question, you only need to read Nazlfrag's comment above, which answers most simply: The 1,000 mb level can't shift upwards in the governing hydrostatic approximation, it is fixed (at the surface) by the weight of the atmosphere above it. It is probably a good idea to remind ourselves at this point not to confuse weather with climate, or short-term variations (in surface pressure, for example) with long-term average.
Arrrgh, of course, the volume of the atmosphere can change for a planet to keep the pressure constant at the surface.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, I should have realized that because I have seen articles about the effect of the atmosphere shrinking (satellites experience less friction and use less station-keeping propellant ...).
Richard,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the positive feedback, honestly sharing that "eureka" moment when the light shines through, even if it makes you say "ouch! or "arrrgh" at first. I'm sure others who read this far will appreciate it, too. And thanks also to Nazlfrag for his clear and simple comment, so I didn't have to be the only one on hand with the answer, I only had to point it out.
The 1st thing I thought upon reading this article was: "wait, you can't take pressure out as if it were inconsequential. The net outcome of the so-called greenhouse effect could just be a contribution to the remarkable pressure values that Venus has".
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it seems that in the latest comments this issue is surfacing.
The sun is contributing energy, not temperature, to the planetary system (obviously!); suppose that there are mechanisms that help the planet retain more of the aforementioned energy before dispersing it. Since there is a continuous flow of energy both in from the sun and out to space, different and changing properties in the objects involved (atmospheric strata, but also oceans and even land) may translate in an increased amount of energy retained.
You just discovered a good demonstration of the fact that the planetary atmospheric systems are good at recreating an equilibrium where a given P is corresponding to a predictable T, dependent only on the incoming solar radiation.
But the point is, the increase in thermal energy of the planet is not changing that; it's probably shifting the pressure levels up, as Richard pointed out.
Good Morning, Alessandro,
ReplyDeleteYour comment is a good one, but only to illustrate the ways in which a believer's mind can filter the available information on a scientific problem, shutting out a good deal, and actually reversing the meaning of some, as necessary, to make the point the believer (in the greenhouse effect hypothesis, in this case) wants to make.
For example, your point is, in the end, the same as Richard Sharpe's; but you have simply ignored the fact that I easily answered his point, and he himself agreed (grudgingly, saying "arrgh, of course", and then explaining to himself in his own words what he had suddenly realized). You have evidently read the comments before yours, yet you clearly failed to absorb what the last several were saying, which is that increasing the thermal energy cannot shift the pressure levels, and your point is dead and already well buried. I only allowed it in as an example of the current inability of consensus followers to focus upon the facts.
All the rest of your comment is a self-contradicting tangle, that requires, I think, more than a quick answer here; it requires a serious re-education on your part. I think the best short answer I can give you (and it will probably seem like only a vague hint to you) is that what you have written ignores the unchanging mass of the atmosphere, which alone is responsible for the "remarkable pressure values that Venus has". That mass, and the long-term governing hydrostatic lapse rate structure of the atmosphere, preclude any long-term effects by any other "mechanisms that help the planet retain more of the...energy before dispersing it". The Venus/Earth comparison clearly shows that, in the absence of changes in the incident solar radiation, any and all such "mechanisms" (the bread and butter of the incompetent consensus, and the miseducation of students worldwide for a generation and more) are transient (weather) and/or highly localized in effect (the thick clouds on Venus, most notably).
Good evening :-)
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but you are operating under the assumption that some things are irrelevant and/or independent and unchanging. Who told you that the mass of the atmosphere of Venus (or Earth, for that matter) is a constant? Is the mass of the "atmosphere" of comets a constant?
In my view, although I'm ready to admit ignorance on the subject, and sure, there have to be other factors at work, Venus got a very thick atmosphere in no small part due to the fact that, gradually heating up, whatever could get in gaseous form, eventually did (but the gravity well was enough to retain gases).
Alessandro,
ReplyDeleteRemember, I told you based upon your previous comment that you require a re-education. This is not the place to get that education, but I would suggest you look up "standard temperature and pressure", otherwise known as conditions of STP. What are those conditions, quantitatively? Why are they called "standard", if they are not fixed over the long term? You apparently feel you can re-imagine all of physics as it suits you, to avoid learning the truth you don't want to face. You are of course not alone; incompetent "experts" also theorize that Venus got its thick atmosphere through the "runaway" greenhouse effect -- yet there is clearly no greenhouse effect on Venus now (you have not explained my results with any other interpretation), with its huge atmosphere of carbon dioxide, so ask yourself (and them) how there could have been such an effect when the atmosphere was far less massive -- and note, they (and you), are the ones assuming, not me. You assume the atmosphere gains mass, even at present Earth atmospheric temperatures, yet the Standard Atmosphere, based upon many years of detailed observations, categorically denies such an assumption, as does the lack of any scientific reports of a strange increase in atmospheric mass, or mean surface pressure in modern times, correlated with atmospheric temperature (the mean surface pressure at sea level is a standard unit, for heaven's sake; it is called "one atmosphere"). There is no basis for your, and those "experts"', view on this subject at all, yet you feel secure stating that "view" as if it had any logical force, as if the most basic science didn't exist that shows it to be patently false. You are misinformed, or miseducated, by the "experts", who are in fact not expert, indeed far from it.
Alessandro,
ReplyDeleteI got your further comment, which is too long and disjointed to help advance anyone's understanding here. I'm sorry, but you are not focusing upon the governing facts, and I don't think arguing with you will change that. There are some legitimate points in your comment, but they are lost in a sea of assertions that I find vague and careless of known facts, and they have already been addressed, in the article and in earlier comments. Your last point amounts to an assertion that some effect(s) internal to the atmosphere, causing it to retain more energy -- as, for example, "heat trapping" by carbon dioxide -- could expand the atmosphere but leave the temperature-vs-pressure curve I have focused upon undisturbed, thus explaining my results but saving the greenhouse effect. But this ignores the basic fact that such an increase in the retained energy would change the radiating temperature of the planet+atmosphere system, and that is fixed by the incident solar radiation level. Really, it is as simple as that; your supposition simply violates the most fundamental, most basic physics. But you refuse to be pinned down by the hard facts, and merely want to speculate, vaguely and contrary to those facts, and have your speculations be received as logically compelling. The supposed experts, especially climate scientists, do this all the time today. I can only call this self-delusion (and I have, repeatedly).
This seems pretty incontrovertible.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm reading this right, this could perhaps very neatly explain (to at least a high degree) the very few pieces of anecdotal or observational evidence that the consensus try to cite as "proof" of the greenhouse effect and AGW; namely, amplified warming at higher latitudes and at night, and melting mountain glaciers.
Based on what you describe, and the temperature profile of Venus and its extremely long day, increased CO2 in its role as merely a lubricant may bring tropical warmth to the higher latitudes of Earth a bit more efficiently, increasing temperatures there in the winter in particular. It would also help to spread energy from the slowing the drop in temperature during the night.
While it might reduce average daytime temperatures, it possibly wouldn't reduce the absolute maximum temperature on any given day at a given location. Hence, daytime maxima won't change much, but nighttime minima, particularly in higher latitudes, would not be so low, resulting in higher average "global" temperatures when taken as a simple arithmetic mean of maximum and minimum.
Other comments have speculated on the 1 bar altitude of the atmosphere raising above sea level. Rather than that, is it possible that, if the atmosphere expands to maintain sea level pressure at 1 bar, the rate of reduction in temperature with altitude is slightly lessened? If so, then mountainous regions wolud see slightly raised pressures and temperatures, and this could perhaps reduce glacier size on the margins.
Of course, the effect of the CO2 increase we've had would need to be quantified for both of these aspects (heat distribution and pressure decrease with altitude, if applicable or non-negligible). I'm sure this can be done by those with sufficent physics knowledge, which could then be compared to observations to give further validation to your findings.
Thank you very much for presenting this - it could be absolute dynamite (literally) for AGW.
Good Evening, beefy-k,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, and thank you. Yes, I have had similar thoughts, which I haven't looked into yet, and I won't get into these aspects here, because they go beyond the long-term temperature distribution which the Venus/Earth comparison focuses upon. You're talking about seasonal, daily and other short-term variations, and the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 upon these, in its role as a "heat lubricant" or heat transfer accelerant. Yes, I expect PhD's will be awarded for such work, in the future. However, I would consider it merely further affirmation, rather than validation, because that interpretation of CO2's true role explains too much already, and too simply for me to doubt it (for example, why the radiative transfer experts were fooled into thinking it was the "thermostat", rather than a preferred IR heat path, for the atmosphere--see my first reply to David Socrates, where I wrote, "What they have observed is, I think, merely that the radiation portion of the heat transfer within the atmosphere is quickly concentrated in the triatomic elements"). I don't consider further validation necessary for my finding that there is no greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC-sponsored consensus, which is why I so confidently say the Venus/Earth comparison is definitive against that hypothesis.
Alessandro,
ReplyDeleteI have a responsibility to see all the facts treated fairly. If you refuse to even give heed to those facts that don't conform to your imagination, as if they were a temporary form given to an infinitely variable molding clay, then you are thoughtlessly disrespecting every scientist who struggled to bring those facts to light. I understand you are angry and frustrated, but I don't think it is possible, for me, to treat your comments any fairer than I have already, while being fair to myself and others who may read this page, or to lighten your self-imposed frustration with more of my simple physics. I don't claim to have all of the answers, but neither do you -- and that is my last word to you.
It's nice to see you commenting over at WUWT. In case you missed it in the flood, note part of my comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/hot-off-the-press-desslers-record-turnaround-time-grl-rebuttal-paper-to-spencer-and-braswell/#comment-737376 :
ReplyDeleteAnthony – okay if I turn Dr Huffman’s account into a WUWT post? It’s been a while since we had an article here, and those we have are rather testy. E.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
Dr Huffman – okay if I turn this into a WUWT post? It will probably guarantee you’ll never hear from “Physics Today” but a lot more people will read it.
My Email address is within http://wermenh.com/contact.html
About a year ago there was an interesting discussion on "Science of Doom" about what the temperature would be at the bottom of a "Tall Room" with perfectly insulated sides.
ReplyDeleteOne application would be to calculate the temperature profile if a very deep hole were dug on Earth to a point where the pressure would be comparable with the surface of Venus.
Of course no consensus was reached but I was persuaded by the arguments that showed that pressure determined temperature (via adiabatic lapse rate derived from high school thermodynamics) so there was nothing to be gained by complex calculations involving RTEs (Radiative Transfer Equations).
Furthermore it did not make much difference what gas one used. Carbon dioxide or Helium? It made little difference as long at the pressures were the same and the TOA (Top of the Atmosphere) temperatures were the same.
(I originally treated Ric Werme's comment as a personal e-mail, and wrote back to him:)
ReplyDeleteGood Morning, Mr. Werme,
I received your comment to my blog article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect", and I think I would like you to read my submission to "Physics Today" and the resulting slight correspondence some two and a half months later, and consider publishing that on WUWT, rather than my original article. I tried submitting this material to WUWT some time ago, but the interface was troublesome and trashed my formatting, so it was probably ignored then. I am first going to simply put this in the current text, and if that doesn't work I will send an e-mail with the material attached. My current plan is to keep my article on my own blog site for now, where I can field comments and respond properly, until I can get the opportunity for a "mass market" publication that publically blows the lid off the truth about the greenhouse effect.
----------------
Mr. Werme wrote back saying the material concerning my submission to "Physics Today" would be published as an article on WUWT (the familiar form for wattsupwiththat.com), but it won't happen immediately, as they are following the "brouhaha" over the recently-published Spencer and Braswell paper -- which, as I understand it, is an effort to show that the "radiative forcing" claimed by the consensus is substantially overestimated, so there is no good scientific reason for their high CO2 "climate sensitivity" of 3°C warming per doubling of CO2. Of course, the Venus/Earth analysis here shows that sensitivity is essentially zero.
Good Morning, gallopingcamel,
ReplyDeleteThere was no consensus because ScienceofDoom is a noted defender of the greenhouse effect as imagined by the IPCC-sponsored consensus. His physics is misguided and misleading for the unwary, which most are these days. I am glad you managed to follow your own logic, but I should point out that the pressure doesn't determine the temperature, rather the pressure distribution determines the temperature distribution, what I have been calling the hydrostatic lapse rate structure; the actual temperature is due to the intensity of the incident solar radiation, as I would hope is clear from my article here.
Readers,
ReplyDeleteI have just gotten the following e-mail from Ric Werme:
I heard back from Anthony [Watts, who puts out wattsupwiththat.com], he says he'll pass on the post, as in he's not interested now. He didn't offer a reason, it may be he's not interested on another dispute with a magazine/journal, it may be some of the sores from the posts Steven Goddard did on the matter.
Anthony is busy enough that whenever I send him Email, I phrase it so that no response implies permission to go ahead, it's a bit odd that he
didn't provide any reason. He may have just not wanted to start a dialog about it.
Sorry, but it is his blog....
I'll keep your Emails around in case a new opportunity opens up.
-Ric
------------------------
Actually, as I had written to Ric, I already submitted the "Physics Today" submission and later short correspondence on it to Anthony at WUWT a few months ago, and heard nothing back. It looks like a pattern emerging now, that he doesn't want to be seen supporting me, but after all the ignoring of my work I have already experienced, it really means little. Thanks anyway, Ric.
Here is a big problem with your calculation: you are assuming Earth and Venus are blackbodies. They aren't. By definition, a blackbody absorbs all radiation incident on it. But the albedo of Earth is about 0.3, and that of Venus a very high 0.75. Venus' thick atmosphere is reflecting much more solar radiation, yet its atmosphere is much warmer than Earth's. It is the greenhouse effect that makes the big difference.
ReplyDeleteYour models of these planets are simply too simplistic.
David Appell,
ReplyDeleteI don't know quite whether to be sorry for you, or gleeful of the way you parade your ignorance for all to see. Your assertion is simply wrong, as well as woefully uninformed; that it is the best criticism you could come up with here, is thoroughly revealing of your lack of scientific knowledge, and your amazing ignorance of who you are really criticizing with that assertion. You see, I do not assume Earth and Venus are blackbodies. Indeed, the consensus climate scientists are the ones who do that, and I have stated over and over on various other sites that they are fundamentally wrong to do so. I have in fact discussed the proper use of the blackbody equation (the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) in earlier comments here, which you of course haven't bothered to read and take to heart; and best of all, I posted a new short article just yesterday on this topic, called "Blackbody -- The Key Error in Climate Science". Go on, go read it, I dare you. Here is a line from that post: "A blackbody is defined as a body (or system of bodies in thermal contact) which absorbs all of the radiation incident upon it. A blackbody necessarily has an albedo (reflection coefficient) of zero." It is the consensus that wrongfully inserts albedo corrections into its "explanations" of the greenhouse effect. Isn't it funny you should bring up your best criticism on this very topic, and just one day after I wrote that? Do you disagree with what I just wrote? You wrote almost exactly the same words just above. And your other statements above, about Venus, show you haven't begun to understand my simple comparison of Venus and Earth; I doubt you even read it, your comment is so determinedly ignorant of what I have written. Give it up, David Appell. You are obviously not a scientist, nor even the science journalist you claim to be. You bring nothing but ignorant venom to the discussion. You are busted, and I won't be wasting any more time with you.
Mr Huffman,
ReplyDeleteCan I get you to comment on Ferenv Miskolcziís SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT theory? I like the logic of what you have presented here and I have also read a summary of the Miskolczi theory at this location;
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
I am not sure if these ideas are mutually exclusive or complimentary. I do not have a physics background so please be gentle ...
Good Morning, necromancer1962,
ReplyDeleteEveryone is awash in climate theories, which cause untold confusion to a public put at sea by a hotly divided scientific community (the supposed "consensus" to the contrary). In other words, science has already failed the public, by forcing it to judge science, which it is not educated to do. I wrote my article here to inform the public and the scientific community of new, definitive knowledge -- not more theory -- that literally unmakes basic assumptions at the very heart of all the theories I have yet seen.
That said, I don't know Miskolczi's arguments, but I can comment on the summary at the link you gave. If that summarizes his position, then we are at odds. Consider a few of the statements made at your link:
"The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus..."
-- My Venus/Earth comparison definitively says no, the two planets' atmospheres are essentially the same, thermodynamically: A hydrostatic, temperature lapse rate structure that governs the equilibrium, or long-term, vertical temperature distribution in both. The clouds of Venus have no effect upon that structure, outside of the clouds themselves (thus clouds do not affect the "climate", to the extent the climate is represented by the mean global surface temperature, so the ideas of Svensmark and Spencer, to name two who are prominent in the climate debate now, are in my view misguided).
"The surface temperature of Venus is hot, because the total cloud cover prevents heat from escaping to outer space."
-- Again, my analysis shows clouds have no such long-term effect, as they do not alter the fundamental structure of the atmosphere, long known as the Standard Atmosphere. The stability of the atmosphere against any and all changes within the system is the key fact, which science has lost sight of with the rise of "catastrophic" ideas like plate tectonics and recurring global "ice ages" (and the Milankovitch theory added to "explain" those "ice ages"), wrongly conceived as machine-like and inexorable. Climate science needs to properly acknowledge the implications of the Standard Atmosphere, which my analysis confirms.
"The Earth is a hot stove in a cold room, heated by the sun."
-- The Earth is not a hot stove, heating the atmosphere; the radiative physics experts are operating on a fundamentally false assumption (and misusing the blackbody equation, within the atmosphere, as well). The atmosphere is fundamentally heated by direct absorption of incident solar radiation (infrared, or IR, in the troposphere); note, many mistakenly call this fundamental absorption of IR the greenhouse effect, when it is really just how the Sun directly warms the atmosphere. Why this common sense understanding has been officially dismissed -- if the atmosphere can absorb IR from the surface, how can you ignore direct absorption of IR from the Sun, which literally turns the real physics upside down -- is a good question; I put it down to a tragic setting aside, for at least a generation, of the Standard Atmosphere and its implications.
"The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter)."
-- There is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperatures with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (or any other particularly IR-active, also known as "greenhouse", gas).
Thank you for such a considered response.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of your analysis is that the temperature profile of the atmosphere of a planet is a function of the energy profile of the sun that it orbits, the distance at which it orbits and the atmospheric pressure at any particular altitude (since the distance between molecules of air is far more important thermodynamically than the composition of those molecules).
Therefore changes in that temperature profile would result from cyclical changes in the energy profile of the sun and any variations in the rotation and/or orbit of that planet as this would change the distance involved (I not aware of any mechanism that would change the atmospheric pressure of a planet, but I could be wrong on that).
This means that any discussion or analysis of the interaction of the various fluids of that planet (gaseous or liquid) with the energy profile that is currently in effect is an analysis of the weather (either specific events or overall trends for whatever time frame is being analysed) and not the climate as defined temperature profile over time.
Have I understood your position correctly?
necromancer1962,
ReplyDeleteI won't speculate on precisely what you mean by "cyclical changes in the energy profile of the sun", and "variations in the rotation and/or orbit" of the planet; these seem vague to me. I will only keep my answer short and say, the Venus/Earth comparison I have done shows that the only thing affecting the mean global surface temperature of the Earth is the intensity of the incident solar radiation, particularly in the infrared region which heats the atmosphere. Even purely cyclical changes in the Sun's output intensity (which would return it always to the same level at the end of each period) cannot change the Earth's surface-temperature "climate", over time spans much greater than the cycle period. So yes, I agree with your conclusion. Climate scientists may want to change their definition of the climate, otherwise resign themselves to talking about the weather on various time scales. I would recommend they not change the Standard Atmosphere on the basis of their surface temperature reconstructions, any time soon. The Standard Atmosphere is better than anything I have seen in climate science, to date, and that includes radiative transfer theory.
You're saying Venus and Earths atmospheres are warmed by infrared radiation, but What about the visible and ultraviolet light? How can it be neglible? If it gets reflected, some energy is lost to space without heating the planet.
ReplyDeleteSome examples how albedo affects temperature:
- A black shirt gets warmer than a white shirt in the sun.
- If there is still snow cover at the end of winter, temps will not increase as quickly.
- Air temperatures are lower on cloudy days.
You said it yourself:
Venus receives 1.91 times the energy that Earth receives, and it appears very bright at the sky, but this total of 1.91 times includes all wavelengths, so Venus cannot possibly absorb all this energy!
If you're saying a bright planet will become as warm as a dark planet (all else equal), you're claiming that mirrors don't work!
Mr Huffman,
ReplyDeleteI think that you have understood what I meant by my terminology very well in the end. I would like a little clarification for something that you refer to: Standard Atmosphere. Are you referring to the US Standard Atmosphere model or the International one or are they interchangeable in this context?
Thank you.
Good Morning, Iya,
ReplyDeleteYours is a good question to once again make one of my continuing basic points: I don't have all the answers--yet. I am learning, at my own pace, as I go. I have the scientific background necessary to learn anything, however, and what I have learned of climate science, particularly the definitive evidence of the Venus/Earth comparison I have made, assures me that NOBODY has all the answers in climate science; none of the consensus "understanding" is really "settled science". But enough of that. Here is my scientific answer (for the moment) to your question:
If you would read my second response to biocab, earlier, about the 1.91 factor, and my first response to Celeste, about blackbodies and using the incident radiation, that would be my response to you now. (I have also posted a new short article on the blackbody problem, on the main blog page.) Except I would add that I look to the things I do NOT know to teach me, and I don't know why the stratosphere is as it is. The climate scientists seem to emphasize the absorption of ultraviolet there, so I currently tentatively accept that, but I am not wedded to that as THE "explanation" for the temperature structure of the stratosphere. And if you look at the temperature profile for Venus, it is quite ambiguous above the tropopause; it looks like it has no stratosphere, that is, one like ours, with a positive temperature lapse rate with increasing altitude. Why is it not as plain as Earth's? Because it has no oxygen, hence no ozone, but only carbon dioxide? I don't know. I have other questions I don't know the answer to, but I don't want to be tiresome when all I really need to do is say there is much we (not just me, but everyone, including climate scientists) still don't know. What I have done is found an amazing island of solid ground in the middle of the sea of unknowns, called the Venus/Earth comparison. And getting that, and only that, across on this page is my modest aim. (You might want to take a look at Will Pratt's article on the "diurnal bulge and the greenhouse effect". He has thought longer on this than I have, and maybe you will find more answers there. But we are all on our own paths to the full truth in this, since the climate scientists failed us by pretending, no doubt even to themselves, that they already had the truth.)
Good Morning, necromancer1962,
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read "energy profile of the sun", I thought, "does he mean the Planck distribution, thus the radiating temperature of the Sun? And why would he drag the Sun's 'energy profile' in, when it should be obvious we are talking about the energy, or temperature, profile of the Earth's atmosphere?" So I was genuinely puzzled.
I used the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, because that is what I found quickly on the internet. I try to use the most readily available and generally accepted (by scientists) information, because I want others to be able to find it easily (not in some obscure journal, or behind a paywall, for example).
Dr Huffman,
ReplyDeleteI feel that I am creeping up on a "Eureka" moment. I re-read this page and all comments and some things are becoming clearer and I feel that I am asking better questions.
Firstly, thank you for the reference to the Will Pratt's article. It is another example of simple science being applied in a clear and concise way.
With regards to the relationship between air pressure and temperature for a set level of energy input, I see the mechanism for this being that the number of air molecules (for which air pressure is a measure) dictates the number of photon to molecule interactions and the distance between molecules affecting the level of molecule collisions for heat transference and retention. This means that the size of the molecule is not important. After all if you throw a tennis ball at a baseball you will get a bigger reaction from the baseball than if you throw the same tennis ball at a bowling ball. The energy in will equal the energy out in both cases.
Looking at long term temperature profile of Earth it may be an interesting exercise to plot the relevant energy output of the Sun to the changes in the distance from the Sun caused by the eccentricities of the Earth's orbit. Seeing where the confluence of low energy output from the Sun intersect with greater orbital distances could be quite revealing for significant climate events in the past as would the intersection of high energy output and smaller orbital distances.
necromancer1962,
ReplyDeleteGood, I am glad to hear you are willing to study everything here, to understand the basic ideas. You are already ahead of most, especially the "experts", who refuse to learn. I'm also glad the Pratt article was helpful to you.
Your last paragraph brings up the Milankovitch theory, which I won't get into here, except to say that the theory's clear physical shortcomings have, like the greenhouse theory, been ignored in order to use it to vainly speculate, with coarse modelling and noisy data, far beyond science's ability to verify those speculations. It is no more trustworthy than the greenhouse theory.
My previous last paragraph is more about looking at the variables that you are using for your original analysis. Using the same arithmetic that you used to compare Earth to Venus, I have worked at that when you look at the perihelion (91.4m miles) and aphelion (94.5m miles) of the Earth's orbit, the temperature at 1000 mb changes by +2.5 K at the perihelion and -2.3 K at the aphelion. I do not think that the problem with the Milankovitch theory is the idea about the changes in the distance between the Earth and the Sun affect climate. (You have proven here that distance is a critical variable.) The real problem is that there is a significant unknown in the relevant energy output from the Sun in the past. While we have seen some cyclical patterns in recent times, we cannot be sure how those patterns have actually varied in the past in both magnitude, timing and duration.
ReplyDeletenecromancer1962,
ReplyDeleteI see. It looks like you have found your own research problem to pursue. The math you have presented is correct, but you are talking about short-term variations on the scale of seasons, a discussion which goes beyond the long-term equilibrium of the Standard Atmosphere I compared with Venus, and the discussion here (but readers should note, my comparison was with a single snapshot of Venus, in October 1991, which implies the Venus atmosphere is essentially always at equilibrium--further evidence in support of carbon dioxide as a heat "lubricant", or hastener of equilibrium, since Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2). So I will just say good luck with your research, wherever it takes you.
necromancer1962,
ReplyDeleteI received your further comment, but since it brings up a political ramification of the incompetent consensus, rather than just the specific science of my Venus/Earth comparison, we won't get into that here. You can e-mail me at newhdh@netzero.com (but I don't promise to answer every e-mail, either). I don't want comments here to get into political arguments or what a scientist might call "idle chitchat" (or complex theories of the physics of the atmospere, for that matter, for the sake of lay readers), if I can help it. But thank you for passing on word of my work; I agree with you that keeping silent certainly achieves nothing.
Dr Huffman,
ReplyDeleteI did a little digging through the NASA website and Wikipedia and got some data on Titan. Using your calculation process explained above and assuming that the average distance that Titan is from the Sun is the same as Saturn (on the basis that Titan orbits Saturn and therefore the time and distance it is further away is equally matched by the time and distance it is closer), I found that at 1000 mb, sqrt (1 AU/9.5 AU) * 287.4 K = 93.2K which seems to match the air pressure to temperature graph that was supplied.
Your proof seems to have another confirmation point.
Good Morning, necromancer1962,
ReplyDeleteThat was good news, until I found Titan's pressure-vs-temperature data at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/full/nature04314.html
and found that the Titan atmospheric temperature is about 93K at its surface, where the pressure is about 1,400 mb, not 1,000 mb. So I think you misread the pressure (which is easy to do on the graph I found). I did a quick check of a few points on the Titan curve, and the temperatures there appear to be between 2 degrees (at 200 mb pressure) and 7 degrees (at 1,000 mb) higher than expected; but that is working off a very cramped pressure axis and a thick-lined curve, with substantial error possible, so those are definitely preliminary numbers only. It is worth checking into more thoroughly (maybe reflected solar radiation from nearby Saturn contributes a few degrees to Titan's temperature--but see how quickly we get into speculation, which must be rigorously checked out, rather than hard facts). It is generally not a good idea to try to do physics on the fly in quick blog posts, I have found. There is too much empty theorizing everywhere now, and I would prefer not to add to the confusion. So I will just stand by the Venus/Earth comparison here, because I know it will stand up.
Dr Huffman,
ReplyDeleteYour source seems to be a little more rigorous that what I found but again the graphs are less than clear and not well laid out. Still I think it has promise but you are correct in saying that it is not definitive and there may well be other significant factors involved. Also the position of Titan in the orbit around Saturn itself may be a factor as I am sure that if Titan is on the Sun side of Saturn the results would be substantially warmer than if the measurements were taken while Titan had Saturn between it and the Sun.
Correction: The Titan temperatures appear to range from about 7 degrees too LOW near its surface, to just about right near its "tropopause" (300 - 200 mb).
ReplyDeletethis idea has been suggested by others such as steve goddard and lubos motl but I see at least two things; the ideal gas law doesn't hold throughout V's atmosphere because of the high pressures; & venus looks very bright to us here on mother earth because it reflect a lot of sunlight & you have to consider this albedo when using the T^4 rule. what do you get when you use van der waals equation for the co2 gas and you use the different albedos between venus and earth?
ReplyDeleteGood Morning, margolin,
ReplyDeleteI would ordinarily just not allow a comment like yours, because it simply ignores everything in my original article, and in the comments to this point. As an example of the unfocused and incompetent public debate on climate, however, it warrants a response.
Before my Venus/Earth analysis, the basic temperature lapse rate structure of the atmosphere was seen only vaguely, or qualitatively, as a strong argument against the greenhouse effect hypothesis, particularly with respect to Venus's high surface temperature. Compare the following quotes of Steve Goddard found at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
with my quantitatively verified findings:
"I’m not sure where anyone got the idea that I am suggesting that there isn’t a greenhouse effect on Venus. It certainly wasn’t from anything I have written. This is a discussion of relative magnitude."
-- I say categorically, based upon my comparison of the Venus/Earth temperature data, that there is no greenhouse effect, period.
"I’m not making any attempt to explain what the heating mechanism is. Just pointing out that the temperature profile in Venus’ atmosphere indicates it is an adiabat."
-- My analysis confirms the Standard Atmosphere, and thus quantitatively and precisely confirms this qualitative observation.
"There isn’t a large difference in lapse rates, and the albedo of Venus is very high, so it’s distance from the Sun has little effect on temperature."
-- Obviously, from my comparison of the temperatures of Venus and Earth at corresponding atmospheric pressures, the Sun is the ONLY thing that DOES have an effect. In particular, there is no "greenhouse effect", and there is NO ALBEDO effect.
Defenders of the consensus think they know what they are talking about, but the Venus/Earth comparison I have made quantitatively and definitively shows they do not, and why. Your main points, which are theirs too, have already been answered here, but you and they haven't begun to understand, or accept, how much you don't know after all.
Defenders of the consensus particularly need to be re-educated regarding the proper use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and I have tried to make it plain here and on my most recent blog post, "Blackbody: The Key Error in Climate Science". At this point, I will only say, you cannot "correct for albedo" in using the S-B equation, because a blackbody has zero albedo. To make it even plainer, reflection takes place within the atmosphere, where not only radiation but convection and conduction are occurring; the surface to be drawn around the Earth system to replace it with a blackbody must be outside of the atmosphere, so making albedo corrections amounts to correcting for something happening in the interior of the "blackbody". Now I know that goes right over the heads of consensus defenders, which is why I simply point to my Venus/Earth analysis and say, "there is no room in these results for an albedo effect at all", and I say that is a definitive finding for science. At least a whole generation of scientists has been miseducated on this, apparently because the radiative transfer theory has managed to kluge together something that appears (to its believers) to work for adding radiation components--but does not work for the basic thermodynamics.
margolin,
ReplyDeleteHere is a sampling of what you are ignoring (no, you are not just "asking questions", you are ignoring all that has already been quite simply and clearly explained):
From my very first response, to Trond Arne:
"The primary point of this article is that we have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else."
From my article above:
"...this result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth -- the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely."
From my second reply to biocab:
"...we know Venus receives, on average, 1.9 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, simply from their relative distances from the Sun, as my article discussed. What is truly remarkable is, a good portion of that power is reflected back into space by Venus's thick cloud cover (which makes the planet particularly bright to Earth observers), yet the Venus atmosphere is still heated by 1.9 times the power that heats the Earth atmosphere, as the temperature data shows. Thus we know that the visible portion of the Sun's radiation is not what heats the two atmospheres (because Venus doesn't take in 1.9 times as much visible light as the Earth, it takes in substantially less). Both atmospheres do, however, absorb infrared, and the comparison I have made shows they both must absorb the same portion of the incident infrared from the Sun, thus preserving the 1.9 power ratio calculated from their distances from the Sun. Furthermore, they must absorb this portion directly, not after absorption and emission from the surface, since the surfaces of Earth and Venus are likewise very different (deep ocean vs. solid crust) and would take up different fractions of the infrared, which again would spoil the 1.9 power ratio that is in fact indicated by the Venus/Earth temperature comparison."
but your spending a lot of words to say something that obviously can't be true. saying that "the Venus atmosphere is still heated by 1.9 times the power that heats the Earth atmosphere, as the temperature data shows" is a violation of energy conservation. how is it not?
Replythe bond albedo is 0.9. the power hitting atop the atmosphere is 1.91 x earth's. V's atmosphere is in equilibrium, so any heat gained is equal to heat lost. so the energy in V's whole atmosphere has to be (1-0.9) * 1.91 x energy in earth's atmosphere.
the heat doesn't go down through V's atmosphere and then up and out. it's in equilibruim. the energy [total] is constant. that's why scientistys are so amazed with venus -- little heat going in, but a high temp.