New Formula Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2
New peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal Earth Sciences (December 2017) provides precise calculations for planetary temperatures without need to have a greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases to bridge a hypothetical “heat gap.” Thus greenhouse gas theory is invalidated.
Federation University (Australia) Science and Engineering student named Robert Holmes contends he may have found the key to unlocking our understanding of how planets with thick atmospheres (like Earth) remain “fixed” at 288 Kelvin (K), 740 K (Venus), 165 K (Jupiter)…without considering the need for a planetary greenhouse effect or changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
[Editor’s note: In 2012 scientists at Principia Scientific Intl. proved the standard greenhouse gas effect equation is a statistical anomaly created from the perverse addition of scalar and vector numbers. But Physics 101 tells us “vector and scalar quantities cannot be added together.”]
The Greenhouse Effect ‘Thought Experiment’
Perhaps the most fundamental conceptualization in climate science is the “thought experiment” that envisions what the temperature of the Earth might possibly be if there was no greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases, or atmosphere.
“The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a ‘thought experiment’ than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.”
Simplistically, the globally averaged surface temperature clocks in at 288 K.
In the “thought experiment”, an imaginary Earth that has no atmosphere (and thus no greenhouse gases to absorb and re-emit the surface heat) would have a temperature of only 255 K.
The difference between the real and imagined Earth with no atmosphere is 33 K, meaning that the Earth would be much colder (and uninhabitable) without the presence of greenhouse gases bridging the hypothetical “heat gap”.
Of that 33 K greenhouse effect, 20.6 K is imagined to derive from water vapor droplets in the atmosphere (1,000 to 40,000 parts per million [ppm] by volume), whereas 7.2 K is thought to stem from the “natural” (or pre-industrial) 200-280 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration (Kramm et al., 2017).
As a “thought experiment”, the critical heating role for water vapor droplets and CO2 concentrations lacks real-world validation.
For example, the Earth’s oceans account for 93{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the planet’s heat energy (Levitus et al., 2012), and yet no real-world physical measurements exist that demonstrate how much heating or cooling is derived from varying CO2 concentrations up or down over a body of water in volume increments of parts per million (0.000001).
Consequently, the CO2 greenhouse effect is a hypothetical, model-based conceptualization.
And in recent years, many scientific papers have been published that question the fundamentals of not only the Earth’s hypothetical greenhouse effect, but the role of greenhouse gases for other planets with thick atmospheres (like Venus) as well Hertzberg et al., 2017, Kramm et al., 2017, Nikolov and Zeller, 2017 , Allmendinger, 2017, Lightfoot and Mamer, 2017, Blaauw, 2017, Davis et al., 2018).
The Holmes paper highlighted here may just be among the most recent.
‘Extremely Accurate’ Planetary Temperature Calculations With Pressure/Density/Mass Formula
Holmes has argued that the average temperature of 8 planetary bodies with thick (0.1 bar or more) atmospheres can be precisely measured with “extreme” accuracy — an error range of just 1.2{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} — by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: “[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near-surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”
Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body. He then calculated the planets’ temperatures with these figures.
Venus’ temperature was calculated to be 739.7 K with the formula. Its measured temperature is 740 K. This indicates that the formula’s accuracy is within an error range of just 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} for Venus.
Given Earth’s pressure/density/mass, its calculated temperature is 288.14 K using Holmes’ formula. Earth’s measured temperature is 288 K, an exact fit.
Saturn’s calculated temperature is 132.8 K. Its measured temperature is 134K—an error range of only 0.89{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
The impressive accuracy of the formula is illustrated below in Table 1. and Figure 2.
Atmospheric Pressure/Density And Surface Temperature
In large part, the density of a planet’s atmosphere is a primary determinant of its temperature.
Planets with thick atmospheres are hotter. Planets with thin atmospheres are cooler. The further away from the surface, the less gravity/pressure there is and the cooler it gets. And vice versa.
“In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be. A planet with weak gravity will tend to have less mass and allow more atmosphere to escape into space. Thus the thickness or thinness of the atmosphere depends upon the strength or weakness of gravity. For example, the gravity on Jupiter is 318 times greater than Earth, and thus Jupiter’s atmosphere is much thicker than Earth’s. Gravity gets weaker the further away it is from a planet, so the atmosphere will be thicker near the surface.”
A facile illustration of the effects of atmospheric pressure on the surface temperatures of a planet like Earth can be found in the Grand Canyon, Southwestern U.S.
There, the North Rim is about 1,000 feet (305 meters) higher in elevation than the South Rim. Interestingly, the North Rim is also about 9 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the South Rim due to the influence of atmospheric pressure/gravity.
The bottom of the canyon reaches temperatures 20-25 degrees warmer than the top.
The stark temperature difference is unrelated to the greenhouse gas concentrations for the two locations, nor is it connected to sunlight. It’s the gravitational pressure that creates the heat divergence.
“Elevation and season of the year determine average temperatures at the Grand Canyon. Elevations at top of the South Rim average around 7,000 feet. The North Rim averages about 8,000 feet. The higher the elevation, the cooler the temperature. At any given time, the North Rim will average 8-10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler versus the South Rim. … [T]he very bottom of the canyon can increase 20 to 25 degrees warmer than the top of the respective rims.”
Sensitivity To CO2 Concentration Changes ‘Extremely Low’
Holmes points out that the implications of his precise calculations for planetary temperatures necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is no need to have a greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases to bridge a hypothetical “heat gap.”
Instead, he writes that “planetary bodies with thick atmospheres cannot be mainly determined by the ‘greenhouse effect’, but instead most likely by an effect from fluid dynamics, namely, adiabatic auto-compression.”
This effectively rules out the possibility that CO2 is a predominant climate driver.
In fact, Holmes’ calculation for CO2 climate sensitivity (doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.03{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to 0.06{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) is -0.03°C.
As he ostensibly understates in his conclusion, “This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere.”
Read rest at No Tricks Zone
Trackback from your site.
Keir Watson
| #
This is as dumb as saying that you can predict the Celsius temperature of every planet from its Kelvin temperature!
The ideal gas equation is an equation of state. It’s always true but tells you nothing about the cause of the variables involved. You really shouldn’t reblog such stupid arguments as they make it look like you don’t know what you are talking about.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Keir,
I am slow so thank you for pointing out that the idea gas law has been used to calculate the planets’ and Titan’s atmospheric surface layer temperatures. I had wondered why there was no mathematical formula given by which these temperatures were calculated “by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near-surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”
I wonder how many readers saw, as you did, what was being done? I know I was one who did not see what you saw. This seems an example of list enough references and any one will believe you know something which must be why the article was endorsed by ‘peer’ reviewers. For given your observation, the ‘peer’ reviewers were obviously peers of Robert Holmes.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
The full equations are given on the source page link at the end of the article. Here it is again if you wanpnt to see how it was done: http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/#sthash.2hseax42.cFtqssaa.dpbs
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Keir,
No, I do not care to see how it was done. I fully understand how it was done as I taught introductory chemistry some decades ago. It is I did not see the obvious as it is usually most difficult to see, expecially when someone is trying to disguise what is being done.
It seems I have seen your name and comments before, but I cannot place you. So I am going to give you a little test to see if we are usually on the same side of the fence.
Please read this short article and comment on which side of it you are.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rosco
| #
There is nothing NEW in this.
I wrote something which was posted here in 2014 using PV = nRT and the values from NASA Fact sheets for all planets with an atmosphere.
Planetary Fact Sheets Index – https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
My article with calculations – https://www.dropbox.com/s/m69jbs2465t0hut/Analysis%20of%20Blackbody%20Temperatures%20versus%20Universal%20Gas%20Laws.docx?dl=0
All of the values calculated are remarkably close to all of the values quoted by NASA – even those planets where the solar radiation reaches the ground with sufficient power to cause atmospheric disruption.
You claim “The ideal gas equation is an equation of state. It’s always true but tells you nothing about the cause of the variables involved. You really shouldn’t reblog such stupid arguments as they make it look like you don’t know what you are talking about.”
So you acknowledge “it’s always true” but as it is right it is useless ??
You state it ” tells you nothing about the cause of the variables involved” – what does that even mean ??
Just what the hell is the “cause of a variable” ?
And you’re completely wrong anyway.
We have a mass of atmosphere fixed to a planetary surface by gravity, we have the temperature. volume, mass , mole fraction and pressure – what the hell more do you want ?
No one is saying this is the be all and end all of science but it is far more precise than the ridiculous notion of a black body temperature calculated by pseudoscience !
Just how do YOU explain that Neptune has a NASA listed value of 72 K at 1 bar pressure, a Universal Gas Law temperature of ~73 K from my calculations and a blackbody temperature of ~46 K quoted by NASA ??
Are you saying this is irrelevant when Jupiter has a temperature deep in its atmosphere of ~24,000°C from solar radiation of ~50.50 W/m2 and no magic “greenhouse gases” in its atmosphere ???
If an atmosphere of gases compressed by gravity can’t explain these temperatures significantly higher than the black body temperatures given most have almost no magic greenhouse gases then what do YOU propose is responsible that won’t make YOU look stupid ?
Reply
Rosco
| #
Some will point out that pumping up your car tyre initially causes it to increase in temperature but it will return to ambient temperature thus disproving the notion that pressure induced gas temperatures are sustainable.
But it will return to ambient temperature because it is thermal contact with the ambient environment.
This is nothing like an atmosphere compressed by gravity in thermal contact with nothing and establishes exactly why one should be careful of supporting or rejecting something based on their perceptions instead of fact.
An atmosphere has only one mechanism to lose thermal energy to space – radiation – and as we all should know gases have a low radiating power.
The fact is every atmosphere has a lapse rate whereby the hottest temperatures and highest densities are always at the bottom of the atmospheric column.
The fact is that all atmospheres radiate to space from high in their atmosphere.
The fact is that all atmospheres have temperatures higher than the pseudoscience black body temperature even if they radiate on average in accord with the insolation.
NASA says the first 2 explicitly – even supplies data to support them but for some reason loses all rationality when magic greenhouse gases are mentioned.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
“Some will point out that pumping up your car tyre initially causes it to increase in temperature but it will return to ambient temperature thus disproving the notion that pressure induced gas temperatures are sustainable.
But it will return to ambient temperature because it is thermal contact with the ambient environment.”
Good, now go out and pump-up the non-contained earth’s atmosphere. You know like we have here, this dynamic atmosphere with its air moving up and down as the sun warms it. Moving in such a way that the temperature near the top of mountains (though closer to the sun) are chillier than at sea-level, or down a mine shaft.
Yes Rosco elementary physics says the earth’s ground level air pressure defines the average temperature there while the sun shines. Gravity still ensures a pressure gradient and thus the ultimate temperature at any elevation, what keeps it that temperature is that big orb at the center of the planetary system.
Your tyre analogy does not model the earth’s DYNAMIC atmosphere with the sun shining on it, it’s just statist thinking from a stationary mind!
Reply
Squidly
| #
I am curious to know if you even read what Rosco wrote. Your reply to Rosco appears to me to be completely nonsensical. What am I missing here?
Rosco
| #
Tom0mason appears unable to read and comprehend !
“All of the values calculated are remarkably close to all of the values quoted by NASA – even those planets where the solar radiation reaches the ground with sufficient power to cause atmospheric disruption.”
Note – “even those planets where the solar radiation reaches the ground with sufficient power to cause atmospheric disruption.”
Basically this is only Earth and Mars where the calculations fall well within the diurnal range but I’m pretty sure Tom0mason didn’t even read the article in the link I posted.
“Yes Rosco elementary physics says the earth’s ground level air pressure defines the average temperature there while the sun shines.”
While the sun shines – c’mon.
“what keeps it that temperature is that big orb at the center of the planetary system.”
OK – how do you explain that every planet with an atmosphere larger than Earth’s has temperatures at 1 bar that exceed the blackbody temperature ?
How do you explain that as you descend in these other atmospheres the temperature increases up to the enormous 24,000°C NASA tells me Jupiter achieves ?
So you claim that the 50.5 W/m2 that irradiates the upper atmosphere of Jupiter is the cause of the 24,000°C NASA tells me exists deep in the atmosphere – hot enough to ensure the heaviest metals, which must exist there to explain the enormous gravity, only exist as plasma ?
How can you say the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t contained ??
Here’s the PSI one by the way
https://principia-scientific.com/the-ideal-gas-law-the-planets-and-the-fraud-of-climate-science/
Notice the title and the introduction weren’t written by myself – they were written by someone at PSI who seems to think it is fun to write sarcastic sensational titles. I think this demeans the site on the whole – especially when many arguments used to mock have no basis in reality.
“it’s just statist thinking from a stationary mind!”
At least I have one as clearly isn’t the case as your ridiculous ravings prove.
Keir Watson
| #
Tom0ason, “Gravity still ensures a pressure gradient” (true) “and thus the ultimate temperature at any gradient” (false)
The temperature gradient is caused by the difference in temp on either side of the atmosphere. This is always the case when an insulator (atmosphere) is sandwiched between a high temp (Earth’s surface) and a low one (space). You have to have a gradient that forms a transition from the one to the other.
You can picture a planet so far from a star that it’s surface had cooled to that of ambient space. Such a planet would have no temperature gradient but would still have a pressure gradient ‘due to gravity’ as you say.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Tom,
Maybe it is not wise to make a comment at this point but I see something you did write which I consider to be important. “Gravity still ensures a pressure gradient.” Unfortunately, from my point of view I now find you did not stop there. For I read too much into the word ‘still’. To me it implied there was something that gravity did not ensure, which it is commonly assumed to ensure. Which is a temperature gradient where temperature always decreases with increasing altitude. Hence, one cannot always predict the ultimate temperature at any elevation.
There is night and day and the atmosphere is quite dynamic, transferring warm and cold parcels hither and yon.
Have a good day, Jerry
Keir Watson
| #
Rosco: “We have a mass of atmosphere fixed to a planetary surface by gravity, we have the temperature. volume, mass , mole fraction and pressure – what the hell more do you want ?”
So you think that an atmosphere can create a temperature in and of itself???
Atmospheres do not produce heat, they only transfer it. If you had a planet that was far from a star and had cooled to the same temp as space, then the atmosphere would also be at that temp at every altitude. Atmospheres are not a source of heat I.e. they cannot raise their own internal energy.
Planetary atmospheres (in the case of rocky planets such as earth Venus and marsh are layers of insulation between the planet and space. Planets have internal energy (heat) from (1) remnant heat since formation ie they are still cooling down (2) radioactive decay from elements inside them (3) solar irradiance.
Atmospheres do not ‘heat’ planets on average either by (1) temperature differences – because on average the atmosphere will be cooler than the planet surface (2) by doing work on the planet as the atmosphere cannot move the crust. However, planets do heat their atmospheres.
So if the atmosphere does not heat the planet what does it do? It reduces the rate of heat transfer from the planet into space, I.e. it acts as insulation. Likewise when we say insulation keeps your house warm it does mean it warms it, it means it reduces the rate of heat transfer out, so the internal temperature is higher than it would be without the atmosphere.
The P, T and V of the atmosphere follows (not leads) from this.
Stop making up all these other nonsense arguments!
Reply
John Nicol
| #
Keir,
The moon has no atmosphere at all.
The model airless earth used by the climate scientists to justify the very basis of the greenhouse effect is a thin, black shell which is incapable of retaining heat, so as soon as the sun goes down at any point on its surface, the temperature reverts to 0 K (-273 C).
In the middle of the day, each point in its turn is heated to about 393 K (120 C) because all of the energy from the sun is totally absorbed by the black surface of the shell and then immediately radiated.
As you will know, the average temperature of the black-shell model is 144 K and the “effective emission temperature” – see IPCC AR3 and AR4 – is 254.9 K. In its wisdom, the IPCC compares the “average” temperature of the earth, 288 K, with the “Effective Emission Temperature of the shell leaving a deficit of 33 K. ( Had they compared average vs average, the deficit would be 129 K and impossible to justify).
So, the 33 K is made up with about 10 degrees from the CO2 and a positive feedback of about 23 from the extra water vapour generated by this extra 10 C!!
However, back to the moon, the temperatures of which have been measured by orbiting satellites.
The dark side of the moon varies in temperature from about 300 K to 100 K (at its poles in craters which totally avoid the sun!) in the long, 13.5 day period of radiation to the cold, dark sky. In 13.5 days of irradiation, parts of the moon facing the sun, will reach 392 K or thereabouts. The energy stored in the rocks and soil on the moon during daylight hours is retained when it faces the cooling period of 13.5 days of night, A measure of its average temperature, from maxima of about 393 K and minima of about 100 K is somewhere in the vicinity of 288 K!!!!!
Similarly on the earth. Were we able to remove the entire atmosphere, or even just the CO2, we would find that during our much shorter days of 24 hours (not 24 x 13.5 hours as the moon) the maximum temperature over the land in the tropics would be as now, about 65 C (or 338 K) and the minima in the night at the poles would be, as now, about 100 K (without air) or 180 with air circulating form the mid latitudes. The average temperature would be about 288 K.
Not a molecule of CO2 in sight.
Please contact me at [email protected] if you can refute my argument. Thanks in anticipation.
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Sorry, not sure what you are asking.
Are you really saying the IPCC treats the Earth as a thin shell with no thermal capacity? If so, then what is their justification for that? Seems ludicrous to me.
Also, I’m not sure how you justify any of the figures you give in your last paragraph re: temp of the Earth. Can you clarify please?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Keir Watson:
This is as dumb as saying that you can predict the Celsius temperature of every planet from its Kelvin temperature!
JMcG:
Wow! This is such a strangely obtuse comment. Did you even read the article?
Keir Watson:
The ideal gas equation is an equation of state.
JMcG:
An “equation of state” ? What the hell does that even mean? I suppose you could make that claim about any equation.
Keir Watson:
It’s always true but tells you nothing about the cause of the variables involved.
JMcG:
Did you read the rest of the article? Seriously.
Keir Watson:
You really shouldn’t reblog such stupid arguments as they make it look like you don’t know what you are talking about.
JMcG:
Your comments make you look like you lack reading skills.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Keir Watson:
This is as dumb as saying that you can predict the Celsius temperature of every planet from its Kelvin temperature!
JMcG:
Wow! This is such a strangely obtuse comment. Did you even read the article?
Keir Watson… Yes, and the original at NoTricksZone
Keir Watson:
The ideal gas equation is an equation of state.
JMcG:
An “equation of state” ? What the hell does that even mean? I suppose you could make that claim about any equation
Keir Watson: No. An equation of state describes one of the states of matter, such as a gas. “An EoS is the relation between functions of state, such as temperature (T), pressure (P), volume (V), internal energy or specific heat. It characterizes the state of matter of a material under a given set of physical conditions. EoSs are used to describe gases, fluids, fluid mixtures and solids.
Equations of State – SERC-Carleton – Carleton College”
Keir Watson:
It’s always true but tells you nothing about the cause of the variables involved.
JMcG:
Did you read the rest of the article? Seriously.
Keir Watson: Yes I did. What has that got to do with the point of mine you quote? In case you misunderstood the facts here, you can always calculate the temp by this method regardless of whether that temperature is caused by solar radiation, greenhouse gases or cones from internal energy of the Earth. The equation will always hold but tells you nothing about what caused the temperature.
Keir Watson:
You really shouldn’t reblog such stupid arguments as they make it look like you don’t know what you are talking about.
JMcG:
Your comments make you look like you lack reading skills.
Keir Watson: your arguments make you look like you lack an understanding of basic physics.
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Thank you gentlemen. You demonstrate perfectly the problem us climate skeptics have to deal with. Each other. Yes I did read the article, including the full article linked to at the end (No Trick Zone) which shows the calculations are based entirely on the ideal gas equation.
The Ideal Gas Equation describes the relationship between P (pressure) V (volume) and T (Temperature) for any gas sufficiently far above it’s boiling point that intermolecular forces can be ignored. It is true under all circumstances and tells us nothing about what is causing the given values. So, for example, IF GHGs were a factor in the ambient temp of the earth, and did lead to, say, a 3K increase in temperature (Tj of the Earth then P and V would change correspondingly. From those new values of P and V you would be able to predict the new temperature (T) perfectly. I.e. the ideal gas equation tells you nothing about what caused the value of these variables, all it tells you is that they are always related.
If you apply the formula to (1)a cylinder of pressurised nitrogen at room temperature, (2) a bubble in your beer or the air in your lungs right now, the equation will correctly give you the temperature of the room, beer and your lungs. It has to. But it tells you nothing about why the cylinder is at room temp, the beer is chilled, or your lungs are close to body’s temp.
If you have a ballloon of helium at room temp P and V for 5he balloon will give you T=room temp. If you heat the balloon it will expand and the pressure increase so the equation will predict exactly the new temperature – again it tells you nothing about what heated the balloon.
Hence saying you can predict the temp of planets by using the ideal gas equation is no more meaningful than saying you can predict the Celsius temp of a planet from its kelvin temp, or saying you can predict the density of a gas from its mass and volume, or saying you can predict the speed of a car from the time it takes to travel one metre.
Like, duh!
Reply
Rosco
| #
What have you been smoking ?
At Neptune there is 1.51 W/m2 solar radiation.
Just what are you claiming causes the fact – at least NASA claims it is fact – that Neptune has a temperature at 1 bar of 72 K and a “black body” temperature of 46.6 K ?
Even if one assumed unit emissivity and didn’t perform the ridiculous 1/4 reduction in the heating power of the solar radiation that climate scientists do 1.51 W/m2 is at most the temperature calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as ~72 K.
So the sun can explain at most 72 K at Neptune but the temperature increases as one descends in the atmosphere.
“At its core, Neptune reaches temperatures of up to 7273 K (7000 °C; 12632 °F), which is comparable to the surface of the Sun. The huge temperature differences between Neptune’s center and its surface create huge wind storms, which can reach as high as 2,100 km/hour, making them the fastest in the Solar System.”
I’m quoting Universe Today – they may be wrong but at least they aren’t talking complete mumbo jumbo nonsense like you.
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Rosco, I’m not sure what relevance anything you just said has to (a) the article above or (b) any of my comments on it.
You quote the solar irradiance of Neptune. Why? This article is about predicting temps from densities, molar masses and pressures only. It specifically leaves out all references to solar irradiance. I am pointing out that this is inherently nonsense because it tells us nothing about the cause of such temperatures. How can quoting the solar irradiance on Neptune add to the clarification of this point?
It seems your beef is an entirely different argument (which indicates you have neither understood the above article nor my response to it!). You seem to think it is ‘inexplicable’ that Neptune has a large internal heat source when it has so little external heat8ng. There are several possibilities for this – none of which affect the temperature calculations this article claims to be reporting on – but the main one is that the Gas giants have not had time to cool down since their formation….
So what are you going on about exactly?
Reply
Rosco
| #
The More I read your comment the more amazed I am.
“Hence saying you can predict the temp of planets by using the ideal gas equation is no more meaningful than saying you can predict the Celsius temp of a planet from its kelvin temp, or saying you can predict the density of a gas from its mass and volume, or saying you can predict the speed of a car from the time it takes to travel one metre.”
BUT YOU CAN !
Try it for yourself – I showed my workings. You can fine tune the equation and get even better answers but why bother ?
And NASA says the calculations are right and provide sufficient information that there is nothing else that can conceivably explain how the thing you claim is irrelevant is actually right !
I’ll say it again – how do you explain that Neptune has a core temperature hotter than the surface of the Sun if the ideal gas law is irrelevant ?
There is a huge atmosphere compressed by gravity to huge pressure and virtually zero external energy input but it has temperatures higher than the Sun’s surface !
It can’t get colder as one descends in the atmosphere otherwise everything we think we know about science is completely wrong.
It clearly doesn’t have some internal energy producing chemical or nuclear reaction occurring else NASA or the Russians or whoever may have noticed.
And why is it that if the magic “greenhouse gases” can explain anything at all real physics can calculate the dry atmospheric lapse rate as ~9.8 K per kilometre – g/C whilst the addition of water vapour has exactly the opposite effect climate scientists claim ?
Climate scientists claim that “greenhouse gases” reduce the temperature Earth radiates to space – at altitude – AND increase the near surface temperature.
If this nonsense were even remotely true adding water vapour to a dry atmosphere would increase the lapse rate and yet it reduces the rate from ~9.8 to ~6.5 per kilometre – exactly the opposite of the climate “science” claims.
GHGs clearly do not cause warmer surface and cooler altitude temperatures.
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
You constantly change the subject instead of addressing one point at a time. I am not making any argument for the veracity of otherwise of greenhouse gas warming.
Look, if you could move the Earth to an orbit closer to the sun the average temperature would increase, no? So what about your precious calculation? Do you think it would stop working, or would you find that the new temp would be perfectly derivable if you knew the new pressure and density (because these would both change too you see?)
So yes, the calculation would still work for the new hotter Earth. Would that mean that the temperature was CAUSED by the pressure and density, or would the new higher temperature be better explained by increased solar heating?
The ideal gas equation tells us nothing about the cause of the heating.
Reply
Rosco
| #
“You constantly change the subject instead of addressing one point at a time.”
Absolute nonsense – you have clearly stated that the temperatures calculated using gas pressure, volume, mole fraction etc etc cannot be explained by these factors alone.
BUT THEY ARE – the equations which you acknowledge are right show this using the variable values supplied by NASA.
I have shown sufficient referenced evidence that says you are completely wrong !
Just how do you explain the temperatures of all of the so called gas giants ?
As one descends into their atmospheres the temperatures increase to values approaching or exceeding the surface temperature of the Sun – this isn’t caused by the solar radiation or any chemical or nuclear reactions – I can say this because they would show telltale signs in their radiative emissions to space !
The power of the solar radiation is extremely low at their orbits so it cannot explain anything at all – it would never penetrate far into their atmospheres anyway !
I have not constantly changed the subject – I just added irrefutable evidence about lapse rates – which is highly relevant to pressure, volume and temperature relationships !
Would your “new” Earth be hotter than Venus ?
Unquestionably NO !
With unit emissivity the maximum SB calculated temperature would be 462 K for 2601 W/m2 (which would give a blackbody temperature of ~327 K using pseudo climate science) plus a bit for atmospheric pressure your new Earth is some 270 K cooler than Venus – quoted as 737 K by NASA.
You do realise that 737 K at unit emissivity calculates to an emissive power of 16,728 W/m2 ?
To reach this temperature by equilibrium with the solar radiation alone your “new” Earth would need to be ~42.7 million K from the Sun – some 15 million kilometres closer than Mercury.
How do you explain that given the well known values for the solar radiation etc supplied by NASA.
But apparently you cannot read or comprehend either.
I explicitly said –
“No one is saying this is the be all and end all of science but it is far more precise than the ridiculous notion of a black body temperature calculated by pseudoscience !”
And I explicitly said –
“All of the values calculated are remarkably close to all of the values quoted by NASA – even those planets where the solar radiation reaches the ground with sufficient power to cause atmospheric disruption.”
So your “new” Earth proves only that a planet with a “shallow” atmosphere is subject to major influence by the solar radiation which I always said BUT you acknowledge that th PV = nRT equation will still work because of the changed parameters.
But so what ?
The whole premise of your argument does not explain how planets with next to zero radiative input can have temperatures approaching that of the Sun’s surface if the PV = nRT equation is meaningless.
I still assert that your position is just wrong.
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
Um… it’s caused by (a) the internal energy of the planet (heat left over since its formation) and (b) the insulating properties of the atmosphere.
It’s not complicated. PV=nRT only describes the relationship between these variables it does not explain the cause of the temperature (T). In other words if anything changes T, then P and V follow. Increase the temp of a gas and it expands (P goes up) unless you contain it then V goes up. P and V do not cause T, they are just surrogate markers for T.
(Note: Changes in T can be caused by changes in P and V, but only when work is done to the gas by an external force changing the volume and pressure which can’t happen to an atmosphere)
James McGinn
| #
Keir Watson: No. An equation of state describes one of the states of matter, such as a gas. “An EoS is the relation between functions of state, such as temperature (T), pressure (P), volume (V), internal energy or specific heat. It characterizes the state of matter of a material under a given set of physical conditions. EoSs are used to describe gases, fluids, fluid mixtures and solids.
Equations of State – SERC-Carleton – Carleton College”
JMcG:
Uh, sorry bro. You aren’t making any sense. PVT is a standard equation in atmospheric science. “State” or phase can be determined by looking at a phase diagram. BTW, one of the most common mistakes is to assume moist air contains gaseous H2O at ambient temps (without looking at a phase diagram).
Keir Watson:
It’s always true but tells you nothing about the cause of the variables involved.
JMcG:
then why did you suggest otherwise. Seriously, you are making no sense. Sorry.
Keir Watson: Yes I did. What has that got to do with the point of mine you quote? In case you misunderstood the facts here, you can always calculate the temp by this method regardless of whether that temperature is caused by solar radiation, greenhouse gases or cones from internal energy of the Earth. The equation will always hold but tells you nothing about what caused the temperature.
JMcG:
It’s like you are speaking a different language. I have no idea what you point is. Honestly.
Keir Watson:
You really shouldn’t reblog such stupid arguments as they make it look like you don’t know what you are talking about.
JMcG:
Your comments make you look like you lack reading skills.
Keir Watson: your arguments make you look like you lack an understanding of basic physics.
JMcG:
LOL. That’s funny because I am an atmospheric physicist. Yourself? (I’m guessing you are a climate scientist. Or a geographer.)
Here is an example of what it looks like when a real scientist presents an argument:
The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
James McGinn
| #
KW:
In case you misunderstood the facts here, you can always calculate the temp by this method regardless of whether that temperature is caused by solar radiation, greenhouse gases or cones from internal energy of the Earth. The equation will always hold but tells you nothing about what caused the temperature.
JMcG:
Okay, I get your point now. You are just saying that PVT isn’t the full story. Which is true. I just assumed they were including insolation, the planets own heat, and any insulation by the atmosphere (Which can only slow cooling). Are you saying that they are not including these? If you are correct then, yes, this would be a problem.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
Reply
Keir Watson
| #
JMcG
Yes and no. The ideal gas equation is not relevant as it does not tell you cause and effect, it just relates basic properties of a gas. It will always be true for any atmosphere whether it is being heated from within as in Jupiter, or from the sun, or if GHGs actually behave as the theory says. It neither refutes nor supports global warming theory.
It’s not that they haven’t taken them into account, it’s that they think calculating one value (T) from the other two (P and V) [Actually they use density and molar mass which are equivalent to V and mass in that form of the equation] tells you something. It’s a bit like claiming that the EMF in a circuit is determined by the current and resistance. Sure V=I R will always be true, but I can change the power supply and all three will vary such that V=I R is still valid. Their mistake is to argue that the current and resistance determine the EMF. It’s the other way round – a whole set of factors determine T, and P and V change in response. Take a balloon: if you heat it from any external source P and V will rise because T increased. You can measure T directly, or measure P and V and use those to calculate T. Either way you will get the same value of T. Stating that the calculation ‘works’ is meaningless. Of course it works. But it tells us nothing about the source of the heating.
I am an AGW skeptic, but pseudo arguments do more harm than good. We need really sharp questioning of the real science, not daft side shows. Principia has some great stuff, but posts like this discredit or dilute the good stuff.
Reply
Rosco
| #
Seriously Keir – are you just being obtuse ?
“Rosco, I’m not sure what relevance anything you just said has to (a) the article above or (b) any of my comments on it.
You quote the solar irradiance of Neptune. Why? This article is about predicting temps from densities, molar masses and pressures only.”
I’ll explain it to you. But first it is irrefutable the temperature of every planet can be predicted from densities, molar masses and pressures only – the calculations using NASA’s data are right there for you to see and they work. No need for any other input at all.
You seem to have difficulty coping with reality as stated by NASA’s Fact Sheets. No -one is saying PV = nRT explains how each planet’s atmospheres “arrived” at their current state we are simply stating that given the facts as they are it does calculate the specific temperature !
You are mounting a classic straw man argument and ignoring the universally accepted concept of gravity. Once one accepts gravity establishes pressure and that gravity explains lapse rates then PV = nRT is unequivocally right.
It is irrelevant what the explanation for the pressure of the gaseous atmospheres is or what causes the lapse rates – the only thing that matters is they are real !!!
But let’s examine this discussion to date.
The temperatures of all of the planets with an atmosphere CAN be accurately calculated using the data from NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheets.
This is irrefutable ! If NASA’s data is correct this is irrefutable !
Even you acknowledge this !
You come along and make the claim that the ideal gas equation is irrelevant because it cannot explain the CAUSE of the temperatures because it merely equates changes in one variable to another variable.
Seriously this is high school maths – EVERY equation does that.
But you are wrong – the equation DOES exactly explain the cause of the temperatures if one accepts that setting one of the variables and having a known mix of gases will always equate to a given outcome. The one variable I cite is gravity.
It is the properties of gases constrained by gravity which results in a combination of pressure and volume that determines the temperatures.
This is irrefutable ! The calculations give the right answers !
But you won’t be deterred and continue to claim they can’t explain the cause of the temperature.
But you are being simplistic and still you are wrong.
What the equation cannot explain is the properties of the atmospheres and the reason for the pressure !
Nothing else is required – the properties of the atmosphere and the pressure is all that is required to explain the temperature.
Gravity supplies the “force” that exerts the pressure. I say this with the explicit acknowledgement that we don’t understand gravity at all.
You are claiming there has to be some external or internal source of energy to satisfy your attempt to prove how smart you are.
So I simply gave the example of Neptune where the solar radiation can cause no more than the temperature at 1 bar quoted by NASA and calculated by PV = nRT. Note the SB value is for unit emissivity which is highly unrealistic for a gaseous atmosphere.
This is completely reasonable !
So having ruled out the solar radiation as having any meaningful relationship contribution to the temperatures on Neptune I cited that Neptune has a core temperature of ~7273 K with a wildly gyrating atmosphere.
I also stated there is evidence this is not due to any internal chemical or nuclear processes because the Planets radiative emissions would show this. This may be wrong but at present no one asserts this is wrong.
So I simply asked what is the cause of this ~7273 K ?
Clearly you do not think gravity and the well established physical properties of gases have anything to do with it !
Somewhere along the way you introduced the concept of a “new” Earth closer to the Sun. And you asked what about my precious calculation ??
Then you state it would still work (??) and of course it would so what is your point ?
I simply showed that we could move “new” Earth to Venus’ orbit and the temperature would be significantly lower than Venus’s because Venus’ heavy atmosphere means it has a temperature far in excess of that explained by equilibrium with the solar adiation but it equates to the ideal gas law within a few K ! Given that the temperature on Venus is not precisely known the result is remarkable.
I also showed that “new” Earth would need to be ~3/4 of the distance from the Sun of Mercury.
I’d suspect “new” Earth would lose its atmosphere long before it arrived even at Venus’ orbit.
But we have another paradox as Earth’s gravity is greater than Venus.
So by 2 examples, one where the solar radiation is irrelevant and one where even though it has significant power it cannot calculate the observed temperatures it is simple to demonstrate the ideal gas law gives precise results given the known values.
Please don’t think we don’t get your point – we realise that the values of each varies with changes in the other.
The point to all of this is that the ideal gas law gives the precise temperature for planetary atmospheres with or without significant solar irradiation – this is irrefutable.
So given the facts that the atmospheres are what they are, the planets are what they are and their orbital parameters are what they are the equation gives the right results !
Really what is your beef ?
As the solar radiation is insignificant to all of the gas giants I simply asked what causes the huge temperatures deep in the atmospheres of the “gas giants.” !
So you come up with –
“Um… it’s caused by (a) the internal energy of the planet (heat left over since its formation) and (b) the insulating properties of the atmosphere.”
I assume this is your next “duh” moment ?
I think I actually said that gases have a low radiating power and that all atmospheres have a lapse rate.
So after 4.6 billion years all of the outer planets retain their heat of creation.
If this is true then it could equally apply to Venus as well despite Venus’ orbital location
So what is your beef other than some grandiose pontification ?
In reality all of the temperature data in NASA’s planetary fact sheets is explained by the ideal gas laws !
Is this the only consideration ? – NO !
But you are ignoring any role of gravity in establishing a base value for pressure in the palnetary atmospheres !
Combine this pressure value with the other properties of the gases such as mass and the value of the pressure exerted by the gravitational constant CAN explain the temperatures – the equation is always right as you state !
Please don’t come back with your same tired and ad-nauseum repeated argument that changing one variable changes another – we get it – we always did !
It is obviously the reason each planet has such different circumstances.
Reply
Rosco
| #
I forgot to ask you why you think this statement is clever ?
““Um… it’s caused by (a) the internal energy of the planet (heat left over since its formation) and (b) the insulating properties of the atmosphere.”
If the temperatures of say Neptune are “heat left over since its formation” where did that come from initially ?
Your arguments are ridiculous !
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
Only work and heat can raise temperature. There is heat,TSI=1360.8W/m², and the force/work of gravity=surf.acc. 9.78N/m.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Using the equation at the bottom of this page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesph.html
TSI/g²=(4/3)/(4/3), pefect match!
Which also gives 4g²=383W/m²=286.7K
The reduced equation of state for a van der Waals fluid: 8/3T. Inserting TSI:
8/3TSI=4/34g²=4g²+4/3g²
Where 4/3g²=128W/m²=mean tropopause temperature.
So, light/heat behaves like a perfect fluid that fills space=no need for dark matter.
We have all the tools for describing planetary temperatures and gravity. And the tools are 100+ years old. No mysteries.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
8/3TSI=4/34g² should be 8/3TSI=4/3x4g²
Reply
Dr. W
| #
Good lord. All you are doing is calculating T by PV=nRT. This has nothing to do with greenhouse gas effect, just a law of nature of what temperature a gas will be at a given density and molar mass.
Sorry, you are not fooling real scientists.
Reply