‘Slayers’ Confirmed: Pressure, Not CO2, Determines Planets’ Temps
[PSI Editor’s note: Independent climate scientists yet again affirm that ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon:Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘ (2010) was correct – CO2 is innocent, atmospheric pressure better explains earth’s surface temperature]:
In an interview at the Porto Climate Conference earlier this month, Dr. Karl Zeller provided a brief overview of the theory he and Dr. Ned Nikolov developed.
The model uses empirical NASA data to quantify the surface temperature of “all the planets across our solar system” precisely and accurately by using two values only: (1) distance from the Sun and (2) atmospheric pressure.
The gaseous composition of planetary atmospheres – including CO2 concentration – is immaterial to the calculations, as CO2 is “just like any other gas.”
Interviewer: You were saying that you and [Dr.] Ned Nikolov have a new theory. Can you tell us just a bit about that?
KZ: “Well, we actually call it a discovery. And what we did is we took NASA data and we applied the engineering principle of dimensional analysis – Buckingham pi theorem for you engineers.
“And to make a long story short, we’ve had an unbelievable fit to the NASA data, where we’ve had an exponential regression line (an empirical equation, so to speak) that explains the temperature of all the planets across our solar system – that actually includes the Earth. We can actually use planets other than the Earth.
“And we can calculate Earth’s temperature without knowing anything else about Earth [other than its atmospheric pressure value and distance from the Sun]. . . within a degree Centigrade. The amazing thing about that is [1] the Earth[‘s atmosphere] is [21{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}] oxygen and [78{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}] nitrogen, [2] Venus is [96.5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}] carbon dioxide, [3] Mars is [95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}] carbon dioxide, [4] Triton is [>99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}] nitrogen, [5] Titan is [98.4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}] nitrogen and [1.6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}] methane…”
Interviewer: So you’re saying that actually, carbon dioxide is not the driver [of planetary temperatures]?
KZ: “Carbon dioxide is just like any other gas. Just like the ideal gas law, Boyle’s law, Charles’s law, Gay-Lussac’s law. Carbon dioxide isn’t any different than any other gas in those laws. And we’ve discovered that there’s a continuum across our solar system of the way atmosphere’s work: it’s strictly a function – the warmth that we experience – is due to two things: [1] distance from the Sun (which means how much solar energy we get), and [2] the amount of atmosphere we have, the atmospheric pressure that we experience here on the surface.”
Interviewer: And how was that [discovery] received? Did you have the IPCC call you up and say “Wow, this is fantastic!”?
KZ: “We had to change our names to get the first paper [Volokin and Rellez, 2014] published. It was returned [after the first attempt] because they knew who we were. And the second time we published it we were required to pull it after they found out we had . . . [smiling] we spelled our names backward. It [spelling our names backward] worked the first time, and it worked the second time [after we resubmitted it], but it was put on the internet before it was hard-copied.
“A ‘climate denier’* from WattsUpWithThat [Willis Eschenbach] turned us in. And so we experienced that, not only the so-called normal people, ‘warmists’, maybe . . . and a lot of ‘climate deniers’ do not like our work. A lot of ‘climate deniers’ hold out for a little bit of a role with carbon dioxide.”
Interviewer: So, in fact, you’re saying there’s no opportunity for scientific inquiry anymore.
KZ: “Sure seems that way. We’ve actually extended it now. We’ve actually used some of the same principles to explain some of the past climate measurements that we’ve made here on Earth. Same thing – pressure is the driver. Pressure and the Sun.”
*The term “climate denier” is offensive no matter who it is applied to (i.e., Willis Eschenbach should not be referred to as such), and is not endorsed here.
To review the full paper, see Nikolov and Zeller, 2017
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Trackback from your site.
4TimesAYear
| #
This is amazing….I hope that they can take and put this whole climate change scam to bed. I look forward to the time that I can retire all my climate change accounts. Excellent, excellent work!
Reply
Alder
| #
From the above, I have not read the source paper, they find-
Surface temperature depends on distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure, it does not depend on the composition of the atmosphere (eg CO2 concentration).
Sounds good (have heard that before), but consider, they have done an experiment by using data measurements from planets. How many planets?
Is that number sufficient to establish a general law?
Reply
Jack Miller
| #
Hi Alder, open access to the paper here : https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
You might follow up with this : https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/resolving-misconceptions-about-the-nikolov-and-zeller-universal-theory-of-climate/ and check out the comment section.
Kind regards,
Jack
Reply
Alder
| #
From a quick read I got this:
“… radiant-heat trapping by freely convective gases has never been demonstrated experimentally. ” and,
that their proposition is from analysis of data consistent with thermodynamic principles, whereas the greenhouse hypothesis (even tho’) from eminent scientists in the 1800s, was conjecture.
Dimensional analysis, agreed it can be quite useful.
Yes, yet more refutation of back radiation greenhouse. I am already convinced of that but still have reservations about this pressure only proposition.
Such as, does cloud formation not matter?
What about temperature change with latitude?
Does ‘average global temperature’ have a meaning and of what use is it?
I was pleased to see some of my questions put in the comment from ‘AViterito’ in the ‘tallbloke’ site but there has been no response.
Anyway, thanks for the pointers.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alder,
Yes, the principal control of the radiation balance system is cloud and only cloud. But one cannot ignore that the temperature of the atmosphere cannot be lower than its dewpoint temperature because the atmosphere (troposphere) has never been observed to be super-saturated with water vapor.
Now, at least two of us agree about the observed role of cloud. NOAA’s SURFRAD project data.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jack Miller
| #
Hi Alder,
If you search for Ned Nikolov at the “tallbloke” website, you will find several discussions that should answer some of your questions and it appears that Ned Nikolov will answer and discuss his paper with anyone that is genuinely interested in the study on his twitter account @NikolovScience.
You can look here for additional information : https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/ned-nikolov-in-science-new-messages-mean-more-than-the-messengers-names/
Kind regards,
Jack
Reply
Nick Schroeder,BSME, PE
| #
Another spurious correlation = cause. Pressure per se does not “cause” temperature.
With pressure comes molecules. With molecules comes thermal conductivity, U aka 1/thermal resistance. Q = 1/R A dT, same reason a house is warmer inside than out in winter, the insulated envelope. That’s why the surface is about 75 C warmer than ToA, 15 C – – 60 C.
To move fluid through an hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference.
To move current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.
To move energy, i.e. heat, through a thermal resistance, e.g. insulation, requires a temperature/energy difference.
Physics is physics. The atmosphere is a 2nd year ME HVAC problem.
The non-radiative heat transfer properties of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules conduction/convection/advection/latent render BB 1.0 emissivity LWIR radiation from the surface impossible.
No upwelling BB LWIR means no GHG energy loop, no CO2 warming and no man-caused climate change.
Three decades of research down the drain and the entire climate change hustle is instantly unemployed.
Reply
Terry
| #
I’m a non scientist just someone struggling to make sense of the climate story.
It may be naive question but don’t different gases have different weights? And would not pressure be greater if the atmosphere in question were comprised of heavier gases. I understand CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas on earth but it is the atmosphere of Venus.
I understand Venus’s atmosphere is 160 miles high to earths 60 and the pressure on Venus is 90 bar to earths 1.
Can someone explain this as there doesn’t seem to be a linear progression.
‘
Reply
Terry
| #
I’m a non scientist just someone struggling to make sense of the climate story.
It may be naive question but don’t different gases have different weights? And would not pressure be greater if the atmosphere in question were comprised of heavier gases. I understand CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas on earth but it is the atmosphere of Venus.
I understand Venus’s atmosphere is 160 miles high to earths 60 and the pressure on Venus is 90 bar to earths 1.
Can someone explain this as there doesn’t seem to be a linear progression.
Reply
Nick Schroeder,BSME, PE
| #
Density is kg/m^3. Spherical volume increases as the cube of radius, Vol = 4/3 PI r^3. Density decreases because with altitude the kg gets spread out through larger volumes. Could run some numbers in an Excel model and see what the curves look like.
As to Venus – here’s a reprint.
Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!”
Well, what follows is the else it could be. (Q = U * A * ΔT) 2nd year ME heat transfer.
Venus is 70% of the distance to the sun so its average solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2.
But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth – or – Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR. The OLR and S-B equil T for Venus is lower than for Earth.
The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 1.5 more blankets on your bed.
RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.
The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/km to move the same kJ from surface to ToA. That’s why double/thermal pane windows are filled with CO2 or Argon or Krypton, lower conductivity/higher resistance.
Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.
So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature.
All explained, no need for any S-B BB RGHE hocus pocus.
Simplest explanation for the observation.
Reply
Nick Schroeder,BSME, PE
| #
One would think that should one wrongly critique the oh-so-sacred RGHE theory one’s in-box would overflow with angry, animated and detailed scientific rebuttals.
So, what shall one assume from the thundering silence?
1) (Tsurf – Ttoa) = R * ISR * (1-albedo)
This ubiquitous heat transfer equation totally describes Tsurf, the earth’s surface temperature. Ttoa, top of atmosphere (molecules cease at 32 km) is a function of altitude. R’s is also a function of altitude, i.e. thickness. Note that GHG’s are not included since their 0.04% contribution to R is negligible.
For instance, at the equator where the atmosphere is thicker R increases as does Tsurf. Note also at the equator where ISR is high and albedo low Tsurf increases. It’s hot at the equator.
At the poles where the atmosphere is thin R is low, ISR is low (tilted axis) and albedo high (ice, snow, clouds), Tsurf will be very low.
At points in between simply insert appropriate values for R, ISR, albedo and Ttoa, turn crank and voila T surf.
Interesting albedo site: http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/albedo/
Q=U A dT – the climate’s easy button.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Nick — You say: “One would think that should one wrongly critique the oh-so-sacred RGHE theory one’s in-box would overflow with angry, animated and detailed scientific rebuttals.”
When what you post is so utterly ridiculous, most knowledgeable people conclude it’s not worth the time. However, I’ve got some time to burn now, so…
As a simple example, let’s start with your assertion: “Spherical volume increases as the cube of radius, Vol = 4/3 PI r^3. Density decreases because with altitude the kg gets spread out through larger volumes.”
The earth’s radius is about 6400 km. The typical 500 mbar (0.5 atm) altitude is less than 6km, so this radius is less than 1.001 times the surface radius (0.1% greater), and the cross-sectional area of a “wedge” at this altitude would be less that 1.002 times that at the surface (0.2% greater).
So this “spreading”, as you refer to this, cannot remotely explain the 50% reduction in pressure compared to the surface. (The density reduction is a little less than 50% because of the temperature reduction.)
Any halfway competent high school student would be completely embarrassed to make such a mistake! It shows that you have no technical sense whatsoever.
(Follow-up question to you: What DOES explain the pressure/density decrease with altitude?)
On to your main point. In the university level technical classes I have taken and taught, I have long noticed that the weaker students look for an equation that seems to be related to the problem, then plug numbers into it without understanding the context of the equations.
And so it is with you and your use of the Q = U * A * dT conduction equation. You don’t stop to consider the full context of the system.
You claim that the atmosphere is conducting heat vertically from the surface to space, but there is NOTHING to conduct TO in the vacuum of space! So there cannot be conduction to space.
Since you are obviously far out of your depth here, let’s use a simple earthbound example. Let’s start with a large vessel of boiling water at 100C. Sticking out of the side of this vessel is a metal bar, which extends a meter to a similarly large vessel of ice water at 0C. Along its length between the vessels, the bar is very well insulated so heat transfer along the length is negligible.
Obviously, the metal bar will conduct heat from the boiling water vessel to the ice water vessel. If we know the cross-sectional area of the bar (let’s say it is 0.1m square, so an area of 0.01m^2) and the conductivity of the metal, we could use your equation. Copper would conduct more heat than steel, for example, due to its higher material conductivity. In either case, the bar would have a temperature gradient from 100C to 0C along its 1m length.
Now let’s consider a second setup, keeping the boiling water vessel and the metal bar, but removing the ice water vessel and insulating the end of the bar in addition to the sides so that no heat can be transferred through the end.
What happens in this case? It should be obvious that the entire bar will reach 100C in the steady state, conducting zero heat along the length of the bar. But you, without knowing how to apply the equation you blindly use, wouldn’t be able to get that result.
When you analyze the atmosphere, you think you’ve got the first case, but you really have the second case. Once again, it’s a mistake that a beginning student should be embarrassed to make. And you wonder why people don’t waste their time on you!
Reply
Nick Schroeder,BSME, PE
| #
“You claim that the atmosphere is conducting heat vertically from the surface to space, but there is NOTHING to conduct TO in the vacuum of space! So there cannot be conduction to space.”
No, I am not. The molecules conduct up to 32 km where radiation takes over. The air trapped in the walls of a house and the air trapped against the surface of the earth behave the same. I spent 35 years applying Q=UAdt. If I didn’t understand how it works I’d have a trail of useless heat exchangers. Don’t learn that sitting in some academic cloister.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6447825132869218304
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6369927560008212481
Impossible 396 upwelling BB LWIR = no 333 up/down/”back” LWIR GHG loop = no RGHE = no CO2 warming = no man-caused climate changing.
If this RGHE anti-theorem expression is correct, the global warming and climate change debate is finished, over, done.
If this expression is incorrect, perhaps you would explain why.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Nick — Now you say: “The molecules conduct up to 32 km where radiation takes over.”
You actually are explaining the concept of the RGHE (although you get all the details wrong). It takes radiatively active (i.e. “greenhouse”) gases for the atmosphere to be able to radiate energy to space.
This would not happen with a transparent atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar). In this case, the surface would radiate directly to space through the atmosphere. The idea that that there is a negative lapse rate to high in the atmosphere where colder gases radiate energy to space is the VERY ESSENCE of the RGHE. You don’t understand the concept enough to realize you are arguing FOR it!
But you are completely wrong on conduction being the primary heat transfer mechanism to transfer energy up to high altitudes. Let’s do some simple calculations using your equation.
Rearranging the equation into the appropriate form:
Q/A [W/m^2] = U [W/m/K] * dT/dz [K/m]
where the thermal conductivity U of air at STP is about 0.025 W/m/K. Let’s use the dry adiabatic lapse rate of 10K per km of height, giving us a dT/dz of 0.01 K/m. Solving, we get:
Q/A = 0.025 * 0.01 = 0.00025 W/m^2
But the earth needs to output about 250 W/m^2 to space, averaged over area, to balance the solar power it absorbs.
You claim that upward conductivity in the atmosphere is a key link in this chain. But if you had ever bothered to do the simplest of calculations, you would have realized you are off by a factor of a million.
Let me repeat that: YOU ARE OFF BY A FACTOR OF A MILLION!!!
(Do you bother to do actual calculations for the heat exchangers you claim you design? Because being off by a factor of a million would present a few problems…)
And it’s actually worse than that, because U decreases as you go up due to the lower density, and the maximum stable dT/dz decreases to the moist adiabatic lapse rate of about 6C per km where condensation occurs.
Remember (if you ever learned it) that any lapse rate greater than adiabatic is called “unstable”, because it will induce convection that drives the lapse rate back toward adiabatic.
So upward conduction of heat in the atmosphere cannot provide more than one part per million of the needed upward transmission of heat. Competent scientists and engineers would concentrate on the 999,999 ppm instead of the 1 ppm. Why don’t you???
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
Q/A = U dT or U = Q/A / dT
For the atmosphere: 32 km thick ToA at -40 C:
240 W/m^2 / (288 – 233) = 4.36 = U
Engineers tool box
“the quantity of heat transmitted through a unit thickness of a material – in a direction normal to a surface of unit area – due to a unit temperature gradient under steady state conditions”
The thermal conductivity of air is 0.0262 W/m – ΔC.
Thickness: 32,000 m
dT = 55 C
U = 15.24
Atmosphere calc is a 28.6% factor of STP air value.
Now let’s suppose we are at a specific location with the sun straight over head. The surface is 80 F, 27 C, 300 K. ISR is 1,368 with 30% albedo giving a net in/out of 957.6 W/m^2 and a U of 14.3, almost exactly air TP.
Using averages is lazy and misleading. Running the calc for specific locations is a lot of work and who wants that especially if it trashes your agenda.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Nick:
Good grief! You don’t even understand the most basic form of the conduction equation. You don’t even get the units right!
The basic conduction equation, found in the first chapter of every heat transfer textbook, is:
Q/A = U * (dT/dx)
I earlier thought you were using “dT” as a shorthand, but now I realize you don’t comprehend the role of length “x” in the conduction equation. If you don’t use the length term in your equations, you don’t even get the units correct.
(I am appalled that you don’t realize intuitively that increasing the length of the conduction path, other things being equal, reduces the heat transfer. Basic, basic stuff.)
You quote the Engineers Tool Box definition, but you completely fail to understand the significance of the phrase “through a unit thickness of a material”. In SI, the unit thickness is 1 meter. You are trying to use that for a 32,000-meter thickness with the value for 1 meter.
You correctly quote the thermal conductivity of air at STP as about 0.026 W/m/C, but fail to understand that this value IS “U” in your equation. Assuming the lapse rate you cite is constant, you get a conductive power transfer density at the surface of:
Q/A = 0.026 [W/m/C] * 55/32,000 [C/m] = 0.0000447 [W/m^2]
This is way more than a factor of a million short of what is needed for conduction through air to transfer the equivalent of the solar power input to the top of the atmosphere.
And it’s much worse than that. The thermal conductivity of air is basically proportional to its density, which decreases with altitude. At 6 km altitude, the density is about half that of STP, so the U at that altitude is about 0.013 W/m/C, which means that the heat transfer is even less!
Furthermore, you do not understand the fundamental MEANING of these equations. When you use the 240 W/m^2 flux density as an INPUT to the equation, the conductivity value you get is the REQUIRED value to support that transfer. You cannot simply say that the medium HAS that conductivity — that’s a tautology.
Oh, and I did NOT use averages. I used maximum values to give you the benefit of the doubt, and still came a factor of a million short. No minor variations are going to close that kind of gap.
Herb Rose
| #
Hello,
I will repeat what I’ve said before which you seem not to believe. Objects, like he surface of the Earth, do not radiate or conduct temperature they transfer energy (heat) either through radiation or conduction.
Temperature is not an accurate way to measure kinetic energy (heat) in a gas because of varying density. You can put your hand into a oven at 100 C to check on something warming but do not put your hand into 100 C water to check on if the food is done. This is good advice even though the kinetic energy of the molecules in a 100 C oven are far greater than the kinetic energy of the molecules in the 100 c water. Temperature is a function of the kinetic energy of molecules and number of molecules transferring that energy. The atmosphere at sea level has a higher temperature due to the density of the atmosphere not because of the kinetic energy the molecules. The higher the altitude the greater the kinetic energy of the molecules (divide absolute temperature by density). The gas molecules higher in the atmosphere are exposed to the energy of the sun for a longer time than the molecules closer to the surface of the Earth and the intensity of the energy is greater. They must be hotter than the lower molecules. If you add energy (heat) to a gas it expands and become less dense. If you remove energy (cool) a gas it contracts and becomes denser. The less dense gases higher in the atmosphere must have more energy than the gases lower in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not compressed by atmospheric pressure but by gravity and that pressure can be considered constant throughout the atmosphere.
The reason the green house gas theory is wrong is because the molecules in the atmosphere have more energy than the molecules at the surface of the Earth and they are transferring heat to the surface of the Earth as well as radiating heat into space.
Have good day,
Herb
Reply