Test post to evaluate timing.

Test post 2

Thank you for this new thread Peter Eirich !

Do I have to be a skeptic here too or can I switch to the warmist camp?🤠😝

Good idea Peter Eirich

Michael Sidiropoulos [p 1140, 6th from top, ORIGINAL THREAD]

• Postma's assessment of Eschenbach.
• https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/07/11/willis-eschenbach-and-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy/

---------------- [ p 001, 6th from top, CONTINUATION THREAD] --------------------

I think Postma has found a conservation of energy error in Eschenbach's problem setup.

Peter Eirich said: I think Postma has found a conservation of energy error in Eschenbach's problem setup.

The funny thing is that Eschenbach admitted to the error but said that the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics is negligible. So, we're allowed to violate the Law by a small "δ".

It never ceases to amaze me how their beliefs take priority to the most basic laws of nature.

Peter Eirich PE p 1138 "The rising and sinking parcels can happily balance off their respective temperature increases and decreases all day, without affecting the pre-existing heat condition on the ground, or for that matter, even below the ground. The pre-existing heat condition on the ground will still continue to reflect the effects of compression by the weight of the atmosphere."

Wrong. It will radiate and cool until the outgoing radiation matches the incoming. With no GHE, the average would be near the effective temperature of 255 K, not the actual 288K.

Michael Sidiropoulos "I think Postma has found a conservation of energy error in Eschenbach's problem setup.

The funny thing is that Eschenbach admitted to the error but said that the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics is negligible. So, we're allowed to violate the Law by a small "δ".

So says Postma, can you verify that Eschenbach actually said it?

Postma also claims, "What Willis actually proves to us is that the radiative greenhouse effect can only be true if we allow a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, of Conservation of Energy."

Which is of course, not true at all. Eschenbach made an error in his model, which is easily corrected by using the appropriate spherical surface areas.

The Temperature of the Ground Surface at Sea Level

This section of the below paper by Joseph Postma, running from page 13 to page 22, derives the atmospheric dry lapse rate from the basic principles of planetary physics and thermodynamics. This is presented in a tutorial fashion.

By so doing, it also shows, quantitatively, that the Earth's average surface temperatures can and will be able to reach their current, observed levels on the basis of adiabatic compression, when the wet lapse rate curve's positioning is pegged according to the effective radiating temperature for the earth, at the altitude in the atmosphere where the effective radiating temperature is observed to occur in practice.

N.B. -- Because this involves empirical observations it does not rule out other possible explanations for why the effective radiating temperature for the earth is found within the atmosphere at the level where it actually is located. However, this does show that observed reality is consistent with the idea that adiabatic compression, given the earth's average insolation, may be the sole explanation needed for why we have a livable earth and not a snowball earth.

• Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect, Joseph E. Postma, March 2011
• https://web.archive.org/web/20131208074505/http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

Christopher D Judd said: So says Postma, can you verify that Eschenbach actually said it?

Please try to understand what you read. Of course Eschenbach would't say such thing. It was derived by Postma with his simple arithmetic.

Peter Eirich said: I think Postma has found a conservation of energy error in Eschenbach's problem setup.

Peter says he thinks Postma has found.... In other words, Peter cannot be 100% certain. This is the right scientific attitude and you should try to learn from it.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell.

Christopher D Judd [p 001]

• Michael Sidiropoulos: The funny thing is that Eschenbach admitted to the error but said that the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics is negligible. So, we're allowed to violate the Law by a small "δ".
• CDJ: So says Postma, can you verify that Eschenbach actually said it?

------------------ [ p 002 = 2nd from top ] ------------------

I believe that the only objective documentation of that is Postma's recent recounting of his recalled offline discussion with Willis from years ago.

That recollection is stated here, near the bottom of the blog column:

• Willis Eschenbach and the Law of Conservation of Energy
• Posted on 2023/07/11 by Joseph E Postma
• https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/07/11/willis-eschenbach-and-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy/

The text:

• "And you know what? Many, many years ago, I contacted Willis about this error, and do you know what his answer was at that time? He said that we can “treat the violation of energy as negligible”, and therefore it is OK! I tried following up with objection to this claim, but he wouldn’t respond. In effect, Willis claims that the Law of Conservation of Energy is
• Ein = Eout ± δ
• where δ is a term which allows for “negligible” difference from perfect equality. In Willis’ mind, the first law can be violated by some non-zero amount, “δ”; the law of conservation of energy is not a perfect equality, but an equality with some fuzzy space on the sides ..."

[SNIP]

Peter Eirich "That recollection is stated here, near the bottom of the blog column:"

Yes, that's what I was referring to when I said, "So says Postma".

I frankly don't believe it, when it is obviously easy to correct his error; there is no need to claim this.

It seems that MS agrees, he said, "Of course Eschenbach would't say such thing. It was derived by Postma with his simple arithmetic."

This thread loads instantaneously and I feel like I sold my Cadillac and bought a Maserati.🤠🍺

Philip Mulholland said: Anyone want to tell Harry?

I just did in the original thread.

-----------

@Harry ten Brink come over to the other thread and I'll be recommending all your posts, none excluded.🤠🍺

Christopher D Judd said: It seems that MS agrees....

I had forgotten about the conversation between Postma and Willis and thanks to Peter Eirich we were reminded of it.

Christopher D Judd [p 001]

• Peter Eirich: "That recollection is stated here, near the bottom of the blog column:"
• CDJ: Yes, that's what I was referring to when I said, "So says Postma".
• CDJ: I frankly don't believe it, when it is obviously easy to correct his error; there is no need to claim this.

------------------ [ p 002 ] ------------------

FYI -- Willis' original post is here:

• AS IS TODAY - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/
• FROM 2013 - https://web.archive.org/web/20130210002539/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/

As Willis noted in his own UPDATE, as shown below Figure 2: "Misunderstandings revealed in the comments mean I lacked clarity." In a theoretical explanation, making an approximation without stating it can be really confusing to the readers. That's what showed up in the reader comments. Comments 2-3-4-5-6, all posted within 30 minutes of the very first appearance of Willis' article on the internet, all picked up on the conservation of energy problem. Looks like the WUWT readers must be a pretty sharp bunch.

I agree with you that the error would have been easy to fix. I'm kinda' surprised that Willis didn't just fix it on the spot so that his theoretical explanation would then have been exact. Instead of doing that, Willis defended, in his UPDATE, that the resulting approximation was small in its impact, and therefore could be ignored in favor of making a "simplifying assumption that they are equal". That, to me, lends credence to Postma's account, where he writes that Willis said that we can “treat the violation of energy as negligible”, and therefore it is OK!

Given that Willis had already publicly advanced such a position within his own column's UPDATE, I have no trouble believing Postma's account that Willis had, similarly, adopted that very same stance within his offline communications with Postma.

Plant trees save planet Earth

Robert Holmes

"So this thought just popped into your head as 'logical'?"

"Then you must be saying that your hypothetical 'GHE', (the 'cause' of which is supposedly 'GHG' in the body of the atmosphere returning LW radiation to the surface), nevertheless continues below the surface; correct?"

Give him a break. He's only a health care worker trying to do his best for political activism.

Robert Holmes

However, it can be used to determine what is not causing a specific warming or cooling event -

Rob. Congratulations. This is the Scientific method of falsification in action.

Christopher D Judd [p 001]

• Peter Eirich PE p 1138 "... The pre-existing heat condition on the ground will still continue to reflect the effects of compression by the weight of the atmosphere."
• CDJ: Wrong. It will radiate and cool until the outgoing radiation matches the incoming. With no GHE, the average would be near the effective temperature of 255 K, not the actual 288K.

----------------- [ p 003 = 5th from top ] ------------------

Think it through, Christopher. If it did that, the lapse rate curve, which is known to be very stable, would begin to unravel and start to disappear.

As I've explained previously, the adiabatic compression surface heating mechanism has available to it (on average) a steady supply of fresh energy (i.e., from the Sun), and a virtually unlimited supply of replacement parts for the mechanism that can be provided at suitable rates (i.e., freshly recycled and rejuvenated molecules drawn in from elsewhere within the atmosphere). With those two resources available to it, along with a constant and unending supply of gravitational force that keeps the mechanism properly assembled (i.e., sufficiently compressed), it becomes a self-sustaining process. It can keep pumping out the desired amount of near-surface heating indefinitely.

Remember, as has been posted recently [p 001, bottom of page, Peter Eirich], the lapse rate curve is derived from basic radiation physics principles, the physical characteristics of earth's atmosphere, fundamental earth parameters (e.g., albedo), solar insolation, thermodynamics, and the properties of water and water vapor (e.g., latent heat capacity). Notice what is explicitly not on on that list: the mix and percentages of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. See Postma pages 19-22:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20131208074505/http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

However, the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could still influence this calculation indirectly. By indirectly: __if__ a significant greenhouse effect was in operation, making the earth's surface and its atmosphere warmer than they would be in the absence of long-lived GHGs, __then__ the atmosphere would be less dense, raising the altitude of the tropopause as compared to a no-GHGs atmosphere. On the other hand, I think this must also change the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Does that create some kind of self-inconsistency? Beats me. That's where I need to defer to someone with a deeper knowledge of the physics involved. But, given the nonlinear dependence of the lapse rate curve's slope on the atmosphere's heat capacity (e.g., an inverse relationship -- See Postma page 21, eq {14} ), it strikes me that the prescribed lapse rate situations for an atmosphere either with or without a significant GHGs-based greenhouse effect in operation could turn out to be mutually inconsistent.

• N.B. -- On every rocky planet that we know of which both has a tropopause (e.g., Venus does not have one) and has a surface atmospheric pressure in excess of .1 bar, the tropopause occurs at approximately .1 bar of pressure.

Robert Holmes

If the answer for the Earth is 100% GHE, then we might ask if that should't be true for Venus as well. Philip Mulholland has argued that this cannot be true for Venus because CO2 doesn't, based on his calculations, but here expressed using my own terminology, have the "moxie" for it. I'm not sure that I fully understand Phillip's and Stephen Wilde's calculations, but they appear to show that CO2 is simply too weak a GHG, physically, to pull that off. But Holmes' paper shows that adiabatic compression effects are strong enough to pull off that trick. Both of those points argue against the 100% GHE assertion as reflecting the true explanation for the earth's +33 °C thermal enhancement.

But I think the straw that breaks the camel's back is the fact that, if hypothetically adjusted for the difference in their relative insolation, the temperature in Venus' atmosphere at 1 bar of pressure is the same as the temperature in the Earth's atmosphere at 1 bar of pressure. This despite massive differences in the composition of the two atmospheres. I have to think that if a GHE resulting from the long-lived GHGs was having more than a very minor effect of the temperatures of both Venus and the Earth, respectively, then this result would be flat-out impossible to achieve, given the near 100% concentration of CO2 in the former, and the near 0% concentration of long-lived GHGs in the latter.

To step back and get a different perspective, consider that Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., challenged the "denialist" group the "Sky Dragon Slayers" to "Put Up or Shut Up", and to provide a model for the Earth's temperature distribution, reflecting their own theories of global warming, that was as good as his own GHE-based model constructed for that purpose:

• https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/

The Dragon Slayers opted for "Put Up", and they produced, in response to Roy Spencer's challenge, the following paper:

• A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect
• https://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

We know from Robert Holmes

»» Show how any GHE-based model that you prefer can simultaneously explain both the Earth's and Venus' temperature distributions.

As I already indicated, I do not believe that this is a do-able do. And if it cannot be done, then it is time to stop proselytizing about CO2 being the Earth's temperature control knob and to start more seriously exploring the number of different candidates that are available for providing alternative explanations.

Peter Eirich:

Thank you for this new thread. The enthalpy (heat content) of dry air is a straight line versus temperature over 240 measurements of temperature and relative humidity. The gases in the atmosphere, except for water vapor, are nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, neon, helium, methane, krypton, and trace species. They are all above their boiling points and act as ideal gases. Thus, their warming effect is linear with concentration, i.e., molecules per cubic meter.

On the other hand, adding when water vapor that is below its boiling point, the relationship between temperature and concentration is curved and trends toward an upper limit. Thus, the IPCC's ΔT = 5.35LN(C/Co) is incorrect.

Peter Eirich I don't want to sound snarky, but you're embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge on thermodynamics. You probably took 5.41 to satisfy your chem requirement, and I doubt that you Course 6 folks spent much time on gas phase thermodynamics. You really need to study this a bit more.

• Peter Eirich PE p 1138 "... The pre-existing heat condition on the ground will still continue to reflect the effects of compression by the weight of the atmosphere."
• CDJ: Wrong. It will radiate and cool until the outgoing radiation matches the incoming. With no GHE, the average would be near the effective temperature of 255 K, not the actual 288K.

----------------- [ p 003 = 5th from top ] ------------------

"Think it through, Christopher. If it did that, the lapse rate curve, which is known to be very stable, would begin to unravel and start to disappear. ...

No, it wouldn't.

Remember, as has been posted recently [p 001, bottom of page, Peter Eirich], the lapse rate curve is derived from basic radiation physics principles, the physical characteristics of earth's atmosphere, fundamental earth parameters (e.g., albedo), solar insolation, thermodynamics, and the properties of water and water vapor (e.g., latent heat capacity). Notice what is explicitly not on on that list: the mix and percentages of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. See Postma pages 19-22:"

The lapse rate is determined by the pressure profile of the atmosphere and the heat capacity. An air parcel cools as it rises because it is doing work on the surrounding atmosphere, and warms on descending because the atmosphere is doing work on it. For a dry or wet parcel, the changes will be the same as long as the moisture content stays the same and there are no phase changes. WV condensation/evaporation complicates the picture, but it only moves energy around within the surface and troposphere.

If the surface is at a higher temperature than the radiative equilibrium temperature, it will radiate more energy than it receives; the sun will not supply the energy to maintain the higher temperature.

There is so much wrong with Postma's paper that it will take a long post or several to do it justice. I may feel motivated to do it at some time, but not right now.

"Philip Mulholland has argued that this cannot be true for Venus because CO2 doesn't, based on his calculations, but here expressed using my own terminology, have the "moxie" for it. I'm not sure that I fully understand Phillip's and Stephen Wilde's calculations, but they appear to show that CO2 is simply too weak a GHG, physically, to pull that off."

Others have found that it is sufficiently strong. Why do you choose PM's results, especially since you say that you don't understand them.

"But I think the straw that breaks the camel's back is the fact that, if hypothetically adjusted for the difference in their relative insolation, the temperature in Venus' atmosphere at 1 bar of pressure is the same as the temperature in the Earth's atmosphere at 1 bar of pressure."

Why do you say that they are equal? Look at the attached figure from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-023-00956-0/figures/6

It seems that the Venus temperature at 1 bar is ~ 360 K, while the earth's is 288 K. I guess the camel can hold some more straw.

"Show how any GHE-based model that you prefer can simultaneously explain both the Earth's and Venus' temperature distributions."

Google Scholar is your friend.

"As I already indicated, I do not believe that this is a do-able do. And if it cannot be done, then it is time to stop proselytizing about CO2 being the Earth's temperature control knob and to start more seriously exploring the number of different candidates that are available for providing alternative explanations."

As Neil deGrass Tyson has said, the thing about science is that it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it. You choose to believe fringe theories, some of which have been described as nonsense even by "skeptics", because they tell you what you want to hear.

MS: Do I have to be a skeptic here too or can I switch to the warmist camp?

BPL: Do please switch to the established science side.

RIH: We are in luck so far; no Harry and no Barton!

BPL: That's what I like about Holmes's posts--always about the science.

PE: Think it through, Christopher. If it did that, the lapse rate curve, which is known to be very stable, would begin to unravel and start to disappear.

BPL: Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to provide absoption and therefore heating, convection and conduction would grind to a stop and the atmosphere would be isothermal.

Christopher D Judd [p 003]

------------------- [ p 003 ] ---------------

[2] I've never seen that said -- anywhere. In every discussion about Venus I've ever seen online in the past, when the "expert" has been challenged to explain how the greenhouse effect would work out for Venus, the response is invariably to "duck" the question. Typically, the answers I have seen are that we don't know enough about Venus to properly evaluate how the greenhouse effect would apply there. Ditto for papers promoting the greenhouse effect that I have read.

[3] I've read several of Philip Mulholland's papers and I can see that he does quality work.

[4] I have not yet carefully read Philip's and Stephen's Venus paper, else I would understand their math and logic. I have only skimmed it. What I have read is what the abstract says. I trust Philip's assessment of what his own work says.

PE: when the "expert" has been challenged to explain how the greenhouse effect would work out for Venus, the response is invariably to "duck" the question.

BPL: Try here:

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/41983605/The_Recent_Evolution_of_Climate_on_Venus20160203-30232-d86qf8-libre.pdf?1454537825=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Recent_Evolution_of_Climate_on_Venus.pdf&Expires=1697234519&Signature=Px0MKtxYkjkBlM435FUi44Y4DYYfV-Gi8UL5eVzC9Zv531KdpvZ-0lmZHAupR9AmKSGmUKcWeX-7P0H3eOs2hF8vgywCWTKemK-D3zBR-t~opyf08dyv9mmkPxZpNIBIn3joqPAX8iN2GheoOUUvGAY3ZAZMmCSnD61Tca6HAEQyugue8CcZ5kENhW4JW7gDAyIFcqfI8MURZ8gsuts7N5QyNY~ivNmI6ZT3b2BAMiQYsvOvpRoriOyk7goUUHzhKwWpzuLKuWIEmV2iP6mo~l3WH5VIPDK571FI4GmSWSAcAYyORR1NdtWgru~WIjobh4-W~~OKCfQ1DI2eDekN3g__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Christopher D Judd [p 003]

• Why do you say that they are equal? Look at the attached figure from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-023-00956-0/figures/6
• It seems that the Venus temperature at 1 bar is ~ 360 K, while the earth's is 288 K. I guess the camel can hold some more straw.

------------------ [ p 004 ] ----------------

No, you didn't do what I said you needed to do: You didn't adjust the solar insolation levels to be consistent with either moving Venus into Earth's orbit or vice-versa. Works out OK either way you do it. One place that calculation can be found is in Robert Holmes

• Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change, Robert Holmes, Apr 2018

• Article Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of...

Christopher D Judd [p 003]

• Peter Eirich I don't want to sound snarky, but you're embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge on thermodynamics. You probably took 5.41 to satisfy your chem requirement, and I doubt that you Course 6 folks spent much time on gas phase thermodynamics.

------------------ [ p 004 = 2nd from top ] ------------------

You're right about gas phase thermodynamics, but wrong about 5.41.

(ASIDE: Sorry guys -- but when MIT students talk to each other about courses they go by the course numbers, not by the course names. I was in a singing group in college that specialized in original, humorous songs. A line from one of our songs was:

• " And mathematics students, even they were in a mess -- they had to think of taking eighteen oh three four T S" {18.034TS}

I took an experimental course on thermodynamics from an information theory perspective. Course 6 (electrical engineering). I didn't need to take that course to graduate -- I could have picked from plenty of others. I signed up for it because of interest. I knew that it was coming, but I had to wait a year for the information theory variation on the traditional course to be offered for the very first time, and then specially apply for it, because it required instructor pre-approval, but I got one of just a few open slots remaining in it during the summer just before I graduated.

Never fully and completely grasped it, and never needed it during my entire career, and but it was interesting. :-)

So, yeah, I'll defer on thermo.

Christopher D Judd [p 003]

• If the surface is at a higher temperature than the radiative equilibrium temperature, it will radiate more energy than it receives; the sun will not supply the energy to maintain the higher temperature.

------------------ [ p 004 = 3rd from top ] ------------------

And you're missing the whole point. Air while being compressed generates heat. And when a parcel of air radiates "more energy than it receives", its volume shrinks. Less compressed air rushes in to quickly occupy the newly-available volume that has been vacated by that shrunken original parcel. (Nature abhors a vacuum, remember?) Now at a lower altitude having higher atmospheric pressure, this newly arrived fresh air is itself subjected to increased pressure, and it too then compresses even further, generating heat in the process. And so on. And so on.

Christopher D Judd [p 003]

• "Show how any GHE-based model that you prefer can simultaneously explain both the Earth's and Venus' temperature distributions."
• Google Scholar is your friend.

------------------ [ p 004 = 3rd from top ] ------------------

I've been looking for years for a coherent explanation of that. It's proven to be a wild goose chase. I have no reason to believe that trying once again wouldn't be just throwing good hours after bad.

Peter Eirich [p3, 5 from top]

The Dragon Slayers opted for "Put Up", and they produced, in response to Roy Spencer's challenge, the following paper:

• A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect
• https://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

Peter. Thanks for the URL that paper by Joseph Postma is a gold mine. On page 8 Joe shows how to link the DALR to the MALR using Latent Heat release. Stunning stuff.

I have attached my Excel workbook in which I have replicated Joe's work

I have included two tweaks:

1: Added in the Latent Heat of fusion as well as Latent Heat of condensation.

2. Back calculated the tropopause height to 12.5 Km for a MALR of 6.5 K/km

Christopher D Judd [p 003]

• As Neil deGrass Tyson has said, the thing about science is that it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it. You choose to believe fringe theories, some of which have been described as nonsense even by "skeptics", because they tell you what you want to hear.

----------- [ p 004, 5th from top ] ------------------

What I want to hear is a cogent, scientifically accurate explanation that makes sense, can hold up logically under scrutiny, and has some evidence behind it to back it up.

As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". As scientific skeptic Marcello Truzzi said, just a year prior to Sagan's pronouncement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The claim that trace amounts of greenhouse gases have made the difference between a snowball earth and a livable earth is certainly an extraordinary claim, alright. But so far we have seen neither extraordinary evidence nor extraordinary proof in support of that claim. Everything has all been circumstantial, based on an implicit assumption that correlation actually does mean causality.

Peter Eirich [p4, 3rd from top]

And when a parcel of air radiates "more energy than it receives", its volume shrinks. Less compressed air rushes in to quickly occupy the newly-available volume that has been vacated by that shrunken original parcel. (Nature abhors a vacuum, remember?)

Peter, You are describing the exact process of surface cold air formation that occurs in winter on the ice cap at Dome Argus in Antartica.

Data Dome Argus Weather Station Temperature Profiles from 09 May ...

Peter Eirich [p3, 5th from top]

I'm not sure that I fully understand Phillip's and Stephen Wilde's calculations, but they appear to show that CO2 is simply too weak a GHG, physically, to pull that off.

Peter. Our collaborative work now stretches back over 4 years and has been a continuous process of scientific development. In our partnership Stephen Paul Rathbone Wilde is the meteorologist and I am the modeler. We started with the idea that it is possible to create a universal climate model that is applicable to all types of terrestrial planet. The best analogue to the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport (DAET) climate model is a domestic water central heating system. There is a source of heat, (the furnace), there is a transport mechanism, (the pipes) and there is a heat sink (the radiators). Crucially for such a system to work there must be a return flow of water back to the furnace. The tropical Hadley cell is an atmospheric equivalent writ large.

The standard radiative model of climate is based on an equation (the Vacuum Planet Equation) that is derived from astronomy. This equation assumes a rapidly rotating axially tilted planet and therefore by definition cannot be applied to a tidally locked world. We therefore devised the Noonworld model of a tidally locked planet with an atmosphere of pure nitrogen gas for which the only possible mechanism to transport captured energy from the lit to the dark hemisphere is by fluid mass motion. By this means we placed meteorology at the heart of our DAET climate model. We also removed the confounding variable of thermal radiant opacity from our early work and we received criticism for simply engaging in expeditious tuning of the flux partition ratio to achieve the desired planetary thermal enhancement. A crucial step however was the demonstration that in its simplest diabatic form of a 50/50 flux partition ratio the DAET climate model fully replicated the results of the Vacuum Planet Equation.

Over the past 4 years of study, we have progressed our understanding of the implications of our DAET model to the point where we now incorporate thermal radiant opacity into the model and have shown that the back radiation concept of the standard model is in fact the energy capture and delivery process of the atmospheric Hadley cell in disguise.

Our most recent work on the atmosphere of Mars has been put forward for peer review.

Robert Holmes

We can’t loose Harry and Bart until we have them converted. …I realize that is a VERY long term goal.

Peter Eirich said: What I want to hear is a cogent, scientifically accurate explanation that makes sense, can hold up logically under scrutiny, and has some evidence behind it to back it up.

Peter has just defined plausibility. Not a guarantee of truth but a candidate for a strong set of accepted theories.

I wasn't aware of NdGT at all. Holmes' video is a reminder that such morons are the heroes of the AGW crowd.

This new thread has just exceeded 200 reads. It is starting now its Main Sequence. A star is born!😜

Christopher D Judd [p2, 7 from top] Peter Eirich

Others have found that it is sufficiently strong. Why do you choose PM's results, especially since you say that you don't understand them.

Christopher,

The standard climate model has the following basic features with specific rules applied.

1. The planetary disc intercept rule. - The average solar irradiance is divided by 4 and spread over the surface of the globe.

2. The albedo bypass rule. – A given percentage of the planetary insolation is bypassed by planetary brightness and not used within the climate system.

3. The remaining solar insolation is absorbed by the planet/atmosphere.

4. The planetary atmosphere is leaky. – Low frequency thermal radiation can pass from the surface directly out to space.

5. The atmosphere is an energy reservoir.

6. Energy recycling by the atmosphere doubles the quantity of energy in this reservoir. – The half in / half out rule of back radiation energy flux partition.

7. Rule six limits the maximum possible gain to times 2. –The infinite recycling geometric series limit.

What this all means is that for a planet with a zero albedo surface (that is with 100% insolation high-energy absorption under a totally clear atmosphere) and a totally opaque atmosphere for exiting surface thermal radiation (that is no surface leaks to space and total 100% atmospheric thermal radiant blocking) then the absolute limit of the internal energy budget is 3 times the Solar Irradiance flux divided by 4.

In simple terms 1 + 2 = 3

Where 1 is the planetary disc solar intercept Insolation Intensity (the dynamic through put).

2 is the Saturated Atmospheric Reservoir (the static level at maximum top up)

(Hydrology 101) and so

3 is the maximum intensity experienced by the planet's climate.

Now divide this by 4 the surface area of the planet and we have the absolute limit of the internal energy budget is 3 times the Solar Irradiance flux divided by 4.

For Venus, with a solar irradiance of 2601.3 W/m2, the maximum possible planetary energy budget for a hypothetical Bond albedo of zero and total atmospheric insolation clarity is 2601.3*0.75 = 1951 W/m2. This flux translates into a maximum possible energy budget thermodynamic temperature of 430.7 Kelvin (157.7oC), but the surface temperature of Venus is 737 Kelvin (464oC)

From this analysis we can deduce that the standard climate model is compromised. The back-radiation concept for a totally thermal radiant opaque atmosphere cannot explain why Venus has a surface temperature of 464oC by atmospheric radiant energy flux recycling. The solar flux captured by the Venusian atmosphere is far too low to produce the observed surface temperature, even if that planet had a Bond albedo of zero and total atmospheric insolation clarity (which it clearly does not have).

Article An Analysis of the Earth's Energy Budget

Philip Mulholland [p 004]

• Peter. Thanks for the URL that paper by Joseph Postma is a gold mine. On page 8 Joe shows how to link the DALR to the MALR using Latent Heat release. Stunning stuff.

------------------ [ p 005 = 6th from top ] -------------------

Great!

Thanks, too, for posting the spreadsheet.

What does MALR stand for?

Barton Levenson [p 003]

• BPL: Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to provide absorption and therefore heating, convection and conduction would grind to a stop and the atmosphere would be isothermal.

------------------ [ p 005 = 7th from top ] -------------------

You've claimed that previously and I refuted it with a citation or two. The air at the surface warms up by contact with the surface. If the surface is warm enough, that's all it takes to get convection started. No GHGs need apply.

Peter Eirich said: The air at the surface warms up by contact with the surface. If the surface is warm enough, that's all it takes to get convection started. No GHGs need apply.

It makes total sense.

Barton Levenson [p 003]

• PE: when the "expert" has been challenged to explain how the greenhouse effect would work out for Venus, the response is invariably to "duck" the question.
• BPL: Try here: (link)

------------------ [ p 005 = 9th from top ] -------------------

That (link) didn't work for me, but here is one that does:

• The Recent Evolution of Climate on Venus, Mark A. Bullock and David H. Grinspoon, Department of Space Studies, Southwest Research Institute, 1050 Walnut Street, Suite 426, Boulder, Colorado 80302
• E-mail: [email protected] Received May 26, 1998; revised October 5, 2000
• https://funkyscience.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Bullock-and-Grinspoon-2001.pdf

Peter Eirich [p5, 6 from top]

What does MALR stand for?

Moist Adiabatic Lapse Rate aka Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate aka Environmental Lapse Rate. Water content is the key variable that powers the atmospheric convection engine and delivers energy to the rising air via Latent Heat release. By this means of Latent Heat release the potential energy of the air is increased due to vertical motion. Work is being done against the planet's gravity field.

Robert Holmes

• NdGT is so ridiculous on this subject that I made a whole video debunking his stupid nonsense;
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0OJsy4iAPw
• Dr Robert Ian Holmes

------------------ [ p 006 = 1st at top ] -------------------

Excellent video!

RIH: Only TSI and pressure matter, there are no 'greenhouse gases'.

Tplanet 1 bar=∜(TSI relative) x Tplanet 1 bar

BPL: Except that it only works for three worlds, which means you've discovered a numerical coincidence, not a principle.

The fact that you use TSI uncorrected for albedo also means the atmospheres you're talking about are using energy that doesn't exist, because it's been reflected away into space. Your model violates conservation of energy.

Playing around with numbers is not science. It is numerology.

PE: You've claimed that previously and I refuted it with a citation or two.

BPL: I'm not sure you're clear on what "refuted" means.

Peter Eirich said: The air at the surface warms up by contact with the surface. If the surface is warm enough, that's all it takes to get convection started. No GHGs need apply.

MS: It makes total sense.

BPL: No, it does not. You're relying on conduction, and once that has warmed the atmosphere to the same temperature as the ground, conduction ceases. Open a physics textbook to where they talk about heat transfer. Or look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction

In linear space, heat conductive power is P = -k A (T-T0) where k is the thermal conductivity of the material, A the area, T and T0 the temperatures at opposite ends of the object in question. When T = T0, conduction is zero.

Barton Levenson [p 006, 2nd from top]

• Peter Eirich said: The air at the surface warms up by contact with the surface. If the surface is warm enough, that's all it takes to get convection started. No GHGs need apply.
• MS: It makes total sense.
• BPL: No, it does not. You're relying on conduction, and once that has warmed the atmosphere to the same temperature as the ground, conduction ceases. Open a physics textbook to where they talk about heat transfer. Or look here:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction
• In linear space, heat conductive power is P = -k A (T-T0) where k is the thermal conductivity of the material, A the area, T and T0 the temperatures at opposite ends of the object in question. When T = T0, conduction is zero.

------------------ [ p 006 = 3rd from top ] -------------------

What you are saying, Barton, would apply to a container holding a parcel of air, with the container resting upon the ground. What you are saying does not apply to a freely-ranging parcel of air in the open atmosphere. Assuming that the surface is sufficiently warm, in the first place, to cause atmospheric convection to take place, the aforementioned freely-ranging parcel of air will never reach the condition wherein T = T0. Before that ever happens, the original parcel will already have been convected away, allowing a colder parcel of air to take its place at the surface "warming station". And so on. And so on.

Barton Levenson [p 006, 2nd from top]

• Robert Holmes

  : Only TSI and pressure matter, there are no 'greenhouse gases'.
• RIH: Tplanet 1 bar=∜(TSI relative) x Tplanet 1 bar
• BPL: Except that it only works for three worlds, which means you've discovered a numerical coincidence, not a principle.

------------------ [ p 006 = 4th from top ] -------------------

That's like saying "I've only looked at the first three pennies from this roll of pennies that I got from the bank, and they were all copper. That means these are the only three copper pennies in the entire solar system."

Hello! If you have no knowledge about any other of the similar planetary bodies in our solar system, you cannot say that Holmes' principle does not apply to them.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that I recall reading recently in a paper -- I think it might have been one of Philip Mulholland's papers -- that the author had found this to be true for a larger number of planetary bodies than three.

But as I said, in any case, you have no evidence that this would not also be true for Neptune and Uranus. That makes your claim about "only works for three worlds" an unjustified claim.

And, furthermore, in any case, three worlds is one world too many to be able to write this off as being a mere coincidence.

Barton Levenson [p 006, 2nd from top]

• PE: You've claimed that previously and I refuted it with a citation or two.
• BPL: I'm not sure you're clear on what "refuted" means.

------------------ [ p 006 = 5th from top ] -------------------

It means I that cited at least one peer-reviewed paper which contradicted your claim, and that you made no objection to what the paper said.

Christopher D Judd [p 003, 7th from top]

• PE: "Philip Mulholland has argued that this cannot be true for Venus because CO2 doesn't, based on his calculations, but here expressed using my own terminology, have the "moxie" for it. ...
• CDJ: Others have found that it is sufficiently strong. Why do you choose PM's results, ...

------------------ [ p 006 = 6th from top ] -------------------

Now that I have carefully reviewed Philip Mulholland's posts covering that calculation ( [p 004, 3rd from bottom] and [p 005, 5th from top] ), from what I can see, Phillip's and Stephen Wilde's calculations reflect a correct and proper application of the backradiation principle as described by the GHE literature. Under Venus' parameters and conditions, it shows that the backradiation GHE theory variation, among the dozen+ different GHE theories that may be found within the literature, simply runs out of gas before it is able to elevate Venus' surface temperature up to its currently observed level.

But your mileage may vary with a different GHE theory. I showed in a previous post [in the original thread] that, notwithstanding Barton Levenson's claims to the contrary, the effective radiation level variant, among those different available GHE theory variants, was not equivalent to the backradiation variant under all conditions. Perhaps you or Barton could tease some increased temperature range out of Venus' parameters by applying that GHE theory variant instead of the backradiation variant.

Or perhaps you can spot an error in Phillip's and Stephen Wilde's calculations.

Otherwise, to paraphrase Jaws (1975), "You're gonna need a bigger theory". ;-)

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs

Peter Eirich said "What you are saying, Barton, would apply to a container holding...."

...responding to Barton Levenson .

Peter's response highlights the perils of bad modeling, where the model is different from reality in important ways. The same problem has pervaded the entire GHE theory, where the "greenhouse" bears no resemblance to the open atmosphere with all its feedbacks and interactions.

Barton Levenson [p 006, 2nd from top]

• Robert Holmes

  RIH: Only TSI and pressure matter, there are no 'greenhouse gases'.
• RIH: Tplanet B at 1 bar = ∜(TSI relative) x Tplanet A at 1 bar ( ← PE: the added clarifying B and A " at 1 bar " annotations are mine )
• BPL: The fact that you use TSI uncorrected for albedo also means the atmospheres you're talking about are using energy that doesn't exist, because it's been reflected away into space. Your model violates conservation of energy.

------------------ [ p 006 = 8th from top ] -------------------

Barton is incorrect: Albedo is indirectly reflected within the calculations.

As Robert Holmes

• A molar mass version of the ideal gas law is utilised (formulas 5 and 6), which consists of one fixed gas constant and three basic atmospheric gas parameters; the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density, and the mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.
• This formula proves itself here, to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others. The reason these are not required is because they (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned.
• Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change, Robert Holmes, April 2018

• Article Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of...

Barton Levenson [p 006, 2nd from top]

• Robert Holmes

  RIH: Only TSI and pressure matter, there are no 'greenhouse gases'.
• RIH: Tplanet B at 1 bar = ∜(TSI relative) x Tplanet A at 1 bar ( ← PE: the added clarifying B and A " at 1 bar " annotations are mine )
• BPL: Playing around with numbers is not science. It is numerology.

------------------ [ p 006 = 9th from top ] -------------------

This is not an empirical finding, like Nikolov and Zeller's formula, around which supplementary theory was then added. Robert Holmes

After seeing Figure 7 in Robert Holmes

It's quite interesting. The authors divided the meteorological stations into the more warm-trended ocean air-affected OAA-stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered OAS-stations. The observed differences between OAS areas and OAA areas are attributed by the authors to the fact that around year 1900 - after the little ice age - the oceans had been affected by cold conditions for centuries. The oceans (and thus OAA data) after 1920 responded slowly to the rather sudden strong warming of the Earth 1920–1950 while the warming 1920–1950 was detected well and instantly in OAS data.

The authors concluded that the OAS temperature data are best suited to reflect variations of the heat balance over the Earth. Therefore, the lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects due to trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

Here is again Robert's paper, while his Ref 89 is attached to this post as a pdf.

Article Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of...

Philip Mulholland [p 004, 4th from bottom]

• Peter, You are describing the exact process of surface cold air formation that occurs in winter on the ice cap at Dome Argus in Antarctica.

------------------ [ p 007 = top ] -------------------

It was interesting how the spread between the different-levels of near-surface temperatures varied so much on different days.

Michael Sidiropoulos [p 006, bottom of page]

• After seeing Figure 7 in Robert Holmes 's paper, I decided to read Robert's Ref 89, which is the source of the graph.
• It's quite interesting.

----------------- [ p 007 = 2nd from top ] ------------------

That is interesting. What that shows is that the temperature forcing upon the earth is not so "unprecedented" during the modern warming period as some are claiming. It shows that the early 20th century forcing, at closer to preindustrial CO2 levels, likely was as strong as today's, or close to it. It indicates that the reason our measured temperature data shows such a steady rise in temperatures during most of the 20th century is that many of our measurements were being "held back" or "held down" by the heavy thermal inertia of the oceans.

A temperature pattern wherein the early 20th century warming was rapid and strong in land areas that were largely unaffected by the still-cold oceans, even though CO2 levels were much lower that today, followed by essentially stable temperatures in those same areas during the latter potion of the 20th century, despite rapidly-rising CO2 levels, creates an entirely different impression about the significance of CO2 as a control knob for the earth's temperatures. It says that CO2 matters a lot less than what our temperature measurement systems, which include so many ocean-affected areas within their scope, have been telling us.

PE: What that shows is that the temperature forcing upon the earth is not so "unprecedented" during the modern warming period as some are claiming. It shows that the early 20th century forcing, at closer to preindustrial CO2 levels, likely was as strong as today's, or close to it. It indicates that the reason our measured temperature data shows such a steady rise in temperatures during most of the 20th century is that many of our measurements were being "held back" or "held down" by the heavy thermal inertia of the oceans.

BPL: You're suffering from what William James called "will to believe." Anything that says what you want to hear, you latch onto. It's not a good way to think, and it's an awful way to do science.

Barton Levenson said to Peter Eirich : You're suffering from what William James called "will to believe." Anything that says what you want to hear, you latch onto. It's not a good way to think, and it's an awful way to do science.

Please read the paper and come back with a scientific response without attributing your own flaws to others.

Barton Levenson [p 007, 3rd from top]

• BPL: You're suffering from what William James called "will to believe." Anything that says what you want to hear, you latch onto. It's not a good way to think, and it's an awful way to do science.

----------------- [ p 007 = 5th from top ] ------------------

On the contrary, the Ocean Sheltered Areas concept from the paper helps to explain some observational data of which I was previously aware. For one example, about a century of virtually no warming measured in the foothills to the east of the San Joaquin Valley of California. In addition to having virtually no urbanization effects, I now realize that this area should also qualify -- geographically -- as being an Ocean Sheltered Area. As the paper documented, such areas around the world have tended to have a very low warming trends since the 1920s.

Deciding to simply ignore, or to just dismiss out of hand, any data or analyses that don't support one's preconceived narrative -- that's your approach, it appears to me -- is a really awful way to do science.

I at least entertain new ideas long enough to rationally decide whether or not to believe them!

Barton Levenson [p 003, bottom]

• PE: when the "expert" has been challenged to explain how the greenhouse effect would work out for Venus, the response is invariably to "duck" the question.
• BPL: Try here:

----------------- [ p 007 = 8th from top ] ------------------

This was an interesting speculation on how Venus got to be the way it is. There were spectral radiation calculations, and there were indications of predicted temperatures at different stages of Venus' hypothesized evolutionary sequence, but in the end there were no clear-cut, transparent calculations, at least that I could spot, showing how Venus achieves the current-day surface temperatures that it does by virtue of the greenhouse effect.

As such, I think that Philip Mulholland's calculations [p 005, 5th from top] remain the "last man standing". They say that Venus' surface temperatures cannot be achieved on the basis of the backradiation formulation of the greenhouse effect.

RIH: The Sun comes and goes each day, so how can the ground temperature stay the same?

A changing ground temperature means constant convection.

BPL: You're right, there would be a little convection during the day. Not enough to matter. Do the math.

PE: They are the only three terrestrial-type bodies in our solar system which have a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa (0.1 bar)

BPL: By specifying "terrestrial planets" you're stacking the deck. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have 1-bar pressure levels, and none of them fit your equation, even discounting the geothermal input. And the pressure level means you can't predict the temperature of Mars, either. All you've done is find a numerical coincidence, and then rationalize reasons after the fact why it only applies to 1/3 of the available worlds (3/11ths, really, since you can't tell the temperature of Triton or Pluto either).

And you still haven't addressed the fact that your heating ignores light reflected away by the planet's atmosphere. The idea that TSI alone heats planets is magical thinking. And it violates conservation of energy.

RIH: This warm atmosphere appears to be a feature of gas giants; they appear to have a significant internal heat source which the terrestrials do not have.

BPL: All except for Uranus, which does not appear to have significant internal heat. But your theory doesn't work for Uranus, either.

There are so many strikes against your "theory," it was struck out several times. It's a bad idea. It's wrong. It's a scientific dead end. Stop wasting everybody's time.

PE: the end there were no clear-cut, transparent calculations

BPL: They were clear-cut and transparent for someone who has studied radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres. You have not, so your reaction and your opinion doesn't count.

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• PE: the end there were no clear-cut, transparent calculations
• BPL: They were clear-cut and transparent for someone who has studied radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres. You have not, so your reaction and your opinion doesn't count.

----------------- [ p 007 = 10th from top ] ------------------

You're not "getting it", which suggests to me that you never even read the paper you posted. In order to be able to understand the author's calculations, there have to be visible calculations to examine in the first place -- ones that can actually be seen. In this paper, from what I could find, all of the GHE-type calculations were done behind the scenes within in the body of a model. So when I said "no clear-cut, transparent calculations", what I really meant was "no ... calculations" visible at all. Period. So, if you can understand those calculations, Barton, you must be psychic, because you would have to be either pulling them straight out from the author's mind, or perhaps doing remote viewing of a paper copy of the model's source code, or something else along those lines. But I know you don't believe in that kind of stuff, which tells me that you do not have the ability to pull such information from the author's mind -- else, you would believe in such psychic matters. See how that negative inference works?

The kind of answer I was expecting from you would have been something like "They're right there on page nn, left hand column; don't you know calculations when you see them?" But then again, that would mean you would have had to have actually read the paper before making that kind of a reply, instead of merely implying, by your insult, that you had read it.

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• BPL: And you still haven't addressed the fact that your heating ignores light reflected away by the planet's atmosphere.

----------------- [ p 008 = 1st from top ] ------------------

The fact that you made such a statement shows that either you did not read, or did not understand, my post [ p 006 = 8th from top ] where I did address how albedo reflection was handled within Robert Holmes

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• The idea that TSI alone heats planets is magical thinking. And it violates conservation of energy.

----------------- [ p 008 = 2nd from top ] ------------------

So you do believe, then, that geothermal heating is significant for the earth? And also, you do believe in Christopher Gerard Yukna's theory about energetic particle heating? Because if you're thinking about backradiation as your heating element, I assume you do understand that the ultimate source for that form of radiative heating is still TSI.

And as for your strange comment that heating by TSI alone violates conservation of energy, I know you realize that the entire planetary energy budget for the earth that you have been "pushing" depends on the principle of conservation of energy; that -- once the earth has reached an equilibrium condition -- the energy from inbound TSI must balance the energy within the outbound radiation leaving the earth.

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• Robert Holmes

  RIH: They are the only three terrestrial-type bodies in our solar system which have a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa (0.1 bar).
• BPL: By specifying "terrestrial planets" you're stacking the deck. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have 1-bar pressure levels, and none of them fit your equation, even discounting the geothermal input. And the pressure level means you can't predict the temperature of Mars, either.

----------------- [ p 008 = 3rd from top ] ------------------

By saying that, you are completely ignoring the excellent results produced in a different Robert Holmes

As to the Red Herring, Holmes never claimed that the rare alignment of different planetary pressures with temperature at 1 bar of pressure would occur on anything but a terrestrial style hard-surface planet. On that claim he delivered 100%. Your blatant Red Herring is to claim that 100% is not sufficient.

As to your subsequent comment: "There are so many strikes against your "theory," it was struck out several times" -- Which part of 100% did you not understand?

That triple claim, if taken intuitively at face value, is extraordinarily unlikely to expect to occur, in light of the massive differences in the planetary characteristics of Venus and Earth. Having it apply to both planets so precisely as it does is miraculous enough. But having it give a very close answer for Titan, as well, a planet very different from both Venus and the Earth, is much more than just the icing on the cake -- it is the proof of the pudding. There is absolutely no logical reason, based on greenhouse effect theories, for this same 1 bar temperature equivalence to hold on three such very different planets. And yet it does!

So if you want to build a solid case for believing in the greenhouse effect theory, your challenge is straightforward:

• Select any one of 15 or so different competing greenhouse effect theories that can be found in the literature, whichever one you wish, and then show the calculations for how that theory can explain the incredible "coincidence" of the 1 bar insolation-adjusted temperature equivalences on Venus, Titan, and the Earth.

At least, I assume that you are not going to try and assert something so silly as claiming that anyone should seriously believe that this highly unlikely triple-outcome is merely some form of a cosmic joke, as it were -- one worthy of the mischievous mythological Greek gods, but otherwise bearing no relationship to any established physics. Well, I suppose you might be able to advance a statistical argument showing that it is not unreasonable to expect this outcome to occur naturally in the real world. Good luck with that.

You've already got one strike against you, to begin with, given that Philip Mulholland has posted calculations from a peer-reviewed paper by Stephen Paul Rathbone Wilde and himself asserting that the maximum possible greenhouse effect on Venus is not theoretically capable of elevating the surface temperature of Venus up to its presently observed level [p 005, 5th from top] .

• Article An Analysis of the Earth's Energy Budget

So, you've first got to be able to rebut Philip Mulholland's argument for Venus, and then you must show how the greenhouse effect can also explain Titan's atmospheric temperature profile, as well. I think that's going to prove to be a tall order. Good luck with that, too.

We keep hearing about this supposed 97% consensus, wherein thousands of scientists are all endorsing the greenhouse effect. Haven't any of them bothered to show the math for how the greenhouse effect can apply to Venus?

You are always saying things like: "Do the math. Show your work.", and "Prove it. Do the math and submit your findings to a journal". Well, Robert Holmes

• Article On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance ...

Your turn.

Peter Eirich 's responses are like a whole paper. I'll read it later when the basketball game is over.🤠

Peter Eirich

I have been looking at Joseph Postma's equation for establishing the Environmental or Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate (WALR) from the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (DALR) via the release of Latent Heat. There are many variables in play here but the most interesting question is why does the global WALR apparently have a constant value set at -6.5K/km? This modern value is different from the value of -6.0K/km used by GC Simpson in his 1928 paper Some Studies in Terrestrial Radiation, however the following statement made in 1928 still applies:

One of the outstanding results of the investigation of the upper atmosphere is that the mean lapse rate within the troposphere is practically the same in all parts of the world.

One thing that I am certain of is that because the lowest temperature for super cooled water droplets is -48.3o C, once that temperature is achieved via convection then no further release of Latent Heat is possible, so the top out temperature of latent heat assisted convection is -48.3o C and this temperature can be applied as an upper-level datum. So, working up via the WALR from a surface temperature of the global average value of 15oC then this temperature of -48.3o C happens at a top out convection upper-level height of 9,470m for a 1.49% water content using a constant WALR of -6.5 K/km.

Now here is the interesting bit, if we descend from 9,470m via the Dry Air Adiabatic Lapse Rate (DALR) of -9.74 K/km then the surface air temperature is 46.6oC. This value is interestingly similar to the modelled global average temperature of 42oC used by K&T 1997, an analysis which reported we here in Table 4 Key Energy Budget Metrics [2].

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344539740_An_Analysis_of_the_Earth's_Energy_Budget

In their work K&T 1997 (Figure 7) applied Latent Heat surface cooling losses of 78 W/m2 as the dominant cooling process in the Earth’s climate. Using Joe’s Latent Heat release concept to generate the WALR the global average surface air temperature relates directly to the freezing point of super cooled water. The real question once again is why -6.5 K/km for the global average Environmental Lapse Rate?

Philip Mulholland [p 008, 5th from top]

• There are many variables in play here but the most interesting question is why does the global WALR apparently have a constant value set at -6.5K/km?

----------------- [ p 008 = 6th from top ] ------------------

I don't have an answer to your question, but I can direct you to a discussion of it. See Section 7.1 in:

• Preprint Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundan...

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have 1-bar pressure levels, and none of them fit your equation, even discounting the geothermal input.

----------------- [ p 008 = 7th from top ] ------------------

Your apparent unfamiliarity with Robert Holmes

• Article Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of...

Using the same form of equation that he had previously applied to Earth and Venus, in order to calculate Venus' surface temperature to within 0.04% based upon the Earth's surface temperature, Holmes was able to calculate the temperatures for Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune at their respective 1-bar pressure levels to accuracies of 1.2%, 0.89%, 0.70%, and 1.90%. Pretty good accuracies for broader climate science calculations, are they not?

So Barton's above Red Herring claim has been completely falsified. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all do have 1-bar pressure levels, and each of those planets does conform to Holmes' planetary equation for calculating their respective atmospheric temperatures at those 1 bar pressure levels.

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• ... since you can't tell the temperature of ... Pluto either.

----------------- [ p 008 = 8th from top ] ------------------

The New Horizons spacecraft performed the first thermal scan of Pluto in 2015. If you know how to access the mission data and can show how the greenhouse effect explains Pluto's measured temperatures, let me know, and then I will perform the adiabatic auto-compression calculations for Pluto, if Robert Holmes

"BPL: By specifying "terrestrial planets" you're stacking the deck. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have 1-bar pressure levels, and none of them fit your equation"

That's a strange answer. Perhaps you didn't look. These calculation results are published in both of Robert Holmes

Article Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low...

Article Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of...

You only had a 15 minute peruse of one paper so you might have swept past it a bit quick.

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• ... since you can't tell the temperature of Triton ... either.

----------------- [ p 008 = 10th from top ] ------------------

Barton is wrong about that, when the complete available data set is fully considered.

The literature includes two different sets of calculated planetary temperatures based upon adiabatic auto-compression.

Years ago, Ned Nikolov posted a lengthy derivation showing that the Nikolov and Zeller formulation for the planetary adiabatic auto-compression calculations was effectively equivalent to the Robert Holmes

Robert Holmes

Robert Holmes

But now we do have the numbers to go by. Here are the predictive errors for Venus, Titan, and Mars from each formulation (N.B. -- The Earth, being the basis for the calculations, has a 0% error by definition in both sets of calculations):

Holmes for Venus: 0.04%

• Article Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of...

Nikolov & Zeller for Venus: 0.0005%

• 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

Holmes for Titan: 0.42%

Nikolov & Zeller for Titan: 1.5486%

Holmes for Mars: 1.40%

Nikolov & Zeller for Mars: 0.0058%

As you can see, these two different calculation sets are both within 2% of each other, in terms of their mean errors, for all three of the different planetary bodies that they both share in common from the two different lists.

This is close enough that we can reasonably merge the two sets into a single unified set. This means that Triton is now a part of the unified set of adiabatic auto-compression calculations.

For Triton we can use the N&Z value, for which the error is -0.10% of the actual value for Triton.

That's pretty darn good !

So Barton is simply wrong. We can tell the temperature of Triton, by applying the adiabatic auto-compression theory, to within one tenth of one percent. An outstanding result !

This may be of some help. Figure 1 in the attached paper shows pressure and temperature profiles in Pluto’s lower atmosphere. Note the temperature inversion, where air temperature increases with altitude.

Peter Eirich [p8, 4 from top]

I don't have an answer to your question,

Peter,

Here is the latest presentation from Joseph Postma on this matter:

Adiabatic Lapse Rate Refutes Climate Alarmism

https://youtu.be/gAaw5dp8A4A

Philip Mulholland

"Moist Adiabatic Lapse Rate aka Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate aka Environmental Lapse Rate. Water content is the key variable that powers the atmospheric convection engine and delivers energy to the rising air via Latent Heat release. By this means of Latent Heat release the potential energy of the air is increased due to vertical motion. Work is being done against the planet's gravity field."

When I went through met school, the met guys in Melbourne referred to this as "latent heat of cooling". What powers the convective energy in a cumulonimbus cloud.

PM: Here is the latest presentation from Joseph Postma on this matter:

BPL: The mere fact that you think an obvious loon like Postma has anything to contribute says volumes about how much climate science you know.

Philip Mulholland

"Here is the latest presentation from Joseph Postma on this matter:"

That was an excellent presentation by Postma. Very scientific informative.

PM: Here is the latest presentation from Joseph Postma on this matter:

BPL: The mere fact that you think an obvious loon like Postma has anything to contribute says volumes about how much climate science you know.

----------------------------------------

Thank you for this informative scientific refutation Mr. Barton Levenson 😂🍺

Robert Holmes

• This is indicative that the actual effective peak in solar activity probably occurred around 2000, and not in 1960 as is variously claimed.

----------- [ p 009 = 8th from top ] ----------------------

From multiple sources, some of which I have cited previously, that is true.

According to search engine results, that statement is made explicitly within two papers by Nicola Scafetta:

I have requested the full texts from the author.

"A recent paper has detected a trend in climate forcing, and related it to an atmospheric change in CO₂ levels (Feldman et al., 2015). Satellite measurements were taken between 2000 and 2010 and they detected an increase in opacity at the wavelengths absorbed by CO₂, of 0.2 W/m² ± 0.06 W/m² per decade. During the same period, CO₂ concentrations rose by 22 ppm, at a mean annual rate of 2.1 ppm. This is one of the few pieces of empirical evidence that exists for the reality of the changing greenhouse effect." p. 57 https://researchonline.federation.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/vital:13434/SOURCE2

Article Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by ...

Barton Levenson [p 009, 5th from top]

• Philip Mulholland PM: Here is the latest presentation from Joseph Postma on this matter:
• BPL: The mere fact that you think an obvious loon like Postma has anything to contribute says volumes about how much climate science you know.

----------- [ p 009 = 10th from top ] ------------------

Your slur, Barton Levenson, has no credibility unless you can point out something egregiously erroneous In Postma's prior body of work, or something just plain erroneous in the just-cited You Tube presentation by Postma. So far you have done neither. "Slur" rejected.

VIDEO PRESENTATION: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAaw5dp8A4A

SLIDES: https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/lapse-rate-debunks-rghe.pdf

LARGE FIRST SLIDE: https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/which-one-2.jpg

The paper posted by Henrik Rasmus Andersen is openly available here:

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

The authors reached their "conclusion", pre-conceived or not, through a correlation between rising CO2 and radiative forcing with no mention of global temperatures.

I think this is funny because global temperatures did not show a warming trend during the 2000-2010 time frame and the authors unintentionally proved the opposite of what they wanted to prove.

Barton Levenson [p 007, 9th from top]

• BPL addressing

  Robert Holmes

  : There are so many strikes against your "theory," it was struck out several times. It's a bad idea. It's wrong. It's a scientific dead end. Stop wasting everybody's time.

----------- [ p 010 = 2nd from top ] ----------------

Barton Levenson's statement above is wildly at odds with reality, as I will explain. What I would say in response to Barton Levenson is:

• There are so many strikes against your "theory," it was struck out several times. It's a bad idea. It's wrong. It's a scientific dead end. Stop wasting everybody's time.

I will also explain why my statement, immediately above, is far more likely to be true than the quoted statement from Barton.

First, Barton begins with -- There are so many strikes against your "theory," ...

So let's be very clear about what is and what isn't a theory:

So what theory best explains all of the above observations?

Barton Levenson espouses a theory that all such planetary temperatures within our solar system are dependent upon the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations found on the planets in question. But Barton's theory has already been falsified by Philip Mulholland for Venus [p 005, 5th from the top]. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided that this theory can provide accurate planetary temperature predictions for Titan. (We'll let it off the hook for Mars and Triton because the atmospheric pressures are so low there, and because for Mars there remains some substantial uncertainty over the actual temperature measurements that have been made.)

That all leads me to the thought that the greenhouse effect formulation theory is likely one that has been carefully contrived to apply to the Earth as a special case. It implicitly depends, for example, on the water vapor characteristics of the Earth's atmosphere, without explicitly accounting for this factor in a way that can be compensated for when trying to apply the greenhouse effect theory to any other planets. Because no other planets in our solar system have anything comparable to Earth's climatic dependence upon water vapor, my suspicion is that the greenhouse effect theory can never be applied to any other planets in our solar system.

Meanwhile, the competing adiabatic auto-compression theory has been found to apply robustly to every planet and planetary body in the solar system for which we have sufficient information from NASA to be able to know what the correct answer is. It applies 100% of the time. Period.

That's why, for me, it is a no-brainer decision to keep the adiabatic auto-compression theory and to ditch the conventional greenhouse effect theory. As Joe Postma points out in Slide 7 of the slides for his recently-cited video: THEY CANNOT BOTH BE CORRECT.

• https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/lapse-rate-debunks-rghe.pdf

We must pick up on one, and let the other one ride.

Unlike Joe Postma, I believe that there may well be some slack available to allow for a relatively minor temperature modulation role for the traditional/conventional greenhouse effect theory. I also believe that there may well be room for both the adiabatic auto-compression theory and the novel Philip Mulholland and Stephen Wilde concept for the actual role being played by the energy storage capacity of the Earth's greenhouse gases, to fully and simultaneously co-exist.

That's all TBD. But as to the constant pressure from the pro-AGW crowd to attribute 100% of the post-1970s warming to GHGs, I say nonsense:

• "It's a bad idea. It's wrong. It's a scientific dead end. Stop wasting everybody's time."

BGL The authors reached their "conclusion", pre-conceived or not, through a correlation between rising CO2 and radiative forcing with no mention of global temperatures.

I think this is funny because global temperatures did not show a warming trend during the 2000-2010 time frame and the authors unintentionally proved the opposite of what they wanted to prove.

BPL: Maybe more than one thing can affect temperature. Is that possible?

BPL: Nope. Those are observed temperatures, not model-based. Both Venus and Mars have had landers descend through their atmospheres. Earth, of course, has many other sources of temperature/altitude determinations as well.

PE: That's why, for me, it is a no-brainer decision to keep the adiabatic auto-compression theory and to ditch the conventional greenhouse effect theory.

BPL: Yes, "no brainer" is a very good description.

Global warming is not caused by increased CO2 concentration. Rather, the increase in CO2 concentration is caused by the global warming. This in turn means that neither the increase in CO2 concentration nor global warming can be stopped by reducing combustion. All such attempts will have negligible effect. ...claims this author in a current research paper.

Article Global temperatures, CO2 concentrations and oceans

Henrik Rasmus Andersen [ p 009 = 9th from top ]

• "A recent paper has detected a trend in climate forcing, and related it to an atmospheric change in CO₂ levels (Feldman et al., 2015). Satellite measurements were taken between 2000 and 2010 and they detected an increase in opacity at the wavelengths absorbed by CO₂, of 0.2 W/m² ± 0.06 W/m² per decade. During the same period, CO₂ concentrations rose by 22 ppm, at a mean annual rate of 2.1 ppm. This is one of the few pieces of empirical evidence that exists for the reality of the changing greenhouse effect." p. 57

----------- [ p 010 = 5th from top ] ----------------

• N.B. - Although above quote indicates "p. 57", that page number actually relates to a different publication; this cited quotation is found on the 88th page of the PDF, which is

  Robert Holmes

  ' thesis.

The point Holmes goes on to make, on that same page, is that those figures work out to create a forcing of only 0.5 °C per century -- "a figure unlikely to be of concern to anyone and is so small it may not even be discernible among natural variability, unless it persists."

I had a different take on it, as I have posted previously. Like Michael Sidiropoulos [ p 010, top ], I had taken a look at what the CO2 trends and the global temperature trends were doing both before and during the timeframe of the Feldman study:

Those simple figures say that for the 2000 to 2010 time period, the upper bound for the influence of CO2 upon global warming was only 10% of the total warming, assuming that the overall global temperature increases were a consequence solely of the increasing total downwelling clear-sky longwave radiation from all sources. The most recent determination that I found, and posted here, showed that the total radiative warming contribution from all of the other long-lived GHGs is theoretically ~25% of the contribution from CO2 alone. This translates into an upper bound for the influence of the greenhouse effect (excluding water vapor's greenhouse effect contributions) on global warming of 12.5% max.

It is not worth spending $ trillions to try to control that small fraction of the total ongoing global warming that has been occurring, IMHO. Better to spend it on mitigation efforts that will help people better cope with the effects of the warming.

Barton Levenson [p 010, 3rd from top]

• BPL: Nope. Those are observed temperatures, not model-based.

----------- [ p 010 = 6th from top ] ----------------

Well, Duh! __ I do believe that's exactly what I said -- is it not?

Barton Levenson [p 010, 3rd from top]

• BPL: Maybe more than one thing can affect temperature. Is that possible?

----------- [ p 010 = 7th from top ] ----------------

Well, Duh! __ Perhaps someone should clue in the IPCC to that effect. They seem to believe that GHGs account for greater than 100% of the total global warming since ~ 1980, so that any effects that cause a longer negative temperature impacts than volcano eruptions will simply be overridden by the inexorable rise of the CO2 and GHG concentrations. Specifically, they do not explicitly recognize the role of natural variability.

MS: Global warming is not caused by increased CO2 concentration. Rather, the increase in CO2 concentration is caused by the global warming.

BPL: Both statements are false. And if the latter was true, CO2 would still be a greenhouse gas and would cause increased warming.

PE: The point Holmes goes on to make, on that same page, is that those figures work out to create a forcing of only 0.5 °C per century

BPL: Yes, but as usual, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The man knows nothing about radiative transfer, and his complete neglect of the field plays a large part in the mistaken quality of his whole effort.

• BPL: Nope. Those are observed temperatures, not model-based.

PE: Well, Duh! __ I do believe that's exactly what I said -- is it not?

BPL: No, it is not. Go back and read it again.

PE: Perhaps someone should clue in the IPCC to that effect. They seem to believe that GHGs account for greater than 100% of the total global warming since ~ 1980

BPL: They do. If you think that's incompatible with having many possible effects on temperature, you don't understand what they're saying.

Hint: "Warming" does not mean the same thing as "temperature."

Barton Levenson [p 010, 3rd from top]

• BPL: Nope. Those are observed temperatures, not model-based.
• PE: Well, Duh! __ I do believe that's exactly what I said -- is it not?
• BPL: No, it is not. Go back and read it again.

----------- [ p 010 = 7th from top ] ----------------

I don't consider very simple and straightforward calculations to be a "model". But if you want to go to that level of precision, then I'm fine with that.

In that case, NO, they are not observed temperatures. NASA does not have the ability to move Venus into the Earth's orbit, observe and measure Venus' temperatures after they stabilize, and then later put Venus back where it belongs.

PE: NASA does not have the ability to move Venus into the Earth's orbit, observe and measure Venus' temperatures after they stabilize, and then later put Venus back where it belongs.

BPL: It doesn't have to. There have been many robot probes sent to Venus, many of which sent down landers, and one of which released four balloon-borne probes. There have been several orbiters, as well. Atmospheric conditions have been measured in situ. Google the terms Mariner, Venera, Vega, and Pioneer Venus, for example. There have been others, but I can't remember the names offhand. A Venus standard reference atmosphere was published, based on the accumulated data, back in 1986 (Seiff et al.). There's another one called VIRA, for Venus International Reference Atmosphere.