Figure 7 - uploaded by Karl Zeller
Content may be subject to copyright.
Known pressure-temperature kinetic relations: (a) Dry adiabatic response of the air/surface temperature ratio to pressure changes in a free dry atmosphere according to Poisson's formula (Eq. 13) with a reference pressure set to p o = 100 kPa; (b) The SB radiation law expressed as a response of a blackbody temperature ratio to variations in photon pressure (Eq. 14). Note the qualitative striking similarity of shapes between these curves and the one portrayed in Figure 4 depicting the new planetary temperature model (Eq. 10a).
Source publication
A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requirin...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
The article focuses on trajectory design to the trans-Neptunian object (90377) Sedna for launch in 2029–2034. Sedna is currently moving to the perihelion at a distance of around 74 au from the Sun. The perihelion passage is estimated to be in 2073-74. That opens up of opportunities to study such a distant object. Known for its orbit and 10 thousand...
Citations
... There are numerous falsifications of the greenhouse gas theory (sometimes called 'trace gas heating theory', see Siddons in Ball, 2011, p.19), of global warming and/or climate change (Ball, 2011;Ball, 2014;Ball, 2016;Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009;Hertzberg et al, 2017;Allmendinger, 2017;Blaauw, 2017;Nikolov and Zeller, 2017). Fundamental empirically derived physical laws place limits on any changes in the atmospheric temperature unless there is some strong external force (e.g. ...
... Experimental evidence "questions the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC" (Seim & Olsen, 2020 (2017) Negligible/no effect, cause and effect are confused. Nikolov & Zeller (2017) Negligible/no effect. Photometric or spectroscopic infrared measurements cannot explain the behavior of atmospheric gases. ...
... It overrides the effect of CO 2 such that the CO 2 contribution to atmospheric temperature is so small as to be negligible." (Lightfoot & Mamer, 2017: p. 670) This view is supported (Nikolov and Zeller, 2017) gas theory thus rendering it false. ...
The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, CH4 or N2O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities. This work explores the established science and recent developments in scientific knowledge around Net Zero with a view to making a rational recommendation for policy makers. There is little scientific evidence to support the case for Net Zero and that greenhouse gases are unlikely to contribute to a ‘climate emergency’ at current or any likely future higher concentrations. There is a case against the adoption of Net Zero given the enormous costs associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called ‘greenhouse gases’.
... We will do this by applying the established greenhouse theory and by enrolling standard models, without considering doubts that have been cast on the validity of the theory or alternative hypotheses (e.g. Nikolov andZeller, 2017, Miskolczi, 2023). In applying this theory, we will follow a macroscopic approach, without discussing the details of the physical processes related to radiation and the physical mechanisms thereof. ...
Using a detailed atmospheric radiative transfer model, we derive macroscopic relationships of downwelling and outgoing longwave radiation which enable determining the partial derivatives thereof with respect to the explanatory variables that represent the greenhouse gases. We validate these macroscopic relationships using empirical formulae based on downwelling radiation data, commonly used in hydrology, and satellite data for the outgoing radiation. We use the relationships and their partial derivatives to infer the relative importance of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the greenhouse effect. The results show that the contribution of the former is 4%-5%, while water and clouds dominate with a contribution of 87%-95%. The minor effect of carbon dioxide is confirmed by the small, non-discernible effect of the recent escalation of atmospheric CO₂ concentration from 300 to 420 ppm. This effect is quantified at 0.5% for both downwelling and outgoing radiation. Water and clouds also perform other important functions in climate, such as regulating heat storage and albedo, as well as cooling the Earth's surface through latent heat transfer, contributing 50%. By confirming the major role of water on climate, these results suggest that hydrology should have a more prominent and more active role in climate research. A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that anything that calls itself 'science' probably isn't.
... Bottom of p2. These references [19,20] are to work that, if true, would undermine every calculation in this paper. Fortunately for the author they are not correct and unless one was to delve into their (obvious) flaws, I'd recommend ignoring them completely. ...
... In addition, the agreement of climate model outputs with reality has been questioned (e.g. [14][15][16][17][18] [19,20] are to work that, if true, would undermine every calculation in this paper. Fortunately for the author they are not correct and unless one was to delve into their (obvious) flaws, I'd recommend ignoring them completely. ...
... We will do this by applying the established greenhouse theory and by enrolling standard models, without considering doubts that have been cast on the validity of the theory or alternative hypotheses (e.g. [19,20] | am aware of this very common opinion, but | am confident that it is wrong. Nature does not distinguish between the CO, molecules emitted by humans and those emitted by other processes. ...
This file is the Supplementary Information of the paper "Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog?" It contains interesting material as it demonstrates the current practices of silencing voices that disagree with mainstream opinions, which are purported to be science.
The contained materials include the rejection files from three journals, namely Hydrological Sciences Journal, MDPI Hydrology and Ecohydrology and Engineering. The document contains all reviews and replies to them, as well as key exchanges with the journal’s Editorial Offices. Replies to reviews are contained in the case that the Editor accepted the request to rebut them—otherwise no replies were prepared.
[See the paper at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385590387]
... Note that at these temperatures the water vapor pressure above ice is infinitesimal and could only generate an infinitesimal greenhouse effect. However, according to Nikolov et al., the effects linked to the atmosphere would bring approximately 90°C and not 33°C to the surface at a temperature of 15°C [12,13] . This would suggest that the global natural effect of atmosphere could be on the order of 90°C rather than the 33°C of the traditional purely radiative approach as reported by almost all the authors. ...
The temperature that the Earth's surface would have without the greenhouse effect, with an atmosphere completely transparent to infrared radiation, or even without an atmosphere at all, is generally estimated at-18°C. The greenhouse effect is estimated to induce a warming of 33°C to justify the surface temperature of +15°C. To explain this discrepancy, we examine, with the ideal gas law, to which the Earth's atmosphere obeys its normal conditions of pressure and temperature, the role that the adiabatic compression of the atmospheric mass subjected to gravity can play. The dimensional analysis of the ideal gas law demonstrates that compression of the atmosphere produces energy, which can be calculated in Joules. The temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface is influenced by both its invariable atmospheric mass, solar irradiation and the greenhouse effect. This calls into question the commonly established Earth's energy budgets which consider almost exclusively radiative effects, and which deduce a back radiation attributed to the greenhouse effect which is abnormally high.
... The final time series indicates that the rate of planetary warming was significantly higher during the 21st Century compared to prior decades. To assess the contribution of observed changes in TSI and planetary albedo to the increase of Earth's GSAT, we employed a new model that explicitly relates global temperature responses to solar forcing and was derived by applying rules of calculus to a prior published universal planetary temperature model based on independent NASA data from rocky planets and moons in our Solar System [12]. The new climate-sensitivity model was run with CERES radiative flux data (i.e., anomalies of TSI and planetary albedo) to generate expected global temperature changes and a warming trend, which were then statistical procedure. ...
... The final time series indicates that the rate of planetary warming was significantly higher during the 21st Century compared to prior decades. To assess the contribution of observed changes in TSI and planetary albedo to the increase of Earth's GSAT, we employed a new model that explicitly relates global temperature responses to solar forcing and was derived by applying rules of calculus to a prior published universal planetary temperature model based on independent NASA data from rocky planets and moons in our Solar System [12]. The new climate-sensitivity model was run with CERES radiative flux data (i.e., anomalies of TSI and planetary albedo) to generate expected global temperature changes and a warming trend, which were then To assess the contribution of observed changes in TSI and planetary albedo to the increase of Earth's GSAT, we employed a new model that explicitly relates global temperature responses to solar forcing and was derived by applying rules of calculus to a prior published universal planetary temperature model based on independent NASA data from rocky planets and moons in our Solar System [12]. ...
... To assess the contribution of observed changes in TSI and planetary albedo to the increase of Earth's GSAT, we employed a new model that explicitly relates global temperature responses to solar forcing and was derived by applying rules of calculus to a prior published universal planetary temperature model based on independent NASA data from rocky planets and moons in our Solar System [12]. The new climate-sensitivity model was run with CERES radiative flux data (i.e., anomalies of TSI and planetary albedo) to generate expected global temperature changes and a warming trend, which were then To assess the contribution of observed changes in TSI and planetary albedo to the increase of Earth's GSAT, we employed a new model that explicitly relates global temperature responses to solar forcing and was derived by applying rules of calculus to a prior published universal planetary temperature model based on independent NASA data from rocky planets and moons in our Solar System [12]. The new climate-sensitivity model was run with CERES radiative flux data (i.e., anomalies of TSI and planetary albedo) to generate expected global temperature changes and a warming trend, which were then compared to the actual observed GSAT anomalies and trend over the period 2000-2023. ...
Past studies have reported a decreasing planetary albedo and an increasing absorption of solar radiation by Earth since the early 1980s, and especially since 2000. This should have contributed to the observed surface warming. However, the magnitude of such solar contribution is presently unknown, and the question of whether or not an enhanced uptake of shortwave energy by the planet represents positive feedback to an initial warming induced by rising greenhouse-gas concentrations has not conclusively been answered. The IPCC 6th Assessment Report also did not properly assess this issue. Here, we quantify the effect of the observed albedo decrease on Earth's Global Surface Air Temperature (GSAT) since 2000 using measurements by the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) project and a novel climate-sensitivity model derived from independent NASA planetary data by employing objective rules of calculus. Our analysis revealed that the observed decrease of planetary albedo along with reported variations of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) explain 100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the GSAT interannual variability as documented by six satellite-and ground-based monitoring systems over the past 24 years. Changes in Earth's cloud albedo emerged as the dominant driver of GSAT, while TSI only played a marginal role. The new climate sensitivity model also helped us analyze the physical nature of the Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) calculated as a difference between absorbed shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Observations and model calculations revealed that EEI results from a quasi-adiabatic attenuation of surface energy fluxes traveling through a field of decreasing air pressure with altitude. In other words, the adiabatic dissipation of thermal kinetic energy in ascending air parcels gives rise to an apparent EEI, which does not represent "heat trapping" by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases as currently assumed. We provide numerical evidence that the observed EEI has been misinterpreted as a source of energy gain by the Earth system on multidecadal time scales.
... We will do this by applying the established greenhouse theory and by enrolling standard models, without considering doubts that have been cast on the validity of the theory or alternative hypotheses (e.g. [19,20]). ...
... Essentially, Penman used Brunt's Equation (18), also assuming that s = a and s = 1. Indeed, it can be readily seen that Penman's original equation (numbered (7) in his paper [37]), which for clear sky conditions reads n a 4 = 0.56 − 0.08√ a /hPa (19) is a direct result of Brunt's Equation (18) and these assumptions, even though Penman did not make a distinction of the two components seen in equation (12) Later Penman's equation was complemented by Monteith [38] to estimate water requirements of crops, thus shaping what has been called the Penman-Monteith method. This became a standard of the Food and Industry Organization (FAO), initially in the version by Doorenbos and Pruitt [39] and later in the version by Allen et al. [40]. ...
Using a detailed atmospheric radiative transfer model, we derive macroscopic relationships of downwelling and outgoing longwave radiation, useful for hydrological practice. We validate them using empirical formulae based on downwelling radiation data, which are in common use in hydrology, as well as satellite data for the outgoing radiation. We use the macroscopic relationships to infer the relative importance of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the greenhouse effect. The results show that the contribution of the former is 4% – 5%, while water and clouds dominate with a contribution of 87% – 95%. The minor effect of carbon dioxide is also confirmed by the small, non-discernible effect of the recent escalation of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to 420 ppm, which is quantified at 0.5% for both downwelling and outgoing radiation. Water and clouds also perform other important functions in climate, such as regulating the heat storage and the albedo, as well as cooling the Earth’s surface though latent heat transfer, with a contribution of 50%. By confirming the major role of water on climate, these results suggest that hydrology should have a more prominent and more active role in climate research.
... We will do this by applying the established greenhouse theory and by enrolling standard models, without considering doubts that have been cast on the validity of the theory or alternative hypotheses (e.g. [19,20]). ...
... Essentially, Penman used Brunt's Equation (18), also assuming that s = a and s = 1. Indeed, it can be readily seen that Penman's original equation (numbered (7) in his paper [37]), which for clear sky conditions reads n a 4 = 0.56 − 0.08√ a /hPa (19) is a direct result of Brunt's Equation (18) and these assumptions, even though Penman did not make a distinction of the two components seen in equation (12) Later Penman's equation was complemented by Monteith [38] to estimate water requirements of crops, thus shaping what has been called the Penman-Monteith method. This became a standard of the Food and Industry Organization (FAO), initially in the version by Doorenbos and Pruitt [39] and later in the version by Allen et al. [40]. ...
Using a detailed atmospheric radiative transfer model, we derive macroscopic relationships of downwelling and outgoing longwave radiation, useful for hydrological practice. We validate them using empirical formulae based on downwelling radiation data, which are in common use in hydrology, as well as satellite data for the outgoing radiation. We use the macroscopic relationships to infer the relative importance of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the greenhouse effect. The results show that the contribution of the former is 4% – 5%, while water and clouds dominate with a contribution of 87% – 95%. The minor effect of carbon dioxide is also confirmed by the small, non-discernible effect of the recent escalation of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to 420 ppm, which is quantified at 0.5% for both downwelling and outgoing radiation. Water and clouds also perform other important functions in climate, such as regulating the heat storage and the albedo, as well as cooling the Earth’s surface though latent heat transfer, with a contribution of 50%. By confirming the major role of water on climate, these results suggest that hydrology should have a more prominent and more active role in climate research.
... It's likely to be helpful to start off defining the greenhouse effect. 9 Footnotes in Holmes's passage reference Nikolov and Zeller [13]. ...
... Yet, science is built on mathematics. This is essentially a mathematical proof, which could be formalized by considering the definition of absorptance, the relationship of the absorptance of an atmosphere to the absorptivity of its constituent gases, and the definition of a greenhouse gas or greenhouse material as being a gas or material with non-zero absorptivy.13 This does not mean that the greenhouse effect causes thermal gradients. ...
This work responds to Holmes (2017, 2018), which assert that the Ideal Gas Law (IGL) predicts planetary surface temperatures and shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 can have only minimal impact on temperatures; also asserting that the greenhouse effect does not produce significant warming, and that surface temperatures are enhanced by convection and "auto-compression." It was argued that Holmes's use of the IGL to calculate planetary temperatures is more accurate characterized as a process for indirectly measuring temperature, with little in the way of predictive power. The claimed calculation of a small climate sensitivity to doubling of CO 2 was shown to rely on an unjustified assumption, amounting to circular reasoning. Holmes's observation that the thermal gradient in the troposphere is largely due to convection is well-known and uncontroversial. It was clarified that the existence of a thermal gradient due to convection in no way explains the "residual" temperature difference between the surface temperature and the planetary effective temperature. A given lapse rate can correspond to any surface temperature, and any "residual"; the lapse rate offers no information about the surface temperature or the residual temperature difference. Holmes offers no testable hypothesis, no evidence, and no logical argument, to support his premise regarding the cause of the "residual"; his suggestions that the residual is due to "gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto-compression, powered by convection" were determined to be vague unsupported speculation. Each of Holmes's arguments against the greenhouse effect was found to be based in a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect was defined and quantified. It was found that these papers by Holmes failed to justify any of their major claims.
... The people Holmes cites as saying that pressure is involved are (a) himself; (b) Robinson and Catling [9] who say pressure is involved in affecting the infrared radiative properties of atmospheres-properties which Holmes argues are not involved in determining planetary temperature; and (c) Nikolov and Zeller [13], who use a similar flawed approach of guessing answers (that are unjustified and provably false [14]) rather than deducing answers. So, there isn't much, if any, justification for Holmes including pressure in the way that he does. ...
... The value of the absorption proxy, AP, and of the greenhouse effect metrics are tabulated in Table 2. 13 As may be seen from this table, the proxy AP correctly sorts planets according to which has the largest normalized greenhouse effect,g. ...
... A two-part analysis is needed in the case of Titan, because Titan has both a greenhouse effect and an anti-greenhouse effect [23]; the above formulas would combine these two opposing effects into one nominal greenhouse effect, underestimating the size of the actual greenhouse effect. 13 Table 2 is based on data from [5,6,24,25,26,27,11,23]. Earth's atmosphere overall has 0.4% water vapor by volume [28,29]. ...
This work responds to Holmes (2019) in Earth Sciences 8.6, DOI: 10.11648/j.earth.20190806.15, which suggests that the temperatures of terrestrial planets with thick atmospheres depend primarily on total solar irradiance and pressure, based on examination of Venus, Earth, and Titan at an altitude where the pressure is 1 bar. A re-evaluation of the data invalidates the hypothesis in the case of Titan. Calculating a temperature for Earth based on Titan data yields a temperature for Earth that is too low by 25-30 K. The proposed numerical relationship is confirmed to exist between data for Venus and Earth, within a narrow range of pressures. However, there is no indication that this single-data-point correlation is associated with causation. To the contrary, the hypothesis is non-physical, in that it postulates that solar energy reflected away from a planet influences planetary temperature just as much as solar energy that is absorbed by the planet. Holmes had suggested that it would be difficult for explanations in terms of albedo and the greenhouse effect to account for the numerical coincidence, given that the albedo and greenhouse gas characteristics of the two planets are very different. However, an analysis in terms of the albedo and greenhouse effect of each planet was found to be fully consistent with the empirical relationship between the temperatures of Venus and Earth at 1 atm. A separate analysis was offered to show that percent greenhouse gases is a meaningless metric for predicting the relative size of the greenhouse effect on different planets; an improved metric was offered. No statistical or physical basis was found for believing the relationship identified by Holmes is general or reflects a causal relationship. No justification was found to interpret the single-data-point relationship between the temperatures of Venus and Earth as anything other than a coincidence.
... Note that at these temperatures the water vapor pressure above ice is in nitesimal and could only generate an in nitesimal greenhouse effect. However, according to Nikolov and Zeller [12][13] the effects linked to the atmosphere would bring approximately 90°C and not 33°C to the surface at a temperature of 15°C. This would suggest that the global natural effect of atmosphere could be on the order of 90°C rather than the 33°C of the traditional purely radiative approach as reported by almost all the authors. ...
The temperature that the Earth's surface would have without the greenhouse effect, with an atmosphere completely transparent to infrared radiation, or even without an atmosphere at all, is generally estimated at -18°C. The greenhouse effect is estimated to induce a warming of 33°C to justify the surface temperature of +15°C. To explain this discrepancy, we examine, with the ideal gas law, to which the Earth's atmosphere obeys its normal conditions of pressure and temperature, the role that the adiabatic compression of the atmospheric mass subjected to gravity can play. The dimensional analysis of the ideal gas law demonstrates that compression of the atmosphere produces energy, which can be calculated in Joules. The temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface is influenced by both its invariable atmospheric mass, solar irradiation and the greenhouse effect. This calls into question the commonly established Earth's Energy Budgets which consider almost exclusively radiative effects, and which deduce a Back Radiation attributed to the greenhouse effect which is abnormally high.
