Share this...



Textbook Details Robust Planetary Theory

Explaining Climate Change Without CO2

Wiley Textbook Image Source

The increasingly corroborated atmospheric mass pressure (gravity) explanation for variances in planetary temperatures – which precludes a significant role for CO2 concentration changes – has now advanced from peer-reviewed scientific journals to university-level textbooks.

The “adiabatic theory” of the greenhouse effect (adiabatic: “the constant decline in temperature of an air parcel as it rises in the atmosphere due to pressure drop and gas expansion”) is capable of explaining the variances in temperatures on planets like Earth, Mars, and Venus using each planet’s atmospheric pressure gradient – and without reliance on the traditional greenhouse effect theory that assigns a governing role to CO2.

As a simplified example, Mars has an atmosphere made up of about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2 compared to the Earth’s 400 ppm (0.04%), and yet Mars’ average surface temperature is about -75°C colder than Earth’s. Venus also has an atmosphere with about 950,000 ppm (95%) CO2, but its surface is +447°C warmer than Earth’s. In addition to each planet’s variable distance from the Sun, the difference in temperature for Mars, Venus, and Earth can be calculated by considering its atmospheric mass (pressure) gradient. Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s. Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times heavier (pressurized) than Earth’s. The CO2 concentration of each planet may therefore be insignificant in determining surface temperature relative to factors (a) distance from the Sun and (b) atmospheric density.

Sciencing.com

“In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be. A planet with weak gravity will tend to have less mass and allow more atmosphere to escape into space. Thus the thickness or thinness of the atmosphere depends upon the strength or weakness of gravity. For example, the gravity on Jupiter is 318 times greater than Earth, and thus Jupiter’s atmosphere is much thicker than Earth’s. Gravity gets weaker the further away it is from a planet, so the atmosphere will be thicker near the surface.”

The determinative role of atmospheric pressure in planetary temperatures has previously been asserted by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin (Russian Academy of Sciences) and other scientists introducing the “adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect”.

Sorokhtin et al., 2007

“According to the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect (see below), besides the Sun’s radiation, the main determining factors of the Earth’s climate are the Earth’s atmosphere pressure and its composition. The denser the atmosphere (i.e., the higher the atmospheric pressure), the warmer the climate. Thus, the high surface temperature at the ocean level during the Archaean time, at a low Sun’s luminosity, may only be a result of higher atmospheric pressure. The gradual decrease in the oceanic water temperature with a smooth increase of Sun’s luminosity may only be a result of a gradual decrease in the atmospheric pressure.”

Florides and Christodoulides (2009) followed up with a peer-reviewed scientific paper of their own that also affirmed the “adiabatic theory of the greenhouse effect” and its cogency in explaining planetary temperatures, as well as the “negligible” effect of CO2 concentration changes.

“The analysis indicates that the average surface temperature of the Earth is determined by the solar constant, the precession angle of the planet, the mass (pressure) of the atmosphere, and the specific heat of the atmospheric mixture of gases.”

“A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2. … If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases from 0.035% [350 ppm] to its double value of 0.070% [700 ppm], the atmospheric pressure will increase slightly (by 0.00015 atm). Consequently the temperature at sea level will increase by about 0.01 °C and the increase in temperature at an altitude of 10 km will be less than 0.03 °C. These amounts are negligible compared to the natural temporal fluctuations of the global temperature.”

Adiabatic Theory: Textbook Science

Drs. John Robertson and George Chilingar, professors of geology and environmental (petroleum) engineering, have authored 12 textbooks, 70 books, and 575 scientific papers between them. Both are verifiable experts in heat transfer physics.

Their latest joint effort, a 416-page university-level textbook published in June (2017), includes a section on the adiabatic theory that precludes a significant role for CO2 in determining planetary temperatures. In fact, after explaining the details of the theory and its validation with respect to the atmospheric temperatures of Venus, Robertson and Chilingar conclude:

“The anthropogenic impact on global atmospheric temperatures is negligible, i.e., 5%.”

“From the above estimates, one can conclude that even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere practically do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime.”

In the textbook, the authors explain the theory in meticulous detail (pgs. 197-204). Below is a summary of their conclusions from page 204.

Image cropped from: Environmental Aspects of Oil and Gas Production, John O. Robertson, George V. Chilingar, ISBN: 978-1-119-11737-7, July 2017. Book source here.

Scientific Papers Supporting Adiabatic Theory

Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

“ Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure . The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”

Chemke et al., 2016

“Observations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.”

“An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.”

Chilingar et al., 2014

“The quoted comparisons indicate that average temperature distribution in the planet’s troposphere is completely defined by the solar constant, atmospheric pressure (mass), heat capacity of its gas composition and the precession angle. The theoretical temperature on Venus surface turned out to be Ts = 735 K, and on Earth’s surface, 288 K. The empiric values are 735.3 and 288.2 K, respectively. This close fit cannot be accidental and presents the convincing evidence in favor of the adiabatic theory of heat transfer in a dense atmosphere.”

Jelbring, 2003

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS

“Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE [the greenhouse effect] can be explained as mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part of a planetary GE [greenhouse effect] depends on its atmospheric surface mass density. Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere.”

Miatello, 2012

“In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth’s atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus, Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle, including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid. Therefore, the so-called “greenhouse effect” and pseudo-mechanisms, such as “backradiation,” have no scientific basis and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’ thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth’s surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.”

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009

“As Sorokhtin et al. (2007) mention, until recently a sound theory using laws of physics for the greenhouse effect was lacking and all numerical calculations and predictions were based on intuitive models using numerous poorly defined parameters. In order to investigate the phenomenon they devised a model based on wellestablished relationships among physical fields describing the mass and heat transfer in the atmosphere. This model uses a general approach for obtaining analytical solutions for global problems and can be further refined to incorporate additional parameters and variables for examining local problems.”

“Their model was based on the observation that in the troposphere (the lower and denser layer of the atmosphere, with pressures greater than 0.2 atm) the heat transfer is mostly by convection and the temperature distribution is close to adiabatic. The reasoning for this is that the air masses expand and cool while rising and compress and heat while descending.”

“Basic formulae describe among others, the heat transfer in the atmosphere by radiation, the atmospheric pressure and air density change with elevation, the effect of the angle of the Earth’s precession and the adiabatic process. For the adiabatic process the formula considers the partial pressures and specific heats of the gases forming the atmosphere, an adiabatic constant and corrective coefficients for the heating caused by water condensation in the wet atmosphere and for the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere.”

“The adiabatic constant and the heat coefficients are estimated using actual experimental data. This adiabatic model was verified, with a precision of 0.1%, by comparing the results obtained for the temperature distribution in the troposphere of the Earth with the standard model used worldwide for the calibration of the aircraft gauges and which is based on experimental data. The model was additionally verified with a precision of 0.5%–1.0% for elevations up to 40 km, by comparing the results with the measured temperature distribution in the dense troposphere of Venus consisting mainly of CO2.”

Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2010

“In our falsification paper we have shown that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects as taken-for-granted concepts in global climatology do not fit into the scientific framework of theoretical and applied physics. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately (f) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical (e) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects have been refuted within the frame of physics. In other words, the greenhouse models are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, disregarding the other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, latent heat exchange et cetera.”

“In the speculative discussion around the existence of an atmospheric natural greenhouse effect or the existence of an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect it is sometimes stated that the greenhouse effect could modify the temperature profile of the Earth’s atmosphere. This conjecture is related to another popular but incorrect idea communicated by some proponents of the global warming hypothesis, namely the hypothesis that the temperatures of the Venus are due to a greenhouse effect.”