Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
A couple of apparently related theories have been making the rounds lately. One is by Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z), expounded here and replied to here on WUWT. The other is by Hans Jelbring, discussed at Tallblokes Talkshop. As I understand their theories, they say that the combination of gravity plus an atmosphere without greenhouse gases (GHGs) is capable of doing what the greenhouse effect does—raise the earth at least 30°C above what we might call the “theoretical Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) temperature.”
So what is the S-B temperature, theoretical or otherwise?
A curious fact is that almost everything around us is continually radiating energy in the infrared frequencies. You, me, the trees, the ocean, clouds, ice, all the common stuff gives off infrared radiation. That’s how night-vision goggles work, they let you see in the infrared. Here’s another oddity. Ice, despite being brilliant white because it reflects slmost all visible light, absorbs infrared very well (absorptivity > 0.90). It turns out that most things absorb (and thus emit) infrared quite well, including the ocean, and plants (see Note 3 below). Because of this, the planet is often treated as a “blackbody” for IR, a perfect absorber and a perfect emitter of infrared radiation. The error introduced in that way is small for first-cut calculations.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation specifies how much radiation is emitted at a given temperature. It states that the radiation increases much faster than the temperature. It turns out that radiation is proportional to absolute temperature to the fourth power. The equation, for those math inclined, is
Radiation = Emissivity times SBconstant times Temperature^4
where the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a tiny number, 0.0000000567 (5.67E-8). For a blackbody, emissivity = 1.
This “fourth-power” dependence means that if you double the absolute temperature (measured in kelvins), you get sixteen (2^4) times the radiation (measured in watts per square metre, “W/m2”). We can also look at it the other way, that temperature varies as the fourth root of radiation. That means if we double the radiation, the temperature only goes up by about 20% (2^0.25)
Let me call the “theoretical S-B temperature” the temperature that an evenly heated stationary blackbody planet in outer space would have for a given level of incoming radiation in W/m2. It is “theoretical”, because a real, revolving airless planet getting heated by a sun with the same average radiation will be cooler than that theoretical S-B temperature. We might imagine that there are thousands of mini-suns in a sphere around the planet, so the surface heating is perfectly even.
Figure 1. Planet lit by multiple suns. Image Source.
On average day and night over the planetary surface, the Earth receives about 240 W/m2 of energy from the sun. The theoretical S-B temperature for this amount of radiation (if it were evenly distributed) is about -18°C, well below freezing. But instead of being frozen, the planet is at about +14°C or so. That’s about thirty degrees above the theoretical S-B temperature. So why isn’t the planet a block of ice?
Let me take a short detour on the way to answering that question in order to introduce the concept of the “elevator speech” to those unfamiliar with the idea.
The “elevator speech” is simply a distillation of an idea down to its very basics. It is how I would explain my idea to you if I only had the length of an elevator ride to explain it. As such it has two extremely important functions:
1. It forces me to clarify my own ideas on whatever I’m discussing. I can’t get into handwaving and hyperbole, I can’t be unclear about what I’m claiming, if I only have a few sentences to work with.
2. It allows me to clearly communicate those ideas to others.
In recent discussions on the subject, I have been asking for that kind of “elevator speech” distillation of Jelbring’s or Nikolov’s ideas, so that a) I can see if whoever is explaining the theory really understands what they are saying and, if so, then b) so that I can gain an understanding of the ideas of Jelbring or Nikolov to see if I am missing something important.
Let me give you an example to show what I mean. Here’s an elevator speech about the greenhouse effect:
The poorly-named “greenhouse effect” works as follows:
• The surface of the earth emits energy in the form of thermal longwave radiation.
• Some of that energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
• In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.
• As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs.
OK, that’s my elevator speech about why the Earth is not a block of ice. Note that it is not just saying what is happening. It is saying how it is happening as well.
I have asked, over and over, on various threads, for people who understand either the N&Z theory or the Jelbring theory, to give me the equivalent elevator speech regarding either or both of those theories. I have gotten nothing scientific so far. Oh, there’s the usual handwaving, vague claims of things like ‘the extra heat at the surface, is just borrowed by the work due to gravity, from the higher up regions of the atmosphere‘ with no mechanism for the “borrowing”, that kind of empty statement. But nothing with any meat, nothing with any substance, nothing with any explanatory value or scientific content.
So to begin with, let me renew my call for the elevator speech on either theory. Both of them make my head hurt, I can’t really follow their vague descriptions. So … is anyone who understands either theory willing to step forward and explain it in four or five sentences?
But that’s not really why I’m writing this. I’m writing this because of the claims of the promoters of the two theories. They say that somehow a combination of gravity and a transparent, GHG-free atmosphere can conspire to push the temperature of a planet well above the theoretical S-B temperature, to a condition similar to that of the Earth.
I hold that with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere, neither the hypothetical “N&Z effect” nor the “Jelbring effect” can possibly raise the planetary temperature above the theoretical S-B temperature. But I also make a much more general claim. I hold it can be proven that there is no possible mechanism involving gravity and the atmosphere that can raise the temperature of a planet with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere above the theoretical S-B temperature.
The proof is by contradiction. This is a proof where you assume that the theorem is right, and then show that if it is right it leads to an impossible situation, so it cannot possibly be right.
So let us assume that we have the airless perfectly evenly heated blackbody planet that I spoke of above, evenly surrounded by a sphere of mini-suns. The temperature of this theoretical planet is, of course, the theoretical S-B temperature.
Now suppose we add an atmosphere to the planet, a transparent GHG-free atmosphere. If the theories of N&K and Jelbring are correct, the temperature of the planet will rise.
But when the temperature of a perfect blackbody planet rises … the surface radiation of that planet must rise as well.
And because the atmosphere is transparent, this means that the planet is radiating to space more energy than it receives. This is an obvious violation of conservation of energy, so any theories proposing such a warming must be incorrect.
Q.E.D.
Now, I’m happy for folks to comment on this proof, or to give us their elevator speech about the Jelbring or the N&Z hypothesis. I’m not happy to be abused for my supposed stupidity, nor attacked for my views, nor pilloried for claimed errors of commission and omission. People are already way too passionate about this stuff. Roger Tattersall, the author of the blog “Tallbloke’s Talkshop”, has banned Joel Shore for saying that the N&Z hypothesis violates conservation of energy. Roger’s exact words to Joel were:
… you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.
Now, I have done the very same thing that Joel did. I’ve said around the web that the N&Z theory violates conservation of energy. So I went to the Talkshop and asked, even implored, Roger not to do such a foolish and anti-scientific thing as banning someone for their scientific views. Since I hold the same views and I committed the same thought-crimes, it was more than theoretical to me. Roger has remained obdurate, however, so I am no longer able to post there in good conscience. Roger Tallbloke has been a gentleman throughout, as is his style, and I hated to leave. But I did what Joel did, I too said N&Z violated conservation of energy, so in solidarity and fairness I’m not posting at the Talkshop anymore.
And more to the point, even if I hadn’t done what Joel did, my practice is to never post at or even visit sites like RealClimate, Tamino’s, and now Tallbloke’s Talkshop, places that ban and censor scientific views. I don’t want to be responsible for their page views counter to go up by even one. Banning and censorship are anathema to me, and I protest them in the only way I can. I leave them behind to discuss their ideas in their now cleansed, peaceful, sanitized, and intellectually sterile echo chamber, free from those pesky contrary views … and I invite others to vote with their feet as well.
But I digress, my point is that passions are running high on this topic, so let’s see if we can keep the discussion at least relatively chill …
TO CONCLUDE: I’m interested in people who can either show that my proof is wrong, or who will give us your elevator speech about the science underlying either N&K or Jelbring’s theory. No new theories need apply, we have enough for this post. And no long complicated explanations, please. I have boiled the greenhouse effect down to four sentences. See if you can match that regarding the N&K or the Jelbring effect.
w.
NOTE 1: Here’s the thing about a planet with a transparent atmosphere. There is only one object that can radiate to space, the surface. As a result, it is constrained to emit the exact amount of radiation it absorbs. So there are no gravity/atmospheric phenomena that can change that. It cannot emit more or less than what it absorbs while staying at the same temperature, conservation of energy ensures that. This means that while the temperature can be lower than the theoretical S-B temperature, as is the case with the moon, it cannot be more than the theoretical S-B temperature. To do that it would have to radiate more than it is receiving, and that breaks the conservation of energy.
Once you have GHGs in the atmosphere, of course, some of the surface radiation can get absorbed in the atmosphere. In that case, the surface radiation is no longer constrained, and the surface is free to take up a higher temperature while the system as a whole emits the same amount of radiation to space that it absorbs.
NOTE 2: An atmosphere, even a GHG-free atmosphere, can reduce the cooling due to uneven insolation. The hottest possible average temperature for a given average level of radiation (W/m2) occurs when the heating is uniform in both time and space. If the total surface radiation remains the same (as it must with a transparent atmosphere), any variations in temperature from that uniform state will lower the average temperature. Variations include day/night temperature differences, and equator/polar differences. Since any atmosphere can reduce the size of e.g. day/night temperature swings, even a transparent GHG-free atmosphere will reduce the amount of cooling caused by the temperature swings. See here for further discussion.
But what such an atmosphere cannot do is raise the temperature beyond the theoretical maximum average temperature for that given level of incoming radiation. That’s against the law … of conservation of energy.
NOTE 3: My bible for many things climatish, including the emissivity (which is equal to the absorptivity) of common substances, is Geiger’s The Climate Near The Ground, first published sometime around the fifties when people still measured things instead of modeling them. He gives the following figures for IR emissivity at 9 to 12 microns:
Water, 0.96 Fresh snow, 0.99 Dry sand, 0.95 Wet sand, 0.96 Forest, deciduous, 0.95 Forest, conifer, 0.97 Leaves Corn, Beans, 0.94
and so on down to things like:
Mouse fur, 0.94 Glass, 0.94
You can see why the error from considering the earth as a blackbody in the IR is quite small.
I must admit, though, that I do greatly enjoy the idea of some boffin at midnight in his laboratory measuring the emissivity of common substances when he hears the snap of the mousetrap he set earlier, and he thinks, hmmm …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis:
Crosspatch and others keep claiming that oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases, for example saying:
crosspatch says:
January 14, 2012 at 12:39 am
“1. The non greenhouse gas atmosphere is a perfect conduction insulator to space, it can’t radiate its heat out.”
What? Everything with a temperature radiates. I don’t care WHAT a substance is, it will cool. It will cool until it reaches equilibrium with its background.
I don’t know why, but some folks seem to think that all things radiate at all temperatures. They don’t.
——————————————————————————–
So is only IR relevant? Are we saying that a substance transparent to IR but having heated up through energy gain by conduction or by compression cannot cool down by any mechanism other than (reverse) conduction or expansion? No radiation? So it will retain its heat indefinitely if none of these options apply? Or are we saying it cannot gain energy via conduction? Which is it, or am I missing something? Crosspatch makes more sense to me… sorry.
Gabriel van den Bergh
kcrucible says:
January 14, 2012 at 5:27 am
[NOT SO. Repeat after me, “GHG-free atmosphere”. The surface is the only thing that can radiate. w.]
You keep saying that, but it’s BS. Being “transparent” to IR just means that it can’t absorb energy via RADIATION. That does not mean that it can’t absorb energy by CONDUCTION. And ANY mass that has a higher energy than the stable state will then emit energy.
No it won’t because being transparent means that it has an absorptivity of 0 and by Kirchoff’s Law an emissivity of 0. Fundamental misunderstanding of the physics of gases.
Fred says
>The argument that theory trumps observation is what has led
>so many astray. Here is a practical demonstration of a device
>that is theoretically impossible.
And
>Thus, the GHG atmosphere MUST result in a lower average surface
>temperature as compared to a non GHG atmosphere, due to the
>energy lost via atmospheric GHG radiation.
Unfortunately, Fred, you are wrong on both counts. The blow-your-own-sail is perfectly within the laws of newtonian mechanics. The greenhouse-effect-warms-the-earth is perfectly within the laws of thermodynamics and radiation.
Interesting analysis Willis, but I admit a problem I have with it is that if a GHG atmosphere cannot radiate heat, than how can the surface of the blackbody do so, since it is also non GHG? Also, are conduction and convection limited to an atmosphere or do they also play a role in the surface (and below) of the planetoid? It seems to me these are salient points not addressed by your post.
There are mind-sets here which are almost impossible to overcome. I have limited my own mindset to the following:
Gravity compression of atmos is continuous process, not a one time batch compression. Conduction then convection ensure this continuity.
All gases when energized by conduction, above ambient, will radiate energy. Convection moves all heated gases, to locales, where it is above ambient. GHG or non-GHG matters not a twit. As long as it is matter… it matters. Poor radiators require higher delta T to transmit the same E as efficient radiators. This higher delta T is found at altitude.
Thermal energy conducted from ground (surface) to atmos is intercepted future radiant heat. Conservation of energy is maintained, as surface IR rate decreases due to conducted/convected heat loss.
Pressure induced lapse rate does seem to set the limits or mixture of radiative/conduction/convection rates… according to my present mind-set. That is all…as you were. GK
I’ve closed the other two threads on this subject since they were getting a bit ragged and Shore-worn, and directed everyone here to this thread.
On the wisdom or otherwise of an “elevator speech”:
Ok, I refreshed my memory. From the foreword of Aldous Huxley’s Brave new world: This is what was lurking in my mind:
“The soul of wit may become the very body of untruth. However elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation. On such a theme one can be brief only by omission and simplification. Omission and simplification help us to understand — but help us, in many cases, to understand the wrong thing; for our comprehension may be only of the abbreviator’s neatly formulated notions, not of the vast, ramifying reality from which these notions have been so arbitrarily abstracted.”
Gabriel van den Bergh
Roy Spencer says: January 14, 2012 at 4:09 am
As I have discussed on my blog, the observed temperature lapse rate of the atmosphere only describes how temperature CHANGES with height *IF* the atmosphere is convecting. It says nothing about what the temperature will be, in an absolute sense, which is an energy budget issue. If the atmosphere cannot absorb/emit IR, it would become isothermal, and all convection would cease.
I hate to argue against authority, but an isothermal atmosphere is unstable and will not remain that way. It will convect until it reaches the adiabatic profile, only then will convection cease.
N&z predicts only how a temperature will vary from the starting grey-body temperature, not the initial temperature itself.
FTA: “The Stefan-Boltzmann equation specifies how much radiation is emitted at a given temperature.”
Only for a blackbody in equilibrium. The corrected statement is
There are many loopholes in that description which might allow non-GHG heating to be physically realizable. I discuss some of these here. Your “QED” is not, in fact, demonstrative.
Willis,
I have stated the cause of the greenhouse effect in basic terms in a previous reply. The issue I want to discuss is your claim that if the amount of greenhouse gases was constant, but non greenhouse gases (O2 and N2) increased, there would be no change in ground level temperature. That is incorrect. Increasing the mass of the atmosphere not only increases surface pressure (linearly by the increase in mass), but also results in greater thickness (not a linear process). The mechanism for increase in greenhouse heating is simply that the gases would be mixed at all altitudes, so the average location of outgoing radiation would be increased some due to the greater thickness of the more massive atmosphere. The increase would be a nonlinear effect, and doubling mass of non-greenhouse gases would only increase temperature slightly for Earth, but it would definitely increase. It takes both greenhouse gases and the lapse effect to heat above a non-greenhouse level, but it is the effective average altitude that locks the temperature on the lapse rate curve. The effective lapse rate is not density dependent in the Troposphere until near the Tropopause, and for Earth, not temperature dependent.
Willis: “So your argument is that on a planet with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere, the surface is continually losing energy by conduction … riiiight, that’s the ticket”
According to NASA, Trenberth, and every global energy budget I have seen thats the case. Its somewhere in the range of a 100 watts global 24/7 average.
[SNIP: I’ll say it real slow. Traaaanspaareeent GHG-freee aaaatmooospheeereeee. NASA, Trenberth, and the energy budgets are about non-transparent atmospheres containing GHGs. The rest of your post is about that, and hence way off topic. -w.]
@ur momisugly C Karst:
Love your mind-set…
Gabriel van den Bergh
“”””” Alexander Feht says:
January 14, 2012 at 12:55 am
Why everybody here imitates Mr. Eschenbach, using hyphen in “Stefan-Boltzmann temperature”, “Stefan-Boltzmann equation”, and “Stefan-Boltzmann constant” expressions, as if “Stefan” and “Boltzmann” were two people who developed this formula?
Stefan Boltzmann was one man, his last name was Boltzmann, his first name was Stefan, and the correct way to use his name is “Boltzmann’s equation” or “Stefan Boltzmann’s equation” (if you insist for some reason on repeating his first name all the time) but not “Stefan-Boltzmann equation.” The “S-B” abbreviation, in this context, is incorrect. “””””
Balderdash; and that’s the polite comment.
Boltzmann’s name was Ludwig.
Stefan was a totally different person.
All that either of them did, in this instance, was to successfully integrate from zero to infinity wavelength range, the Planck Radiation formula for a completely fictitious, non-existent ideal absorber called a Black Body, whose only required property is to totally absorb any and all electro-magnetic radiation that falls on it in any direction, and originating from ANY source or multiplicity of sources, anywhere, having ANY Temperature or Temperatures, without restriction.
This is not to denigrate ANY other scientific contributions either of them made; and Boltzmann’s were significant.
There are two many comments to study so I’ll just put in the elevator speech.
[SNIP: I specifically asked for elevator speeches about two theories, Jelbring’s and N&Z’s. I also asked you to leave your own pet theory out of the mix. In response, you give us the elevator speech on your pet theory. Fail. -w.]
Wills is correct in that the Earth mainly cools by emission from its surface. Gravity cannot heat the atmosphere, just organize the molecules into a heat gradient.
Wills is wrong, in that all gases will absorb & emit at all frequencies. However, greenhouse gases absorb & emit at specific frequencies, and this absorption is many orders of magnitude greater than “black-body” emission from non greenhouse gases. Gases without dipoles (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon) can ONLY absorb & emit Earth frequency thermal radiation during collisions. This effect is vanishingly small at low temperature and pressure,
Our atmosphere is a grey body – in that there is a small amount of black-body type absorption and emission. This is from dust, aerosols, water droplets and (very minor) gas molecules in collision. This part of atmospheric radiation obeys the T^4 rule. This varies greatly due to cloud cover,
But Greenhouse gas absorption is at specific frequencies and depends on the proportion of molecules over a specific energy level. It does not obey the T^4 law. Depending on the thermal signature coming from the Earth (day/night) emission/radiation may increase or decrease.
It is too simplistic to say that if the atmosphere warms then more GHG radiation will be returned to the Earth’s surface. Firstly, thermodynamics will require the warm air to cool by expansion, Warming of the atmosphere by capture of outward thermal radiation is dwarfed by convection and latent heat effects, Secondly, since for all absorption and emission there is full equality (a good absorber is an exactly good emitter) then there is always more GHG emission heading to space.
Thus the contradiction I noted in an earlier post: If GH gases send MORE radiation back to the Earth’s surface, then they send even more radiation outward,
I can illustrate this in a simple energy balance equation:
S – Energy in from the Sun net of albedo and outer atmosphere reflection)
E – Earth Surface radiation without the GH Effect. (So S = E)
GB – Greenhouse gas ‘Back; radiation. Since the Earth is a Sphere, simple geometry requires slightly more GH gas emission to leave to space than returns to Earth. I use 2% extra as an approximation in this illustration.
In the Green house effect we have at the Earth’s Surface:
Energy emitted = E + 0.98 * GB (The Earth needs to emit the extra energy in non GH absorbing bandwidths)
In the atmosphere:
Outward: 1.02 * GB
Downward: 0.98 * GB
So We have S in and E + 0.98GB + 1.02GB outward,
OR: The Earth cools by twice any heating effect of greenhouse gases.??????
Surely there is a problem with my logic, but I can’t see it.
Think I’ll just let the readers here pass judgment. It started with a comment from Michael.
[SNIP: No, I think I’ll just let the readers focus on the science and not worry about your complaints. -w.]
The point is that a greenhouse-gas-free planet’s SURFACE temperature is set in stone by its emmisivity, once it reaches equilibrium with the sun’s energy. The atmosphere also reaches an equilibrium. It’s surface temperature is independent of any qualities of the atmosphere that are not radiation absorbing. Adding more oxygen or nitrogen, making it thicker or thinner or non-existent, doesn’t affect the surface temperature. The surface temperature of the earth remains the same, soley based on the emissivity–unless radiation absorbing gases are added. If greenhouse gases are added, then the surface temperature is changed.
Again, as skeptics, we should not fight the nonsense of the alarmists with our unskeptical nonsense.
Willis Eschenbach wins the thread by default. No one has met the challenge.
“A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It
neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space.”
If that model assumes the mechanical work of introducing an atmosphere where there was none, and then does not permit the energy of that work (compression as described by Gas Laws) to radiate into space then of course the temperature will rise but it is a circular argument. As W. Eshenbach has also explained it promotes transient effects to equilibrium states by making radiation to restore equilibrium impossible by stipulation.
NoIdea says:
January 14, 2012 at 6:14 am
Thanks, Noldea. You say above that you don’t properly understand Huffman’s claims. I fear that your attempt at an elevator speech suffers from that, as it is not understandable. I do appreciate the effort, and I encourage you to take another shot at explaining it. Leave out Venus and the rest, you’re not trying to prove anything. Just focus on explaining the science of how it works.
All the best,
w.
i suppose you can statistically raise the average temperature of an atmosphere-free planet by coating it with anything that redistributes heat better than conduction of the solid material because it carries energy to places it would never get due to not receiving any radiation.
but it can’t raise the temperature of the heat source; it can only cool that.
Willis: Your proof is pretty tight but not yet perfectly so. What follows is a theoretical counter argument with some specific points that could be tested.
1. Your proof applies to the radiating surface of the planet. Conservation of energy limits that surface temperature to at or below the theoretical S-B limit . On earth, 70% of the time, we are discussing the first few microns of ocean (IR penetration limit).
2. The practical near surface temperature, outside that few micron range, can exceed that limit if a mechanism exists for maintaining a sharp positive heat gradient relative to the actual radiating surface.
3. Short wave solar radiation penetrates the radiating surface delivering energy to the liquid below. This can maintain a positive gradient relative to the radiating surface and hence the average temperature of the liquid below can exceed that of the radiating surface.
4. Evaporative heat transport, since it occurs within the radiating surface, can maintain a sharp temperature gradient between the top few microns of liquid and both the liquid below and atmosphere above.
5. The effectiveness of evaporative heat transport is proportional to the probability an evaporated molecule will be convected away from the surface which in turn is proportional to atmospheric density.
6. Due to the heat gradient maintained by evaporative heat transport, the practical near surface temperature (outside of those few microns) can exceed the theoretical S-B limit by an amount regulated by atmospheric pressure without regard to the composition of the atmosphere.
Concluding: Your proof is valid within a few micron range. But it fails, for wet windy planets, if the practical near-surface temperature is substituted for the actual radiating surface. This is because evaporative transport can suppress the temperature of the actual radiating surface relative to the surrounding matter.
G. Karst,
Your statement “All gases when energized by conduction, above ambient, will radiate energy.” is wrong. All gases that are diatomic or have more than 2 atoms per molecule will absorb and radiate some range of radiation. In general, the diatomic gases only absorb and radiate at short wavelengths (typically in the UV). Water vapor, CO2, Methane, etc, absorb and radiate at wavelengths typically found at near ambient temperatures on Earth. These wavelengths are related to excited vibration energy states of the molecules, and occur only at specific ranges of frequencies. Gases do not act like solid and liquids, as black or gray bodies. The specific interaction frequencies are the cause of the atmospheric greenhouse effect (along with aerosols, which do act like black bodies, but are being neglected in this discussion). If an atmosphere had only O2 and N2, it would only heat by conduction and convection with the solar heated ground (except for a very small UV absorption, and this could not be radiated back due to the air temperature). Convective mixing would cause a lapse rate to form, but no radiation would cool the top of the atmosphere, so once it warmed initially, the radiation balance would only be due to the absorbed solar energy, and ground to space radiated energy.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2012 at 1:36 am
Go away, sir, your impudence knows no bounds. You haven’t a tenth of the knowledge you claim.
I made a mistake, and admitted it. My childhood memories let me down. I was so sure I remembered it correctly that I didn’t check before posting (something I usually do). It will serve me right to be more prepared next time.
Which doesn’t give you any ground to dismiss out of hand anything else I said or may say in the future, or to make sweeping and insulting conclusions about the volume of my knowledge.
By commanding everybody who disagrees with you to “go away,” you are making yourself more and more ridiculous every time. Not to mention that your insulting language, which you alone are allowed to use with impunity on this forum, makes me even more determined to keep you in check.
Before your arrival on the scene, Mr. Eschenbach, this site was almost 100% civil. Now, with your non-moderated outbursts, whatever are the merits of some of your articles, it stinks of favoritism.
practical illustration:
heating a piece of metal with a torch.
if you want the whole thing hot, it works best to blow the hot gases back and forth over the entire thing rather than just one spot.
I’m still thinking about this but one thing you said in a reply to a comment is wrong. Your GHG atmosphere does radiate. It receives energy from the surface by conduction. To have a temperature it radiates even if it can’t absorb IR.