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.
Dr Burns says:
January 15, 2012 at 1:09 am
What do I expect? I expect to learn what happens in a simplified system where most of the variables are eliminated so that we can contemplate the rest. It’s called a “thought experiment”, Dr. Burns, a “gedanken” experiment in German, they were a great favorite of Albert Einstein for the same reason that I use them—to simplify complex questions so that they can be understood.
w.
PS- I think there’s an extra word in your first sentence.
re Willis Eschenbach, January 15, 2012 at 12:52 am :
I see your point, Willis. The logic I used in coming to my conclusion involved nothing but quasi-static reversible adiabatic processes, which by definition are also isentropic, but I was ignoring my own point (5) while thinking through point (2).
As far as Potential Energy is concerned, all of the molecules had some of that to start with, but now they’ve had extra energy added from below. I was assigning all of that to temperature increases in the molecules above, but forgetting that some of it will go into pushing those molecules to a higher altitude than they were at the start, so the atmosphere will expand until a balance is reached.
Back to the drawing board… ☺
/dr.bill
Paul Dennis says:
“Willis, I don’t think I agree with you here and am with Roy Spencer on this point. I think the the lapse rate does require convection.”
It does not require convection in our adiabatic atmosphere
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“Since my description is of a system at equilibrium, I fail to see how any of that applies, so my QED is not disturbed by your claims about systems not at equilibrium”
Wrong, Sir. Wrong!
You have a conductive and convective medium in direct contact with your surface with which you are exchanging heat continuously. The entire surface-atmosphere system can be said to be in equilibrium, but you cannot break up that system and claim the individual pieces are in equilibrium. That would be the equivalent of drawing a free body diagram in mechanics and claiming that there are no contact forces, so the separated bodies move only according to the external forces applied directly to them.
What you are continually failing to understand is that SB only works for a body in thermodynamic equilibrium. When you are not in thermodynamic equilibrium, then the energy distribution is not, in general, going to be Planckian. And, SB does not, in general, apply.
Willis, I think you have stopped using only the word “radiate”, when you mean “radiate in the IR spectrum”. Later in the thread you use “radiate in the IR spectrum”. Good.
This is what created some confusion early in this thread.
Okay;
You have agreed that non-GHG gases conduct energy.
Elevator speech for N&Z;
The non-GHG-gas can increase its energy via conduction at the surface.
This means the gas gets a higher temperature. Via conduction.
Via “bouancy” it will rise.(Figure of speech; Its density lowers, so it rise)
When ascending it looses its energy (via conduction with other gas molecules) until “bouyance” equals gravity. Then it stops.
The air-parcels close to ground that ascended is replaced by others, creating a circulation.
Conduction increase with increased density.
Density increase when the athmosphere has more mass.
This is not a perpeteum mobile; The energy comes from the sun.
It does not violate any laws. It radiate finally to space at TOA, instead of at surface.
So looking from space, you see the same energy radiated..
Not sure I am correct but I have decoded N&Z to this.
Call me stupid and ask me to go away if you like. I dont care.
by the time i got to to this thread there was far too many posts to read them all. I’ll stick with an “elevator” explanation as i see it.
If a sphere in space has black body characteristics,
If a clear atmosphere has no interaction with incoming radiation,
If the incoming radiation Is equal on all sides
If there is no motion of the sphere to stir up the atmosphere with a coriolis effect.
1. The black body sphere with no atmosphere will radiate exactly as much energy out as it recieves, and have a temperature relating to its physical properties.
2.the addition of an atmosphere initially causes an energy imbalance, since the atmosphere will recieve energy from the black body surface through conduction. convection occurs.
3. eventually every molecule in the atmosphere contains the same amount of energy
4. when every molecule has the same amount of energy, convection stops, as does conduction. the system becomes stable and stagnant. no energy moves in or out of the atmosphere.
5. The black body sphere again radiates exactly as much energy as it recieves.
6. one square foot of the atmosphere at high elevation contains less energy than one square foot of atmosphere at low elevation strictly due to atmospheric density. the “Temperature” is supposedly the same at the top and bottom.
7. the temperature of the black body must be the same as the temperature of the atmosphere, whether or not a black body molecule contains as much energy as an atmosphere molecule, they have the same temperature.
8. The temperature of both the black body and the atmosphere is determined by the whichever material of the two requires less energy to increase temperature 1C.
9. thus when the atmosphere requires less energy to increase its temperature, it will determine the temperature of the black body. if the black body needed less energy to increase temperature, it would determine the temperature of the atmosphere.
Possibly no one thinks about the system like this but there is a disparity between the Heat Capacity of atmospheric gases and solids like rock, and no one has ever considered that the black body could just as easily affect the temperature of the gas as the other way around.
without doing an ounce of math I would contend that the end temperature of the system would HAVE to depend exclusively on the material requiring LESS energy per degree of temperature increase.
I have followed the warming debate for several years now, but do not have any physics or chemistry education beyond a poorly remembered highschool education followed by a couple of mispent years taking introductory courses at university. I’m NO EXPERT, and the things i DO remember are admittedly a little bit foggy. I don’t believe i’ve violated the law of conservation of energy here, nor do i think this thought experiment follows through to the real world. the real world has more variables. What I do think I’ve done is show how a black body could change temperature due to the presence of a non radiating atmosphere.
Correction ; When I say “It radiate finally to space at TOA, instead of at surface.” I meant the energy that was removed from the surface via conduction.
I am disappointed that Willis cannot be bothered to read all I blogged. I ask a question and he ignores it and SNIPs it.
Willis claimed that it is impossible for a planet to radiate more heat than it receives from its sun. NOT TRUE! Jupiter ans Saturn both do this, ask any astronomer.
If he can’t be bothered to answer this relevant question then my estimation of him as a scientist and person have gone down the pan.
I’m just learning and trying to make sense of both sides of the argument. My interpretation is this:
The Earths’ surface … [SNIP: I’m talking about the situation in the blackbody planet described in the head post. Please restrict your comments to that, and leave the Earth for another thread. Thanks. w.]
LazyTeenager says:
January 14, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Hoser quotes Willis and says
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.
>>>>>>>>And the air.
No. The air does not radiate as a black body.
The air radiates according to the ability of its component molecules to radiate……..
Why not pop back and read my sole contibution way at the beginning. January 14, 2012 at 2:45 am
If an atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen DID give off copious amounts of IR, the FLIR camera would not see distant objects because the atmosphere would obliterate their presence. It DOES see distant objects at wavelengths far away from the response of the human eye, like 20 microns or so. As a former spectroscopist, I’m prepared to conceded – without going back to the texts – that a small amount of energy at some frequencies that do not trouble a FLIR device might indeed exist, but on a scale so small as not to upset this hypothetical.
Now, having ploughed through all of the above, we have to agree that Willis was correct, with the exception of tiny effects that do not detract from his thought experiment. And yes, there was one correction, that a change in temperature, via Wein’s displacement law, changes the peak wavelength of an emitting body, but is silent about the total energy under the curve.
This used to be first year textbook stuff. Stefan-Boltzmann, Wein, Laws of Thermodynamics, Kirchoff. Are they no longer on the required reading list?
John Marshall says:
January 15, 2012 at 2:15 am
My apologies, I thought it would have been clear from the head post that I’m talking about a planet which is not creating internal heat. So no, I’m not referring to gas giants, or anything like that. I’m referring to a regular blackbody sphere with no internal source of energy.
Hope this helps,
w.
Bart says:
January 15, 2012 at 1:53 am
I didn’t say the individual pieces are at equilibrium, Bart, I don’t even know what that would mean. I said, and you quoted, that it is the system that is at equilibrium. So I am right, sir, right.
w.
Dear Willis
Transparency is in the eye of the beholder. For transparency to work in your argument the atmosphere should be transparent to all electromagnetic frequencies, which is not possible for matter as we know it. To have heat capacity, the molecules must have kinetic energy and interact by scattering, the scattering happens because of exchange of photons, photons are electromagnetic radiation at some frequency, even if very low..
kwik says:
January 15, 2012 at 1:55 am
True so far, but the circulation cannot continue forever.
The mass of the atmosphere isn’t changing, and I don’t understand why conduction would increase with density.
Sorry, but there’s no GHG’s in the atmosphere … so it cannot “radiate finally to space at TOA”.
All the best, thanks for giving it a try.
w.
kwik says:
January 15, 2012 at 1:57 am
Sigh … in any case, you still haven’t explained why there is any temperature increase. You’ve talked about changes in conduction and density but not temperature.
w.
Willis sez:
a “gedanken” experiment in German, they were a great favorite of Albert Einstein for the same reason that I use them—to simplify complex questions so that they can be understood.
There is utility in gedanken experiments, and also danger. Things can be simplified to the point of meaninglessness wrt the real world you hope to gain insights into via the thought experiment. Another danger is that having appeared to prove something via such an experiment, insights of real value in longer than elevator speech length tracts may mistakenly get rejected a priori and without proper consideration.
As Hans Jelbring pointed out to Willis above, there is no elevator version of his peer reviewed 2003 paper. It isn’t overly long, but clearly longer than Willis is prepared to countenance. If Willis had read it carefully in 2003, he wouldn’t have made the error of thinking that his own gedanken experiment falsifies it.
Willis said to me above:
[Tallbloke, every post can be claimed to have scientific content, including yours. I said that I would snip things that were off-topic, which your post most assuredly was. If you (or anyone else) think your post contained actual science that has been deleted incorrectly, then post the scientific part again and we can discuss it. -w.]
Thank you. It’s a disproof of your assertion that Hans Jelbring’s paper is falsified by your argument that:
“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.”
But in Hans Jelbring’s paper, the model planet by definition does not radiate to space. At the beginning of section 2.1 in his paper he states:
“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.”
Your ‘disproof’ of Hans Jelbring’s 2003 paper therefore fails.
QED
Now, Willis, somewhere in the foregoing mess of comments and deletions, you asserted that my argument is incorrect, but you did not in any way shape or form say anything to back up that assertion. So let’s have the discussion you offer above, and you can start by enlarging on your rejection of my argument.
Cheers
TB.
I have a relatively simple question. Are we considering that gravity does ‘work’ in the context of an atmosphere of some ‘mass’ being attracted downwards towards the centre of a body? If gravity is doing ‘work’ by attraction, then it must logically produce some energy somewhere, even in simple kinetic terms, if I ‘pull’ something towards me, I am exerting a force and doing ‘work’, the rubbing of the object (e.g. a molecule) against other molecules and producing tiny amounts of frictional heat as a by-product (if you like) of my ‘work’. So, in terms of Willis’ transparent non radiative atmosphere, it makes no difference if the atmosphere has some ‘mass”. Gravitational induced kinetic energy (i.e. movement or work) might be small, but it is clearly present and increases as an acceleration due to constant gravitational force? By conservation of energy, the gravitational ‘pull’ must conserve to some other form of energy once the object being ‘pulled’ comes to rest or hits another object – what’s wrong with it being converted to heat?
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly January 15, 12:31 am
Willis, you triumphantly proclaimed to me:
Willis, you clarioned don’t come back, according to YOUR beliefs?
No Willis; you are very, very naughty! You must explain how a planetary body could possibly ever have a uniform body temperature, and even if it is contained in your fertile imagination, what has that got to do with the price of cheese anyway?
Put another way, what has your very silly model got to do with the price of cheese, or Cornish Pasties or anything?
Bryan says:
“It does not require convection in our adiabatic atmosphere”
As I said before I think convection is needed. The definition of the dry adiabtaic lapse rate is:
“The dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) is the rate of temperature decrease with height for a parcel of dry or unsaturated air rising under adiabatic conditions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
A rising air mass is a convecting air mass. The parcel of air does work during expansion and therefore cools. If there is no convection, which I think is the outcome of Willis’ thought experiment then the temperature of the atmospheric column will become that of the surface of his black body. This is covered in the following paper:
Coombes, Ch. A. and Laue, H., 1985, A paradox concerning the temperature distribution of a gas in a gravitational field. Am. J. Phys, v53, 272-273
I should have added that if we have a moving atmosphere, e.g. via convection due to incoming radiation warming a surface, which then warms the atmosphere and sets up convection currents, then we have a situation where gravity constantly acts to ‘repull’ molecules back down after they have risen via convection. Hence, it is not beyond the realms of possibility to see that the atmosphere is ‘warmer’ than the sum of the incoming radiation as a result of the ‘work’ of gravity?
tallbloke says:
January 15, 2012 at 2:54 am
Oh, please, my friend, it’s not quantum physics or something. It’s a paper describing a climate theory. Jelbring is unwilling to describe it in clear, concise, simple terms as I requested because he knows very well that it won’t stand the light of day. So he makes up the claim that somehow it is much, much, much more complex than the greenhouse effect, which took me all of four freaking sentences to explain above.
I don’t believe Jelbrings hypothesis is too complex to explain clearly and concisely, Tallbloke, and neither do you.
As I understand it, Jelbrings hypothetical is just like mine, but without the ring of suns. It still has the non-GHG atmosphere and the blackbody planet. He still claims the planet will be above the theoretical S-B temperature. So the same considerations all apply, but with an incoming wattage of zero W/m^2.
Now, my understanding may be wrong, and my proof may not apply to Jelbring. But since not one person has stepped forwards to say that they understand and can explain Jelbrings hypothesis, we don’t know, do we?
You seem to be talking as though you understand it, and if so, you are the only one who says they do … so where’s the elevator speech? And spare me the claim that it’s all too complicated to explain simply. That’s Jelbring’s laughable assertion to avoid having to explain his own dang theory in clear, concise, simple terms. I don’t buy it. Almost any theory can be explained in an elevator speech, and Jelbring’s is no exception. Remember, you don’t have to justify or prove it, just explain how the flippin’ thing is supposed to work.
Alternatively, if you don’t understand it (as is certainly suggested by your unwillingness to explain it clearly and cogently ), then we don’t know if what you say about it is right or not.
Still waiting for the explanation of either theory, TB. If you refuse to explain a theory in simple terms, either you don’t understand it, or you are hiding something about it. You are in the first category. Hans Jelbring is in the second. I explained the greenhouse effect in simple terms. It’s your turn, put up or admit defeat.
w.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 14, 2012 at 10:19 am
The contributor known as wayne previously summarised my position on this issue which has been in my mind for several years as a very important aspect of the climate debate.
Willis did not address wayne’s version so here it is in my words:
[SNIP: vague, wandering, unscientific, and off topic. -w.]
Incredible.
It was precise, on topic and a clear rebuttal to Willis’s contentions.
Anthony needs to realise that tjhis might as well be a Realclimate thread.
A guest author gets to moderate and snip comments on his own thread…..this is not good?
Here it is again (approximately, since I didn’t save the slightly refined version).
“The heat within the flames of a campfire would get hotter with more molecules (increased air
density) around the flames because the heat energy is moved away more slowly
due to the higher number of molecular collisions.. So the density of the air
around the campfire increases the temperature gradient from fire to
observer. In effect the denser atmosphere obstructs radiation leaving
conduction relatively more important. Conduction is a slower process than
radiation so the temperature within the flames rises
In exactly the same way the denser the Earth’s atmosphere the hotter the
surface becomes and the steeper the temperature gradient upward because
space remains at the same temperature but the surface gets hotter. Just as
with the campfire the solar energy hitting Earth’s the surface is moved away
more slowly because the role of slow conduction is enhanced relative to that
of fast radiation as a result of the greater atmospheric density.
Density of the air at the surface is a result of the strength of the
gravitational pull of the entire planetary mass and the mass (not
composition) of the atmosphere.
So, indirectly, through pressure and then density, gravity does determine
the lapse rate and it is mass dependent and not composition dependent so
Oxygen and Nitrogen are involved despite being relatively non radiative.
Oxygen and Nitrogen participate fully in adding to the process of conduction
in its competition with radiation.
The ability of increased conduction to slow down radiative energy loss is
what relegates radiative processes to a secondary role and explains why it
is gravity rather than radiation that sets the lapse rate.
Gravity and density alter the balance between fast radiation and slow
conduction. If one reduces radiation and increases conduction the heat
content and temperature will rise given the same energy input.”
I think it sidesteps a lot of the problems if one regards density as
shifting the balance from fast radiation to slower conduction giving a rise
in equilibrium temperature as a consequence.
After all, no atmosphere means an immediate turnaround of energy i.e.
radiation straight in and straight out pretty much instantly. As soon as one
adds an atmosphere capable of CONDUCTION which includes non GHGs then the
conduction takes away from the efficiency of the radiation process by
slowing energy dissipation down which is what then leads to the higher
equilibrium temperature. The denser the atmosphere the more conduction takes
place before the radiative energy can be released to space and the higher
the equilibrium temperature rises.
So, radiative processes are not in control because they are subject to
interference from density and the consequent increase in conduction.
Convection and the water cycle then act to try to reduce the slowing effect
on energy dissipation of more conduction but can never get back to the
efficiency of raw, in/out, radiation.
Neat isn’t it ?”
If it is wrong then a simple explanation as to why would be preferable to deletion.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 15, 2012 at 3:18 am
Anthony needs to realise that tjhis might as well be a Realclimate thread.
I am with you Stephen…so many guest experts pushing AGW themes, the PDO and solar influence on climate do not exist, as well as any new science on gravity heating.
WUWT?