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 …
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.
===
I can’t quite put my finger on this, but it feels as if there’s a disjunct somewhere.
Ah, ‘because the atmosphere is transparent, this means that the planet is radiating to space all the energy it receives..
You’ve not included any mechanism for why the planet is radiating more energy than it is receiving. The transparent atmosphere is not adding to it.
Ian H says:
January 15, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Again I say, QUOTE MY WORDS. I don’t care in the slightest what I might “seem to be asserting”. I can defend my own words and assertions, but I will not attempt to defend your version of my assertions.
QUOTE MY ASSERTION so I know what you are disagreeing with. You talk about “… not participate in any radiative processes”? I never said that. You said that.
If you disagree with something or have a question about something, QUOTE IT.
Thanks, sorry for the shouting, but I’ve said this a bunch of times …
w.
gbaikie says:
January 15, 2012 at 7:48 pm (Edit)
I don’t accept that it is windy on the hypothetical planet we are discussing. Which is why we are discussing that planet and no other. I wanted a simplified solution, without all the small stuff that people want to grab onto in order to avoid the main points.
So no, no wind, the surface heating is even.
w.
w–> “They theorize that some kind of atmospheric/gravity interaction is what is warming the earth to about 30°C above the theoretical S-B temperature. They claim it doesn’t require GHGs. My proof shows that they are incorrect, that their claims violate the conservation of energy.”
You cannot have “proof” because you have no proof that whatever causes gravity does not also cause the additional warming — unless of course you have your own supercollider and found Higgs’ “goddamn particle.”
“4) Such collisions transfer energy by conduction and not radiation. The surface converts incoming solar shortwave radiative energy into kinetic energy and the non GHG gases in contact with or in close proximity to the surface retain that kinetic energy by exchanging the energy via conduction between molecules of non GHGs until it can be released upward as outgoing longwave IR.”
If any conduction increases molecules velocity. And if one has a few million molecule which have increase their velocity, one call this an air packet. This air packet is constantly interchanging gas molecules but as a location.if it’s average molecular speed is higher than molecules above it, it less dense and has buoyancy, and rises [convection].
“5) It is that delay that allows the surface temperature to rise as energy accumulates within the system and most particularly at or just above the surface. ”
One can have heat inversions near surface, this inhibits convection- if you inhibit convection the surface can get warmer.
For there to be gain in heat capacity, the needs to cool the surface. Cooling the surface, causes lower temperature [a few degrees] and surface absorbs more solar energy and if cooler radiates less energy.
“6) The greater the density of the non GHG atmosphere, the more molecular collisions occur, the longer the delay and the higher the equilibrium temperature must become. The increased density does NOT slow down the rate of conduction. Instead it increases the proportion of fast moving radiation that is retained for longer as slower moving conduction for an average net reduction in energy flow through the system.”
The greater the density of the non GHG atmosphere, the more molecular collisions occur [with the surface- otherwise don’t see how it’s relevant].
” the longer the delay and the higher the equilibrium temperature must become.”
I don’t understand.
“The increased density does NOT slow down the rate of conduction.”
Yes. And I does increase amount conduction [higher potential of transferring energy per second].
“Instead it increases the proportion of fast moving radiation that is retained for longer as slower moving conduction for an average net reduction in energy flow through the system.”
No idea what this means. “fast moving radiation”? Radiation is speed of light.
Rate flow of heat?
In other words, you’re the one saying it’s radiating more than it is receiving, but, the 4times is calculated on the temperature it has been raised to, not to the power imput that raised it to that temperature.
The disjunct is that you have to provide the real radiation imput in the other half of the equation.
Since most of the surface of the Earth is water heat is lost through evaporation.
As a suggestion to help keep WUWT the great website that it is, let me suggest that allowing a thread’s author to moderate that thread (at least when moderation is active) is a pretty bad idea. If we are going to have threads that snip commenters posts liberally, such snipping should be done by a third party. Even if the thread’s author is completely justified in snipping, if he snips himself, there is no way to avoid the *appearance* of censorship. (IMO, snipping doesn’t work at all, but if you’ve got to do it, try to do it in a way that seems fair to all concerned).
For the record, as far as I can tell and IMVHO, proponents of gravity-enhanced temperature effects cannot answer simple and *necessary* questions on their theories. (The main one being: how can the surface of a planet such as Earth emit more energy than the planet as a whole emits to space?)
Ultimately, though the proponents of the theory have the responsibility to answer questions relating to the theory (a point that the snipping does attempt to make). If someone really doesn’t want to answer a question, there is nothing that anyone can do here to make them do so.
Cheers, 🙂
I think N&Z have not violated energy conservation. This is why:
N&Z take Penn State’s model which has a one layer atmosphere. The “greenhouse effect” of this model is created by heating this layer to its emission temperature through radiative transfer from the surface and then have it radiate towards space and the surface.
This is much like in your earlier post “The Steel Greenhouse” where a “greenhouse effect” is generated on a sphere inside a sphere. The back radiation causes the inner sphere to radiate at a higher temperature than the outer sphere to get the net energy transfer equal to the outside radiation.
By using this type of model the temperature at the surface (the inner sphere) can be higher than the emission layer (outer sphere) temperature without violating energy conservation.
Essential to this model is the absorption of LWIR by this atmosphere layer and changing its temperature in the process.
The dry air atmosphere changes this essential characteristic. No LWIR absorption hence none is radiated back or away from there. The entire energy balance happens on the surface (except possibly at the start of its timeline).
This fundamental change which makes the “dry air atmosphere model” a completely different model. Conclusions from this model do not apply to N&Z’s model.
Then they add convective heat transfer to the radiative transfer and take it from there. They correctly find that convection is far more efficient than radiation for transferring energy, which I believe has been mentioned before.
However there are problems with this paper:
In particular their conclusion that the temperature is a function of pressure. I find it difficult to believe that the earth lost half its atmospheric pressure in the last 50 million years given that the atmosphere has been around for a few billion years.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Excepting maybe H2O, right? 🙂
But seriously, I’m still trying to wrap my mind around your gedanken experiment. I don’t think Triton or Pluto would have any problem spontaneously condensing Nitrogen gas out of their atmospheres. However, I see you’re talking about a planet with more Earth-like qualities. In that case, to get Nitrogen to condense, the (dry adiabatic) lapse rate would have to extend out to beyond 20-25km to get below its melting point. I would speculate this might be possible if the atmosphere were pure Nitrogen.
The point I was trying to make was that even without GHGs you can still have radiation spontaneously emitted at altitude from the atmosphere of a planet or moon, if not through atmospheric phase changes then perhaps through the creation of plasmas of charged particles, similar to the Earth’s ionosphere.
Thanks for the link to the Caballero paper. I think it’s an excellent resource.
Also, if radiation in is raising temperature of something, the radiation out has to be added to the energy contained in the temperature, kinetic.
But anyway, the radiation out isn’t relating back to radiation in, but to the temp of the object heated.
If this thought experiment is to work out how more radiation can be emitted than the radiation in, of some energy budgets, then perhaps it’s simply that the radiation in has the wrong figures..
Willis says:
“but cooling will occur over not geological but cosmological time frames or slower. Because as they cool, such transition-energy collisions get less and less probable.”
Would that slowing perchance be a 4th root function?
“I don’t accept that it is windy on the hypothetical planet we are discussing. ”
In the million sun world? Yeah, no wind.
The surface could could only be -18 C if significant fraction of warming was caused by sunlight.
Something like Neptune could be much warmer but it doesn’t have a significant fraction of it’s heat caused by sunlight.
–>”However there are problems with this paper:
In particular their conclusion that the temperature is a function of pressure. I find it difficult to believe that the earth lost half its atmospheric pressure in the last 50 million years given that the atmosphere has been around for a few billion years.”
When Earth is a snowball there is no snow, no rain and maybe… less atmospheric pressure.
“I should add this:
7) At equilibrium we now have solar shortwave hitting the surface at 240W/m2 and IR longwave leaving the surface at 240W/m2 but additionally we now have a backed up pool of kinetic energy bouncing between air molecules at the surface and between those molercules and the surface giving the necessary temperature boost at the surface.”
Apparent you discussing the million sun world, and there, you would have million times 240 W/m2 leaving the surface
In reference to Willis Eschenbach says: January 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Willis, I will read (and will give serious thought) to your two referenced posts. I would like to start a dialog with you regarding radiation between spherical shell surfaces. However, I don’t believe “comments” to a guest post on WUWT is the proper forum for such a dialog. I have thought a lot about radiation between concentric, uniform-surface-temperature, spherical, blackbody/greybody shells where the innermost shell has a constant internal source of thermal energy and a vacuum exists between the shells. If I remember correctly, starting with Planck’s blackbody differential radiation law (differential solid angle, differential planar surface area, differential frequency interval), I derived the electromagnetic radiation rates between the outer surface of the inner shell and the inner surface of the outer shell as well as the temperatures of these surfaces. I have a word file of several megabytes that contains my derivations. That file is much too large for a comment on this blog. I would, however, like to exchange thoughts with you on a one-to-one basis. To do that, I need your e-mail address and you need my e-mail address. I am reluctant to put my e-mail address on an open forum such as WUWT. However, Anthony Watts has my e-mail address; and I give Anthony permission to give you my e-mail address privately. If you’re interested in exchanging e-mails with me, get my e-mail address from Anthony, send me an e-mail to establish communications, and I’ll be happy to begin a dialog. If you’re not interested, just respond to this comment with a short comment so indicating.
Thank you for your time,
Reed Coray.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2012 at 11:13 am
There is no matter that does not radiate electromagnetically when in bulk.
The radiation may be small, in the low part of the electromagnetic spectrum not measurable easily, but it is there.
One has to realize that all, ALL , observable interactions of matter that affect every day temperatures are finally, at the last contact, electromagnetic. Electromagnetic means photons as a bottom line.
Argon has an emission spectrum too.
In any case it is not necessary to excite distinct emission lines in order to radiate. There exists a continuous spectrum, also quantum mechanically, because all solutions of potential problems end up with n=infinity, l=infinity, m=infinity, i.e. there are very dense quantum mechanical states that can be excited by scatterings as the molecules and atoms move and interact with the surrounding field of other atoms but appear as continuum. Even for noble gases. That is the way the radiative field of black body radiation is also generated, not only with distinct lines..
Myrrh says:
January 15, 2012 at 7:55 pm
It is radiating more energy to space because the surface is warmer than the theoretical S-B temperature.
w.
evilincandescentbulb says:
January 15, 2012 at 8:14 pm
I can have proof because my proof is not based on the mechanism by which the temperature is raised.
Instead, it points out that the consequence of increased temperature (from whatever mechanism) is increased radiation. But increased radiation violates conservation of energy.
Thus, I don’t need to know what causes gravity for my proof to be valid.
w.
w–>Instead, it points out that the consequence of increased temperature (from whatever mechanism) is increased radiation. But increased radiation violates conservation of energy.
You are pointing out what has been said by others: to fear runaway global warming is to believe in the possibility of a perpetuum mobile.
Willis,
You are correct so far in every single regard except … You didn’t take into account a planet that is covered densely with girl scouts roasting marshmallows and an appreciable number of those morsels caught fire from holding them too close to the flames. Also you failed to mention that my favorite girl scout cookie is the samoa. Other than that you are spot on with your understanding of the physics involved, and have shown your opponents to be a bunch of ignoramuses, and none of this is above the level of high school honors physics and chemistry.
Oh sure his understanding of physics may be spot on but AGW theory is a religious matter.
I think Willis is right here. The only thing I might change is the word ‘characteristic’ for ‘theoretical’ because there is no ‘theoretical’ reason for that characteristic temperature to be found anywhere except on a body of uniform temperature. It is, in effect, the fourth root of the flat-area-weighted average of the fourth powers of all absolute temperatures on a body. For zero and one-hundred this average would be about 84.
A GHG-Free atmosphere is a hypothetical creature; however I understand that transparent, non-GHG gases do have a residual absorption and emission capability on a scale equivalent to the imperceptible non-transparency of these gases in their pure form. Some gases may have absorption/emission bands in the optical range and would require heating to a significant fraction of the surface temperature of the sun before their emissions would balance their absorption. Perhaps the stratosphere is our best example of such a regime and only the LWIR radiation by carbon dioxide in the mesosphere above allows heat absorbed by the stagnant air below to escape to outer space.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2012 at 8:57 pm
“Instead, it points out that the consequence of increased temperature (from whatever mechanism) is increased radiation.”
I realize the popular theory of radiation is it willy nilly flies in all directions with no particular destination, no connection with where its going. But I would point out thats pure theory with absolutely zero evidence of it being true. If for example, radiation (and light) only flows from warm objects to cold objects in ways similar to other energies like electricity, conduction, magnetism (positive negative charges instead of warm cold), etc. then what you say above would not be always true. People should be very careful about generalizing theories and making sweeping statements about them.
I have been thinking about Jelbring’s theory and there is a sense to it and it does seem to fit into some of these potential cracks of generalized theories. Thus they probably should not be discarded via a wave of an arm.
Dr. Brown talked about gravity creating heat in gas in big planets and stars. The gravity of these planets could hold an attraction to certain base levels of energy that prohibits its release and in a gaseous atmosphere that could be manifested by a level of heat. Only heat in excess of a certain level is actually emitted from an object to space (not empty space but to that near solid wall of objects in space no matter how far they are). Its hard to imagine electro magnetic energy being sent on an endless journey wandering its way through space curving around stars but never reaching a destination. After all we do know that gravity attracts light as the Einstein theory exposed.
Bottom line here is Jelbring said his model planet does not radiate, yet you can’t listen long enough so you can get on with the job of discarding it for violating a law for doing something it doesn’t do. It seems its getting a lot like Real Climate around here.
OzWizard says:
January 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm
“That is why Einstein’s relativity theory led to the TWIN PARADOX.”
Now, this really should have been censored, Willis. I will not suggest… no I will not.
For anyone interested: Fermi-Walker transport explained the so-called “paradox” decades ago. The unequal effect of accelerated motion is confirmed in atom smashers daily. Thomas precession is another consequence of the effect which has been observed almost continuously since early in the last century. Velocity is relative. Acceleration is not.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2012 at 6:28 pm
“I said because the planet is at thermodynamic equilibrium there is no exchange of heat across the interface, not the other way around as you have it.”
I want you to pay special attention to these words: No unbalanced potentials.
What is the system we are looking at? It is the entire planet/atmosphere system. Not the planet alone. When you take the planet alone, you are removing the balanced potential between it and the atmosphere. You are no longer dealing with a system in thermodynamic equilibrium. There is a temperature gradient with an abrupt discontinuity there. When you separate the planet and its atmosphere, you must account for the disappearance of that gradient.
The system is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Not PART of the system. THE SYSTEM.
As I said, you are doing the equivalent of drawing a free body diagram for a two-body system without the contact forces from the connected body.Or, of claiming two resistors in series are equivalent to only the resistance from the one closest to ground, because: 1) when you short the other one, you measure the supply voltage drop across the one remaining 2) total voltage cannot be greater than the supply 3) therefore, the other resistor can have no effect.
It is complete circulus in probando. You are saying there is no effect from the atmosphere, therefore there is no effect from the atmosphere.
“You can only “assure me” if you can explain how that might work to me. “
You’ve been given numerous explanations. For this thought experiment specifically: Temperature alone DOES NOT determine radiation from a non-Planckian energy distribution, and there is an avenue through the surface/atmosphere interface to develop a non-Planckian energy distribution. The atmosphere can absorb heat through conduction. It can dissipate that heat through the same conduction interface. There is no law, no physical principle, which says that the effect of that exchange has to be uniform across energy states.
“It’s not as complex as relativity.”
Relativity is not complex. It messes with our intuition, but that is not the same as saying it is complex.