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 …
Julian Braggins says:
January 16, 2012 at 12:42 am
Good news, we’ve found someone who claims to understand N&Z’s theory well enough to say my proof doesn’t apply to it. So Julian, how about giving us the elevator speech on the N&Z theory, to show that you do understand it, and so that we can see for ourselves how it works and why my proof doesn’t apply?
Remember, N&Z have said it works without GHGs, so don’t be telling us about atmospheric radiation or absorption.
Not holding my breath …
w.
Has everyone here been treating radiative and conductive energy as interchangeable ?
I don’t think one can do that for an equilibrium scenario as proposed by Willis’s model because any leakage from one to the other will disturb the equilibrium.
The consequence is that the surface temperature has to rise to a level that can sustain both processes in parallel and independently in order to maintain equilibrium.
The S – B equation deals with radiation alone and not conduction so if the energy allocated to the conductive exchange is kept separate as it must be at equilibrium then the S – B radiative equations will still be complied with even though the surface is actually at a higher temperature.
Some examples:
i) A planet with no atmosphere.
Radiation is all there is and it comes straight in and goes straight out as per the S – B equation.
ii) A planet with the same gravity and atmospheric mass as the Earth but comprised of non GHGs.
The atmosphere diverts 150W/m2 to the surface/atmosphere conductive energy exchange. That energy is removed from the energy needed to sustain radiative balance so the surface cools. Over time energy builds up in the system again so that the S – B radiative balance has been restored but the energy required for the continuing conductive exchange is permanently denied to the radiative process. The surface therefore has to rise to a higher equilibrium temperature to sustain both processes but the S – B equation remains valid because it is blind to any energy engaged in the separate conductive energy exchange. There will still be 240W/m2 coming in and 240W/m2 going out as regards radiative energy but the surface will be at a temperature that supplies both the radiative 240/m2 going out AND its part of the energy exchange with the atmosphere at 150W/m2. It has to be so because if the surface supplies less than 150W/m2 to the air on an ongoing basis there will be no equilibrium. It matters not that the surface gets that 150W/m2 straight back again. That is the nature of an equilibrium.
iii) A planet with the same gravity as the Earth but double the atmospheric mass.
The atmosphere diverts 300W/m2 to the conductive energy exchange with 240W/m2 still allocated to the radiative exchange and a correspondingly raised surface temperature.
The error people have been making is to suggest that there is no need for a surface/air energy exchange once the air temperature reaches the surface temperature (or vice versa).That would imply that the conductive energy could be reallocated back to the radiative exchange but that is not correct.
The energy taken away from the radiative process in favour of conduction is lost to the radiative process permanently or for so long as there is an atmosphere with any mass at all. Yet both tranches of energy contribute to the surface temperature needed to maintain equilibrium.
It isn’t that the S – B equations are breached, merely that they relate only to the radiative portion of the total energy exchange.
Any flaws ?
Stephen Wilde says:
January 16, 2012 at 12:00 am
Thanks, Stephen. Convection will occur, and will cease as soon as thermal equilibrium is achieved and the atmosphere takes on the thermal profile given by the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
OK
OK
Ah, I see the problem here. At equilibrium, the lowest level of the atmosphere is the exact same temperature as the surface. As a result, there is no flow of heat either into or out of the atmosphere.
The incoming solar energy flows into the surface and is radiated away again constantly. But no, the energy flow is not delayed or retained or slowed down by the atmosphere, because there is no heat flow between the atmosphere and the surface in either direction.
All the best,
w.
Apologies for my “long-windedness”, Willis. Thanks for reading the ‘uninteresting’ part of my comment. Let me take your advice to be brief (Well, as brief as a 68 year old engineer metrologist can be).
Re my atttitude (in one sentence): I like what you have done in the past – have enjoyed almost every one of your previous posts – but the above post is one of your worst (IMO).
My objective: I want to help ease the pain of your “hurting head”.
My “elevator speech” re the Near-surface Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement (ATE, or NTE) postulated by N & Z (at p.6 of “Unified Theory of Climate”):
• The existence of a dimensionless Thermal Expansion Coefficient of steel does not imply that “gravity cause steel to expand”.
• Likewise, the existence of a dimensionless ATE ‘factor’ does not imply that “gravity causes heating of the lower atmosphere”, in defiance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
• These dimensionless ratios enable simple calculation of what the effect of “heat input” will be: in the first case, on a bar of steel; in the second case, on a planetary atmosphere subjected to gravitational compression.
• Don’t overstretch this simile (or is it an analogy?) – it is only a guide to how to read N & Z without causing “head pain”.
From that point on, you should be able follow their logic. I’ll leave the pleasure of that process of discovery for you to enjoy at your own pace (unless you think I can help further).
My (unasked-for) advice: Be very, very wary (dare I say, skeptical) of “thought experiments”!!! They have not a reliable substitute for REALITY.
Tonyb says:
January 16, 2012 at 12:33 am
Regarding the snipping, see my comment here.
w.
<>
The second law applies specifically to entropy, and ISTM entropy increases even if thermal equilibrium is disturbed. I did search for “entropy” in your post, I could only find it in the comments.
I did also supply a real physical example of energy transfer from a cooler to a hotter object – Sun’s surface to Corona. Here too entropy increases as thermal equilibrium is disturbed. The thermal energy of the Corona isn’t internally generated, it’s supplied by the Sun, AIUI as radiation which is converted to heat.
Phil
Ooops! Change, “They have not …” to, “They are not …” in the last sentence of my previous comment.
Whoa, back up. There is generally no special thermal radiation that occurs at phase changes. Why would a phase change cause thermal radiation(not the release of latent heat that simply warms the surrounding air, but thermal radiation)?
? The release of latent heat can be by conduction, convection or radiation – if by radiation then the latent heat IS thermal radiation, thermal infrared. Thermal infrared is heat energy, thermal energy, on the move.
Hello Bart (January 15, 2012 at 9:57 pm)
Your concept of ‘explaining’ a physical paradox mathematically – using the same ‘relativity’ theory which gives rise to it – does not resolve the paradox. You do agree that paradoxes cannot exist in REALITY, don’t you?
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly January 15, 7:26 pm
I don’t know why I bother, but in response to my January 15, 6:28 pm & 6:35 pm, raising point 1), you wrote, with my bold added:
Oh Willis, I’m totally distressed, even after already smacking my wrist before this. It did not fully occur to me that your “thought experiment” of an ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLY TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE planet banned any evolutionary discussion that might extend into rationality in a more realistic model.
Zero value in raising my points 2) and beyond then?
Hi Willis,
I am pleased that you apprecieted the thought (and time) that went into my post, as so I yours.
Where I clearly have an issue is with your point 3) I quote in full:
“3. Even if the energy were partitioned in such a manner, what would prevent it from re-partitioning itself in the normal manner? The molecules are constantly colliding with each other, and exchanging energy in a constant averaging process. What is it that you think would prevent the energy from moving from where it is concentrated and spreading itself out evenly? ”
I cannot see (in your model) how the DALR can be attained from the isothermal distribution without heat being transfered from a region of lower temperature to one of a higher temperature wihout doing work, due to the 2nd law. I do not see anyway to avoid this argument or anyway for your system to spontaneously perform the required work. I also fail to see how in the isothermal case I that convection can occur without work being applied to the system.
That said, I must make my strongest answer in your favour, The DALR seems to represent the profile with the lowest energy. To make what I say clear: concentrating the kinetic energy lower down seems to cause the atmosphere as a whole to contract lowering the centre of mass. I have given this some consideration and think that is correct, if speculative. If that be the case the question is which consideration wins out. Equipartion of the total energy (and my speculative minimisation of it) which is favoured by the DALR, or maximising the entropy which is favoured by the isothermal.
In general I can make more arguments favouring your case than mine but I am sure you can see my concern that anything suggesting an issue with the 2nd Law, if true, must trump other arguments.
There are puzzles where the increase in entropy wins out over energetic considerations such as why the CO2 doesn’t all sink to the bottom of the atmosphere or the case of evaporative cooling. If you or anyone know of a treatment that considers diffusion (and or conduction) in a fluid subject to a gravitational field that might settle things.
Now I am not going to push this because it is irrelevant to the thrust of this thread, as I noted preciously, and I am not absolutely certain. However precisely because it is irrelevant I might suggest that you consider not nailing colours to the mast over this unless you are very certain. Roy Spenser does support isothermal and I would advise that you take it up with him directly as he has more at stake in this than I do.
I am content to agree to disagree and make no further comment, but please feel free to do otherwise. I am not here to rain on your parade.
Best Wishes
Alex
On re-reading N&Z, I cannot say that I agree that with a completely transparent atmosphere the heat of compression, which is what they are saying is ATE, the alternative to GHE, would remain. The surface would radiate to S-B equilibrium temperature.
As all their examples have atmospheres that contain some GHG’s they are on shaky ground by stating that their ATE is independent of them, however closely the planets’ temperatures align with pressure calculations alone.
My view is that for work to be done by insolation there must be radiation to cool the upper atmosphere to complete the cycle. As with the hydrological cycle that enables Hydro- Electricity.
This does not negate their premise that pressure is the dominant factor in ATE/ GHE, just that it is not the sole one, and we see from Earths GHG’s, a very small proportion can change the dynamics of atmosphere substantially.
No, convection isn’t prohibited. It just is not going to occur at equilibrium. If you were to perturb the temperature profile in any way that is not symmetric then convection would occur.
Willis said:
“Ah, I see the problem here. At equilibrium, the lowest level of the atmosphere is the exact same temperature as the surface. As a result, there is no flow of heat either into or out of the atmosphere.
The incoming solar energy flows into the surface and is radiated away again constantly. But no, the energy flow is not delayed or retained or slowed down by the atmosphere, because there is no heat flow between the atmosphere and the surface in either direction.”
That really is the problem so see my post at 1.34 am which anticipated that very point.
In fact there is a constant conductive energy exchange between surface and atmosphere as long as there is an atmosphere.
It is exactly the same process of delaying energy loss as is attributed to the radiative greenhouse effect but in this case it is caused by atmospheric density increasing collisional activity.
The molecules in the air don’t just stop dead in their tracks when the point of equilibrium is reached. That is what you are proposing.
For there to be a zero exchange the earlier process would have to be reversed. If you recall, the addition of the atmosphere first reduced the surface temperatue by diverting energy to conduction but over time the surface temperature recovered.
To get back to a zero exchange that process has to be reversed via a warming of the surface as the energy in the conductive process is recovered by the surface then a return back to the S – B temperature over time.
That reversal cannot take place while the atmosphere remains in place so there is a continuing conductive exchange between atmosphere and space and, finally, I think I can say that you have been wrong all along.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 16, 2012 at 1:35 am
The incoming solar energy flows into the surface and is radiated away again constantly. But no, the energy flow is not delayed or retained or slowed down by the atmosphere, because there is no heat flow between the atmosphere and the surface in either direction.
Why isn’t there a delay? As the atmosphere slows down radiation direct from the Sun because the atmosphere has density. The oceans slow this down even more. Off hand I don’t recall the figure, 14 times as much or something, but anyway, even more than the atmosphere, because it is denser than the atmosphere. It’s still travelling damned fast, just not as fast as it would be travelling through a vacuum.
Would you please consider that a transparent atmosphere has no clouds at all and therefore no cloud albedo? So the assumed 240W/m² ISR can’t be correct I think.
Otherwise you have to consider the clouds for the OLR as well, what of course would make the atmosphere limited transparent.
Not to do so is, from my point of view, implausible.
Tallbloke:
“No Willis, before we can move on to a discussion of the science, you need to acknowledge that Hans Jelbring defined his model planet as one which does not radiate to space,…”
That means that Jelbrings model is not “based on first principles of physics” in contradiction to what Jelbring says. Every body with T>0 radiates, so where’s the sense in this assumption?
If this is one of the assumptions, the conclusion would not belong to real, but a phantasy world.
Next time you introduce a model planet without conservation of energy?
I read up to comment 137, then by the time I came back we were up to 832, so apologies if this has already been pointed out.
Here’s a thing in all these discussions about Greenhouse effects, and how much greenhouse gasses increase the temperature of the planet. How much warming would there be in a world that had an atmosphere, no greenhouse gasses, but with water covering 70% of the surface? How much heating would the presence of water in its different states, have?
Only after this has been ascertained, can we attribute any “extra” heating to greenhouse gasses. The current meme is that without GHG our planet would be 33K cooler, but that includes the effect that water has on the atmosphere. This should be stripped out, and then we can see what GHG’s really add. If the current estimate of 90% of the warming is attributable to water vapour is true, then that means that the prescence of GHGs are actually adding 3K, not 33K.
How much the water is adding is important, because if it is 95% only 1.5K can be said to be attributable to GHGs. Yet I hear of no paper that definitively states that water on its own adds X amount of heating.
This point needs to be hammered home. Lumping in water with the other GHGs is done to deceive people into thinking that GHGs (which most people think of as CO2 and methane) are alone responsible for all of the warming.
I find several aspects of the Jelbring paper perplexing:
“[The globe] G and the atmosphere (AT) are surrounded by a concentric, tight, black spherical shell with a surface area (S).”
Why “black” and in what sense? Given the context one might infer that it means an emissivity of unity. No mention of whether the globe (G) is black is made.
“The energy content in the model atmosphere is fixed and constant since no energy can enter or leave the closed space. Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy. In this situation the atmosphere has reached energetic equilibrium. The crucial question is what temperature difference (GE) will exist between A and S?”
Here there is a clear indication that radiative processes are involved. From this I infer that along with the shell (S) at least one other component of the system is radiatively active. This seems to be problematic.
If the the shell (S) and the globe(G) both have non zero emissivities the difference between their temperatures must result in a net radiative flow from (G) to (S). Given that this temperature difference is meant to occur at the equillibrium state some mechanism must be transfering energy from (S) back to (G) up a temperature gradient which is problematic with respect to the 2nd Law.
On the other hand, if it is the atmosphere that is radiatively active then I must infer that it contains radiatively active gasses aka GHGs, which would be odd given the thrust of the paper. At any rate any radiative coupling inside the atmosphere would result in a net radiative flux in the direction of increasing height (lower temperatures). This is prone to the same 2nd Law problem as above.
Either (or both together) of these radiate couplings act to drive the system towards equalising temperatures and hence away from the DALR. This leads to the somewhat purplexing state of affairs that the GHE as described in the paper would be weakened by the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere.
I will note strongly that I do not see that the same issue would not true of the model used by Willis as his is not constrained by the total energenic isolation of the Jelbring model and GHGs would then radiate to deep space which tends to ensure adherence to the DALR.
Now this is pretty much by the bye as I do not see that Jelbring states the precise nature of the radiative processes that are mentioned in the quoted passege above. This is an issue as it leaves much for the readers to infer as best pleases them.
Alex
Why would anyone expect to get any significant amount of radiative heating of the amount of air one could fit in a heater. How could they possibly have isolated the much larger effect one would expect from conduction from the hot surfaces to the air? You obviously do not understand that the opacity to infrared of air increases with distance through the air, and that conduction efficiency depends upon proximity. If their chamber was the size of the earth the proportions would be quite different and most of the heating would be by radiation, not conduction with the sides of the chamber.
Negligible effect at a certain size compared to conduction at that scale does not equate to no effect.
To show yourself that opacity increases with distance try looking through a pane of glass as we normally do, then compare that with looking through one of the edges through the entire width. Aquarium glass appears clear when we look through the flat surface of around one quarter inch. Looking through a full eighteen inches edgewise and it is green. Same thing can be done with a glass of colored water. The deeper the water the darker the color.
The number of posters here who are ignorant of basic physics is astounding. Not only is it obvious you can’t understand the gibberish that Willis is criticizing in these obviously incorrect papers but you don’t understand how to basic everyday physics.
“The answer is that statement (1) is right and statement (2) wrong. Statement (2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement 2(a) is wrong. The seemingly paradoxical truth is that the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height””
Hmm.
It’s not a paradox if you include buoyancy of air packets.
If you had sole a molecule on a gravity body as it bounced higher it would lose kinetic energy- and gain it back as it fell.
If didn’t lose kinetic energy- it would simply escape the gravity of planet [you would have no atmospheres anywhere].
If you include air packets and buoyancy then packets could gain altitude and not
“cost” velocity or kinetic energy- other packets or other molecules are supporting this buoyancy.
A boat isn’t using up energy by floating on the water, but for boat to float it does need the water to be there.
Air packets are somewhat similar to a bubble of air in water. particularly when you consider that water can have air dissolved in it. Though differences densities with air and water are greater- so it’s dissimilar in that respect and I guess also dissimilar because of the high surface tension of water.
Willis – I found something by Tyndall the other day which I’m a bit reluctant to introduce because there’s this strange idea around which claims that shortwave visible heats land and oceans …
Tyndall, who knew the difference between light and heat and did much work with heat which he knew was the invisible thermal infrared, made the observation that:
… Are you issued a Taser in case some sexist starts getting obstreperous? Instead of “Police Constable”, does the “PC” on your funny hat mean “Politically Correct”?
Yes very funny indeed.
wayne: “jjthom, that is hugely appreciated and exactly at the right time. I sure needed that! Hope Willis and (others a bit confused) also read it.”
Willis: Listen, you unpleasant person. If you think I am confused, QUOTE MY WORDS that show my confusion. Your nasty throw-away insults do nothing but reveal the paucity of your knowledge and the depth of your self-doubt.
That is how it was meant. So please, don’t be unpleasant yourself. I thought you would like the book. It has some interesting statements on the question whether nitrogen radiates at all, not at all, or up in the air.
Just a thought ,I think the atmosphere would be stretched and compressed by the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun as the earth moves around its orbit and this would heat the atmosphere above its equilibrium temperature with the solid earth and we would not be able to assume that the atmosphere was warmed entirely by the solid earth.