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 …
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 16, 2012 at 11:17 am
One more thing: (…) You are one sick puppy, bro’, much sicker than we can help you with here. Go see a professional, your obsession with righting imagined offenses suffered by people you’ve never met must be painful to live with.
w.
======================
Gosh! I seem to have touched a nerve somewhere!
Stephen Wilde says:
January 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm
““IOW, how do you know that a nitrogen atmosphere will donate the 150W/m2 to the surface? How do you calculate that amount to be 150W/m2?”
I was setting up an example that fits Earthly figures just to show that it is possible.”
I understand this, but the fact that something may be *possible* does not at all establish that it actually takes place. Respectfully, to be engaging in science requires that you give sufficient detail to be able to tell *by using measurements of the real world* whether or not something that *might be* happening *actually is* happening.
If you are at all interested in convincing others to your POV, you need to focus on using real world measurements to demonstrate your point. In theory, absolutely anything may be possible, but only a small fraction of those possibilties can actually be uniquely demonstrated as being true using measurements of the real world.
Cheers, 🙂
shawnhet says:
January 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“Is it your contention that an infrared camera (ie a camera that forms an image using infrared radiation) will show the same picture of a balloon at the surface(after cooling to ambient) temperature as of that same balloon will at a height of 3km?”
No, that is not my contention at all. Actually, I have no contention, merely a question, viz: How do we know the full spectrum and radiation pattern of surface emissions, so that we may arrive at a truly full accounting of emitted power?
I have pointed out two ways in which I can see offhand that estimates of surface emissivity could be corrupted: 1) measurement of the partial spectrum and bootstrap estimation of the full spectrum using SB 2) spatial narrowing of the emissions pattern from surface roughness and absorptive obstacles.
To nail this down, we would need to take carefully controlled, full spectrum measurements across a truly representative sample of surface conditions with a narrow FOV sensor at multiple angular offsets to the surface normal. I am not aware of such data being available. If you are, by all means, share it.
“I understand this, but the fact that something may be *possible* does not at all establish that it actually takes place”
That is a two edged assertion.
This is a discussion blog, not an engagement in science despite the presence of some fine specialists.
Given that the physical principles that I am expounding on are pretty basic I think it is for those who support an alarmist position to do the proving.
I’d like to see established evidence for Willis’s non dynamic equilibrium with zero energy exchange between surface and atmosphere once equilibrium temperature is reached.
Without that his proposition is dead in the water in my humble opinion.
shawnhet says:
January 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“Respectfully, to be engaging in science requires that you give sufficient detail to be able to tell *by using measurements of the real world* whether or not something that *might be* happening *actually is* happening.”
What you are saying is that scientists in general have no obligation to consider tracking down leads which might tend to detract from their favored hypothesis unless evidence is presented fully formed and airtight by another party. Furthermore, that lack of utterly compelling evidence so presented otherwise elevates their hypothesis to fact.
This is the antithesis of the scientific method. A true scientist puts considerable effort into attempting to falsify his own hypothesis, and only calls it fact when he has exhausted all reasonable efforts at doing so.
Here’s something interesting to consider…the top of Mount Everest gets more incoming solar radiation than, pick a place, the Mojave Desert? I guess there’s less CO2 radiation broadcasting to the top of that mountain, so it’s colder.
If Higley7 (way) above at 1/13 10:27 et. al. after that didn’t include the required add-in elevator speech for transparent GHG-free (same as non-GHG) atmosphere thermal conduction, then I will (simple but may possibly be simpler & hope this effectively formats):
The non-GHG Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PET) works as follows:
• The surface of a planet has a temperature from Standard Planetary Gray Body energy.
• Some of that energy conducts to non-GHG atmosphere adjusting to equilibrium temperature with near-surface non-GHG atmosphere above the equilibrium temperature at TOA.
• Due to planet’s permanent gravity retaining & pressurizing any non-GHG atmosphere, its kinetic energy at surface is permanently higher than at surface of reduced pressure&volume atmosphere or no atmosphere SPBG.
• As a result of permanently exchanging kinetic energy from the near-surface conductive non-GHG atmosphere, planet’s surface would be permanently warmer than it would be in the complete absence of atmosphere. This works with earth & many near earth planets.
Willis’ quote:
“Now suppose we add an atmosphere to the (theoretical S-B temperature) 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.”
No mention of thermal conduction in those words. As others have written in this mega-thread, Willis’ surface radiation proof is too simple, it violates conservation of energy test as it is incomplete w/o thermal conduction from non-GHG PET which can resolve the conservation of energy (2nd Law) conundrum.
The non-GHG atmosphere SPGB surface will not radiate to space more energy than it receives since it will be cooled just enough by thermal conduction and thermal radiation to equilibrium temp. higher than theoretical S-B temperature due to the PET added surface KE of non-GHG atmosphere & gravity. Non-GHG TOA can achieve equilibrium temperature to space from thermal radiation.
Adding the GHGs for a real Earth atmosphere means we can now add Kirchoff’s specific frequency: emit, absorb. And the IPCC. And all the math needed to describe how many Kelvins thermal conduction and thermal radiation each add (by different, independent & yet to be blogged on physics) to avg. Earth temp. above SPBG only. Now do your thing. Oh, BTW:
——————————————————
Genghis says: 1/13 11:14PM
“The non greenhouse gas atmosphere is a perfect conduction insulator to space, it can’t radiate its heat out.
This doesn’t make sense. I would have written:
“The non greenhouse gas atmosphere is a perfect conduction insulator to space, it can’t conduct its heat out.”
The non-GHG TOA is matter and has a temperature. Therefore it can radiate (or absorb) heat to obtain temp. equilibrium with ~3K space as all matter emits thermal radiation above 0K.
“””””
Tim Folkerts says:
January 14, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Ed Fix mistakenly thinks: “Both, however, emit their own S-B radiation in a spectrum determined only by their temperature.”
Sorry Ed, but the ability to emit IR is the same as the ability to absorb IR. If this were not true, it would be easy to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Google “Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation” (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation) for more info. “””””
Tim,
Since YOU cited this Wiki reference to refute Ed Fix’s position; perhaps you would consider READING the wiki reference that you gave, and then make use of what they say, in your argument.
I just read YOUR wiki reference, purely out of curiosity; not necessity, and even your reference says that Kirchoff’s law requires equality off emission and absorption, WHEN THE SYSTEM IS IN EQUILIBRIUM. That means that the material in the system is in thermal equilibrium at a single Temperature, and in equilibrium with the radiation field.
Earth’s atmosphere is NEVER in thermal equilibrium, nor is it in equilibrium with the EM radiation field. The oceans are continually absorbing electromagnetic radiation, nearly all EM radiation that falls on it in fact. Yet the oceans are NOT a source of white light with a spectrum matching the incoming sunlight.
Problem is that the oceans are not in a state of equilibrium with the radiation field.
Kirchoff’s Law relating to emission and absorption HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO ANY PART OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, INCLUDING CLIMATE.
This thread is interminably bogged down with “discussions” and I hesitate to use that term, of matters that are unrelated in any way to the beginning subject matter, which apparently is some gravitational effect on climate.
As for the “Stefan-Boltzmann Equation or Formula”, that everyone is bandying around, like popcorn; they are talking about the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN CONSTANT, which is a fundamental CONSTANT of Physics; not something to be “junked” as Myrrh insists NASA did.
Moreover, it has a precisely known value:-
S-B Const, sigma = (pi)^2k^4 / 60h^3c^2 = 5.67051E-8 W / m^2K^4
It can also be obtained as the definite integral of the Planck Radiation Law for the Spectral Radiant Emittance of a BLACK BODY, from zero to infinity wavelength.
L = (2hc^2.lambda^-5) / (exp (hc/lambda.kT) -1)
A BLACK BODY is a non-existent ideal theoretical object, that has no defined properties other than it absorbs any and all electromagnetic radiation that falls on it.
The law can also be stated in terms of frequency as :-
L = (2hf^3c^-2) / (exp (hf/kT) – 1)
In particular, a black body has no specified atomic or molecular structure of any kind, nor any quantized energy levels of electrons or anything else. It is entirely a construct of the Statistical Mechanics of Classical Physics. No quantum Mechanics is required in the derivation of the Planck Law. The derivation is based on the application of the equipartition principle; not to the kinetic degrees of freedom of particles, as was used to investigate the heat capacity and specific heats of gases and solids; but rather an equipartition of energy among all of the frequencies of a continuum spectrum (not quantized frequencies)
Planck simply required that the energy assigned to any frequency be an integral number of “quanta” of energy at that frequency, where the size of the quantum is E = h f.
So the energy at some frequency is some integral number of times the quantum of energy AT THAT FREQUENCY.
This meant that at higher frequencies, the number of quanta at that frequency must diminish, compared to the number of quanta at some lower frequency, that complied with the (roughly) equipartition of the total energy among all frequencies.
The earlier attempts by Sir James Jeans, and Lord Raleigh, had allowed ANY (equipartitioned) continuous value of energy to exist at any frequency, which resulted in the energy at high frequencies increasing without limit.
So Planck did not specify the basic physical mechanism by which electromagnetic radiation could be emitted; just the statistical mechanics of it. It was the work of Heinrich Hertz and James Clark Maxwell that showed how electromagnetic waves could be propagated from a finite length conductor carrying a VARYING electric current.
Simplest way to think of it is to think of the electric and magnetic fields around the conductor rising and falling in sympathy with the increasing, and decreasing currents.If you think of it as the field expanding and contracting, which is not quite accurate, but easier to understand, then one can appreciate, that the velocity of that expansion and contraction is limited (to the velocity of light), so if you try to vary the current too rapidly or make the path longer, the fields end up not being able to collapse back completely on the wire (antenna), and a closed loop is formed in the field, which can then propagate away (at c ). It’s not unlike how soap bubbles disconnect from your soapy wire , when you move it faster than the velocity of sound in the medium, can move the soap film.
Well that’s probably simple enough for the lay folks to follow, and the PhDs can just live with it, or offer their own version.
It helps somewhat, if one is a Ham Radio fan (I’m not) or if one studied Radio-Physics at some University. (one of MY majors).
In any case, the varying electric current flowing over a non zero distance (antenna length) is all that is required to radiate EM waves. The physical antenna is not necessary, if you can simply have a flow of electric charge. And it is trivial to see that a varying electric current is identical to the acceleration of electric charge. Anna v was not quite accurate in saying you need charges moving in some ambient electric field; a free electron that is accelerating will radiate. Now I will give Anna back her gold star in that pedantically, you can’t have an accelerating electric charge UNLESS you have an electric field to kick it along (or slow it down)or you have a magnetic field to steer it around in a circle, which is a continuous centripetal acceleration.
Now you see, Anna v is a particle Physicist, who understands accelerators; so she knows that stuff, and it was nice to see her chime into some of the messes up above.
So the long and the short of it is that gases can and do absorb and emit a thermal continuum radiation spectrum, that is spectrally governed (spectrum envelope)by the Planck formula, and the direct source of that emission is the acceleration of the electric charges in atoms or molecules THAT OCCURS WHILE THEY ARE IN COLLISIONS WITH EACH OTHER.
Those collisions are a direct consequence of the TEMPERATURE. It is the collisions that are the reason for the radiation not the kinetic energies of the particles. A single molecule or atom in free flight and not colliding with anything emits no radiation; but then absent COLLISIONS it also has NO TEMPERATURE.
Now at ordinary atmosphere Temperatures and pressures, the velocities are modest, and the collision rates are too, so the amount of energy radiated per collision is not much per molecule.
Phil has several times referred to the relative importance of such collision induced emissions (from gases) and the molecular resonance lines and bands of the GHG molecules, that have a sizeable electric dipole moment when disturbed from their geometrically symmetrical ground state for CO2 for example. H2O of course has a permanent dipole moment, which is why it is THE premier green house gas.
Ken Coffman says:
It would probably make skeptics look a little better in the eyes of scientists if some of them, like you, did not engage in silly “strawman” arguments. There is no controversy about the fact that there is a lapse rate in the troposphere (although apparently it is something that Nikolov and Zeller chose to completely ignore when they added convection to the simple radiative model of the greenhouse effect such that it drove the temperature to an isothermal state with altitude).
However, the existence of the lapse rate does not allow you to disobey energy conservation. In the absence of an IR-absorbing atmosphere, the fact that the Earth+atmosphere must radiate back into space the same power it receives from the sun places a constraint on what the SURFACE TEMPERATURE will be. It is only when the atmosphere absorbs IR radiation and hence the effective radiating level is somewhere up in the atmosphere that the lapse rate comes in to help determine what the surface temperature will be.
Martin A says:
January 16, 2012 at 2:18 pm
You did. You walked in here and immediately wanted to tell me that I was a bully and someone who insults women, when my comment was offered as a jest and nothing more. The women in my life would unanimously say that your accusation is a sick joke.
So, I figured, make peace, so I apologized to Louise, figuring that would a) demonstrate my sincerity, and b) make you take your paternalistic protection of some unknown woman elsewhere, hopefully out of my thread.
Then, after AT YOUR REQUEST I apologized to Louise just in case she had been offended, you told me my apology was grossly inadequate, and you took me to task over that imagined failure.
In other words you’ve been acting like an arrogant dickwad since you opened your mouth on the subject … and now you are surprised that I am offended when you insult me and you act like a total douche?
Yeah, you touched a nerve, d’uh. You are an irritating jerkwagon who goes out of his way to pompously and patronizingly lecture people he’s never met about their supposed moral failings.
Finally, the simple fact that you would expect such unpleasant, intrusive actions not to touch a nerve, that’s why I said you are one sick puppy.
w.
Trick says:
January 16, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Trick, you’ve missed something very fundamental about my proof. My proof ignores the “PET” and whatever else you might think makes the surface temperature rise. It says nothing about the mechanism of temperature rise.
Instead, it focuses on the consequences of the temperature rise, and shows that they violate conservation of energy.
So it doesn’t matter what you might think I omitted in the mechanism, whether it is “PET” or something else. If any mechanism increases the surface temperature with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere, the surface will be radiating more to space than it is absorbing, and that is a violation of conservation of energy.
w.
Bill Hunter says:
January 16, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Phil. says:
January 16, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Jelbring’s model is nonsense which bears no relationship to reality of any kind.
His model involves a planet surrounded by an atmosphere which is in turn contained by a non-transparent shell at a density altitude of 0.1atm.
Neither the shell nor the planet is allowed to radiate, J seems to believe that this means the shell is black. Also the shell and planet surface have negligible thermal mass.
The atmosphere is heated by the planet by conduction and convection and so achieves the dry lapse rate between the planet and the shell. (Presumably the planet has an internal source of heat).
He defines this lapse rate as the ‘Greenhouse effect’ and because this is dependent on g therefore the real and totally unrelated Greenhouse effect must be too! The guy is completely out to lunch, he believes that no physical laws are violated in the construction of this model!”
I guess it is correct he believes no physical laws are violated. Couldn’t the internal source of heat be of the sort that heats the gas giants before they ignite from getting too big and therefore too hot? Dr Brown here described such a process if I read him right.
What he believes is not the point, the internal source of heat is not the issue.
A solid surface at a non-zero temperature but which doesn’t radiate i.e. emissivity of 0?
Just how this is supposed to be a model for a real planet is a mystery since real surface emissivities are far closer to 1. Never mind the lid on the atmosphere which also has an emissivity of zero and has negligible thermal mass compared with the atmosphere!
Then he decides because he has no radiation involved in the model to call the temperature lapse rate the ‘greenhouse effect’, talk about a strawman.
Bart:”No, that is not my contention at all. Actually, I have no contention, merely a question, viz: How do we know the full spectrum and radiation pattern of surface emissions, so that we may arrive at a truly full accounting of emitted power?”
Well, it seems to me that one way to check this is to do the sorts of tests I outlined last time which is to compare the IR emissions at different temperatures. Personally, I doubt that there is any substantial effect here, as this would be easy to measure and would make anyone who finds contradictory evidence pretty famous.
““Respectfully, to be engaging in science requires that you give sufficient detail to be able to tell *by using measurements of the real world* whether or not something that *might be* happening *actually is* happening.”
What you are saying is that scientists in general have no obligation to consider tracking down leads which might tend to detract from their favored hypothesis unless evidence is presented fully formed and airtight by another party. Furthermore, that lack of utterly compelling evidence so presented otherwise elevates their hypothesis to fact.”
I agree with you to the extent that everyone should be open to new possibilities, but treating possibilities as hypotheses requires some evidentiary basis. I don’t think anyone is asking for airtight and fully formed evidence, but some evidence is necessary IMO. It is one thing to buy and infrared camera and check radiation vs. temp levels at various times and temperatures, collect evidence that shows SB to be invalid and go from there. It is an entirely different thing to say that SB might be wrong, so we should throw all theories that reference it out the window. SO far, no one has provided any disconfirming evidence of SB while there is plenty (IMO) of confirming evidence(such as photos taken by infrared cameras) of it.
Stephen Wilde:”Given that the physical principles that I am expounding on are pretty basic I think it is for those who support an alarmist position to do the proving.”
The point is you can expound on all the physical principles you want but you can’t show how these expositions uniquely support what happens in the real world. OTOH, the GHE does make predictions about the real world (such as a difference in the emission of radiation from the surface and the planet as a whole) that seem to do this. The mere fact that it is possible that some vague non-GHE process could also act in the same way *does not* put these two theories on the same footing. Here’s a challenge for you: design an experiment that given a particular set of observations would prove you right and the GHE wrong.
Cheers, 🙂
Stephen Wilde says:
January 16, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“or we can explain how a nitrogen atmosphere would actually produce the difference in emission btw the surface and the planet as a whole.”
By storing solar energy in kinetic form (originally acquired by conduction from the surface) and then engaging in a dynamic conductive energy interchange with the surface.
So 240Wm2 comes to the surface from the sun and the surface radiates out 240W/m2 to space to achieve radiative balance.
Meanwhile the surface conducts 150W/m2 to the atmosphere and receives the same in return to achieve balance in the conductive energy exchange.
So the surface actually receives 240 from the sun + 150 from the atmosphere = 390
And radiates 240 to space plus conducting 150 to the atmosphere = 390
So the surface temperature is equal to the temperature of the adjacent atmosphere, and there is no net heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. I.e. Thermodynamic equilibrium.
Willis: uptheresomewhere you referred to Einstein’s thought experiments. Now, one of the things Einstein’s work emphasized is that experimental evidence is necessary before any theory becomes acceptable. But you seem to be avoiding the most important part of the N&Z and Jelbring’s (and Huffman’s) treatises; i.e., they provide empirical evidence for their “pet theories.” You do not.
Can’t post on this thread anymore; too long/slow.
Willis, I prefer Roy Spencer’s review of N&K’s theory to your attempt to prove their theory wrong using a thought experiment.It is clear that you have no respect for them .What did they do to you?
So you are entitled to your opinion on the merit of their theory but please don’t try to bully others into accepting your view.
No, it’s not correct. That emissivity is only valid for a path length of 1 cm. Given the source, I’m not at all sure that it’s correct even for a 1 cm path, but I’m not willing to pay Spectralcalc for a one month subscription to prove it.
CO2 has lots of absorption lines. The further you go from the center of the band, the weaker the lines. The center of the band may be opaque, but the wings aren’t. When you increase the concentration, you are increasing absorption in the wings. Science of Doom has lots more detail, specifically in this article. Caballero is a good start on radiative transfer, but you should really get something that goes into more detail like Grant Petty, A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, 2nd Edition, Sundog Publishing. Available direct from the publisher at a discount from retail.
Heard in an elevator:
1.) The relationship between temperature , pressure, and volume is given by the ideal gas law, which can be put in the form: T=PV/R. Lets use R = 0.0820 L atm/K mol.
2.) If we have one liter of a gas at one atmosphere, the T must be increased by 1/0.0820 = 12.2 K
3.) True, not 33 K, but not 0, either.
4.) Cannot have a gas at 1 atmosphere at absolute zero, no?
I agree with you and Alexander Harvey. I would add one condition, though, local thermal equilibrium. Once the altitude gets high enough and pressure low enough that LTE no longer applies, all bets are off. For a planetary atmosphere similar in size to the Earth’s atmosphere, that would be somewhere between 30 and 100 km altitude. Since the thought experiment defines the surface as isothermal, convection will stop when the lapse rate reaches the adiabatic rate. After that point, there is only conduction. Conduction is driven only by the temperature gradient and, as long as LTE holds, cares nothing about gravity or gravitational potential energy. If that weren’t so, the partial pressure of CO2 at the surface would be higher than it is and the volumetric mixing ratio would decline with altitude, or as someone else put it, all the CO2 would fall to the bottom of the atmosphere.
Bart,
You will need to do more than make an assertion about the Laplacian in spherical geometry to prove that an isothermal atmosphere is unstable. The atmosphere is a very thin shell around the planet and the planar approximation is quite good.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm
(…)
In other words you’ve been acting like an arrogant dickwad since you opened your mouth on the subject … and now you are surprised that I am offended when you insult me and you act like a total douche?
Yeah, you touched a nerve, d’uh. You are an irritating jerkwagon who goes out of his way to pompously and patronizingly lecture people he’s never met about their supposed moral failings.
(…)
==============
It must be really awful to be so readily provoked to such a level of anger.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 16, 2012 at 3:16 pm
“If any mechanism increases the surface temperature with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere, and the surface energy states settle into the same configuration that they would have in the absence of the atmosphere, then the surface will be radiating more to space than it is absorbing, and that is a violation of conservation of energy.”
Fixed that for you. Do you yet see that you have been begging the question all along?
shawnhet says:
January 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“Personally, I doubt that there is any substantial effect here, as this would be easy to measure and would make anyone who finds contradictory evidence pretty famous.”
Well, hell, let’s just end scientific inquiry altogether, as there’s nothing left to discover. If it hadn’t been, lots of people could be famous. Since they aren’t, there’s nothing left to discover. QED.
Conduction and convection of heat from the Earth’s surface are enormous. To blithely assume that has no effect when there is an avenue open for it to do so makes no sense to me.
“It is an entirely different thing to say that SB might be wrong, so we should throw all theories that reference it out the window.”
Nobody is saying SB is wrong, merely that it has not been demonstrated to be entirely applicable to the problem at hand.
Phil. says:
January 16, 2012 at 3:51 pm
“So the surface temperature is equal to the temperature of the adjacent atmosphere, and there is no net heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. I.e. Thermodynamic equilibrium.”
(Facepalm) This is so basic.
Not of the surface stripped of the atmosphere. The surface/atmosphere system is in equilibrium, not the surface alone. Just as you cannot break out the pieces of a mechanical linkage in a free body diagram without including the contact forces, you cannot ignore the temperature gradient at the interface when you separate the parts of the system.
Bart says:
January 16, 2012 at 4:54 pm
shawnhet says:
January 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“Nobody is saying SB is wrong, merely that it has not been demonstrated to be entirely applicable to the problem at hand.”
Or, at least, reasonably applicable.
“Well, it seems to me that one way to check this is to do the sorts of tests I outlined last time which is to compare the IR emissions at different temperatures.”
Nope. You need to measure a reasonably continuous spectrum to determine its shape, and you have to integrate the power over the entire hemisphere, not just over one spot.
“You need to measure a reasonably continuous spectrum to determine its shape, and you have to integrate the power over the entire hemisphere, not just over one spot.”
And, it has to be across representative environments: calm and choppy seas, wet and dry land in mountains and plains and everything in between, calm and windy deserts, etc… And, these have to be weighted in the final calculation to approximate all the different surface states of the Earth on a typical day.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 16, 2012 at 10:19 am
Myrrh says:
January 16, 2012 at 1:59 am
Willis: 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)?
Me: ? 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.
Willis: Myrrh, you are claiming that;
1. The imaginary planet described in the head post has nitrogen that for some reason will liquify in the atmosphere. I don’t know why it would do that, but that is your claim.
2. You also claim that the latent heat from the liquification of nitrogen is emitted as thermal radiation.
Bro’, you desperately need some citations for those claims. I think both of those things are fantasies. Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat. Since what we’re talking about is nitrogen liquifying at something like -170C or wherever nitrogen liquifies, the amount of radiation will be microscopic.
===========
Quote my words Willis!!
You may well be talking about it with someone, but I’ve said nothing about nitrogen liquefying or claimed that it’s in the head post’s atmosphere…, at any temperature. 🙂
My post was referring to your exact words as I quoted them. Nothing more.
If it wasn’t becoming so irritating it would be still be funny, the same mistake which has been promoted as a fisicsfiction meme by those pushing AGW – thinking heat is something different from thermal radiation.. That’s why so many here can’t tell the difference between heat and light.
So, to quote your words again exactly, I’m now referring to what you said here:
“Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat.”
If that latent heat is released in a vacuum where it must be radiated out, you and your ilk think it isn’t heat!
What is it then?? A few squiggly lines?
If you would all just stick with basic physics about this you wouldn’t get so confused.
Latent heat is called latent heat because it is the heat released or absorbed because of a phase change. It’s the latent that’s descriptive here, about which process, form, state the heat is in. Heat is heat, how it’s transmitted doesn’t change it. Conduction, convection and radiation are likewise such descriptions. The heat is the same.
So, to quote your words again exactly, I’m referring to what you said: “Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat.”
Is gobbledegook.
What the heck is “latent radiation”? (p.s. while waiting to post this I looked it up and the only reference to such a thing is in those who’ve had chemotherapy treatment, which then later may cause complications etc.)
Here, for anyone interested to learn something about HEAT:
Italics as used in the piece.
Further:
So, heat is the same thing in all of this! It is the kinetic energy of some system in the random movement of atoms and molecules. Heat is the thermal energy as in the Sun, it is the thermal energy leaving the Sun in the form of radiation. These are not different kinds of heat, they are different descriptions about heat, just like latent is a description about heat. The HEAT they are describing is the SAME THING.
“Thermal energy and heat are often confused. Rightly so because they are physically the same thing”
Thermal means of heat, that’s a description of the energy. The energy described is that which is heat.
Kinetic means of or due to motion, it’s a description of the energy Kinetic energy is thermal energy is heat in the total of the random movement of atoms and molecules.
“Young just called it energy. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) added the adjective “kinetic” to separate it from “potential energy”, which was named by William Rankine (1820-1872) in 1853.
http://physics.info/energy-kinetic/
Same page this is what it says about latent heat:
“Heat absorbed or released as the result of a phase change is called latent heat. There is no temperature change during a phase change, thus there is no change in the kinetic energy of the particles in the material. The energy released comes from the potential energy stored in the bonds between the particles.”
So, Heat in the form of radiation is thermal infrared. Thermal infrared is the thermal energy of the Sun which has left the Sun and is on the move, it is the HEAT of the Sun on the move.
Visible Light is not Heat.
Visible, Light, is not the thermal energy of the Sun, is not the total kinetic energy of the Sun, it is not heat of the Sun on the move. If it was, it would be called Heat.
The visible light is being created by the heat in the Sun, it’s an effect of heat.
Thermal infrared is the thermal energy of the Sun which has left the Sun and is on the move in the form of radiation. The thermal energy of the Sun is Heat. Therefore, thermal infrared which is thermal radiation is HEAT ON THE MOVE.
Heat, thermal infrared, thermal energy in the form of radiation, is what you can feel radiating out to you from a stove even if the stove isn’t hot enough to produce visible light; the heat you feel radiating out to you from a hot pavement; the heat you feel from the Sun. It is invisible.
You cannot feel visible Light.
Apologies for the italic gone haywire in my last post, it’s something to do with using blockquotes, but I haven’t yet fathomed it. I was going to offer to repost it to make it easier to read.