NOTE: This op-ed was rejected by the New York Times. It was submitted as a response by The president of The Heartland Institute in reply to Fred Krupp’s Wall Street Journal essay. I reproduce it here in hopes of it reaching a wide audience. Feel free to reproduce it elsewhere. – Anthony
by Joe Bast
Dear Fred,
I read your August 7 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” with great interest. As you know, The Heartland Institute is a leading voice in the international debate over climate change. The Economist recently called us “the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
First, I welcome you to the effort to bring skeptics and alarmists together. We need your help. We have been trying to do this for many years.
For example, we ran more than $1 million in ads calling on Al Gore to debate his critics. He repeatedly refused. We hosted seven international conferences on climate change and invited alarmists to speak at every one, the most recent one held in Chicago on May 23-24. Only one ever showed up, and he was treated respectfully.
Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist, and when opinion polls and political decisions revealed that strategy wasn’t working, by denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”
Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us. Prominent global warming alarmist Peter Gleick stole corporate documents from us and circulated them with a fake and highly defamatory memo purporting to describe our “climate change strategy.” Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20.
Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists who affiliate with The Heartland Institute, while the Center for American Progress and 350.org are using them to demonize corporations that fund us. No group on the left, including yours, has condemned these activities.
In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.
For example, it is impossible for skeptics and alarmists to come together so long as alarmists pretend – as you do, Fred, in this very essay – that recent weather trends in one part of the world lend proof to their theories and predictions. Anyone familiar with the science knows this claim belongs in the kindergarten of the climate science debate.
Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, second because they are notoriously unreliable, and third because they tell us nothing about what is causing warming or cooling.
You are asking, in effect, that skeptics simply “shut up and sit down,” that they concede as being true the most flawed and unlikely assumptions of the alarmist movement, and that they endorse policies that are wholly unnecessary and extremely costly.
While I cannot presume to speak for all global warming skeptics, I think I can channel the opinion of most when I say, “hell no!”
Your overture comes at a time when the science backing global warming alarmism is crumbling, as amply demonstrated by the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change (NIPCC). International negotiations for a new treaty are going nowhere. Public opinion in the U.S. and other countries decisively rejects alarmism. Politicians here and abroad who vote for cap and trade or a carbon tax rightly fear being tossed out of office by voters who know more about the issue than they do.
Your appeal to “restart the discussion” would have skeptics snatch failure from the jaws of victory. I’m sure you understand why we won’t go there.
I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:
First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.
Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.
Third, given the rapid and unstoppable increase in greenhouse gas emissions by Third World countries, it is pointless for the U.S. and other developed countries to invest very much in reducing their own emissions.
Fourth, tax breaks and direct subsidies to solar and wind power and impossible-to-meet renewable power mandates and regulatory burdens on coal-powered electricity generation plants have been disastrous for taxpayers, businesses, and consumers of electricity, and ought to be repealed.
Fifth, the world is entering an era of fossil fuel abundance that could lift billions of people out of poverty and help restart the U.S. economy. We have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. Basic human compassion and common sense dictate that fear of global warming ought not be used to block access to this new energy.
Agree to these five simple propositions, Fred, and we can begin to work together to address some of the real environmental problems facing the U.S. and the world.
Greg House says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:17 pm
davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
===========================================
??? It is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s it? That’s all you got? Dr Grimsrud has presented to you a factual explanation of how CO2 warms the earth. Either accept it or refute it.
apologies Greg, I missed it. browser issues. reading it now.
To Greg House,
You asked for experimental evidence of the warming of the surface by the emissions of IR-active molecules in the atmosphere. See
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
for lots of surface to atmosphere measurements including one looking into a cloud free nighttime sky in Canada in February.
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others? The energy of the photon must be conserved and will be as it changes to heat.
I think I can see where your problem lies in not seeing how a cold object can warm a warmer object. You are thinking only of energy transfer via the collisions of matter. Energy transfer via the emission and absorption of photons provides the more important means of energy transfer in the atmosphere, however.. Photons travel at the speed of light, of course, and will dominate energy transfer in a gas – as long as emitters and absorbers (that is, IR active molecules) are present. If they are not present, then the convective motion of the major gases determines the much slower rate of energy transfer within that gas and then, yes, I can imagine that energy would then flow only from warmer to cooler regions.
Greg House;
So, Eric, do you have something real proving that your explanation is not a science fiction? And please, no more explanations, experiments only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric, it appears you’ve failed to convince Greg House. The ball is in your court.
GregHouse,
For the experimental evidence you seek, see:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
and many other sources. I recommend this one because of its extensive explanations of the measurements shown. Note especially the IR emissions from a cloud free nighttime sky in Canada in February – all due to the permanent GHG’s with little confusion from water vapor at that low temp.
I think I might understand why it is difficult to understand how energy can be transferred from cold to warmer regions. You are perhaps thinking only in terms of energy transfer by the motions and collisions of molecules. In a gas, E transfer can be much faster if emitters and absorbers (that is, IR-active molecules) are present. If they are not present, then yes, the motion and collisions of molecules provide the only and much slower means of energy transfer.
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others?
=================================================
You “Of course”, Eric, is not a substitution for a scientific verifiable experiment. I did not ask you “do they?”, I asked to present… you know… Just focus.
Come on, Eric, there is no way around it. I am sure you have understood my “And please, no more explanations, experiments only“.
richardscourtney;
….patience…. madness…. method….
Entropic Man:
Your post at August 15, 2012 at 3:50 pm says in total:
I was NOT trying to offer you any reward for your rudeness.
I asked you to justify your blatant falsehoods.
And you have offered the quoted post as your excuse for not being able to substantiate your lies. Poor, very poor even by your standards.
And at August 15, 2012 at 4:06 pm you write
The oil industry, the Al Gore foundation, the Sierra Club, etc..
Oil companies fund much global warming scare-mongering; e.g. BP provided funds to create the Climate Research Unit (CRU) from when the ‘climategate’ emails were linked. Al Gore’s organisation has established a fund solely to train and to fund warmist trolls, etc.
But, since you have refused to attempt justification of other falsehoods you posted on this thread, I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.
Richard
James:
Sincere thanks for your post addressed to me at August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm.
As I am sure you have seen, on this thread several have addressed my view that
“The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.”
But only Gail Combs seems to have understood my argument.
You have explained your view to me, and you start that explanation by saying of me that I am “not seeing the U.S. paradigm correctly. There are two issues”.
Thankyou. That is a clear start of a statement of the difference between our views which provides opportunity for rational debate instead of the ‘argument by assertion’ which has dominated discussion of the matter on this thread. And I am belabouring my gratitude for it to emphasise that I think your behaviour is how we should examine disagreements in the hope of learning from each other.
You say:
“Irrelevant”? Really? Here we differ.
My major concern about the AGW-issue is that it is destroying the conduct and the reputation of science.
We know what effect Lysenkoism had in Soviet Russia: millions dead. And the false ‘science’ of AGW has already had Lysenkoist effect with the biofuels fiasco resulting in food riots in many places. The potential effect is horrific. World population is most conservatively estimated to increase by 2.6 billion before declining around the middle of this century. Those extra people need additional energy supply for them to survive and that need for additional energy requires increased use of fossil fuels. The AGW-scare demands policies for reducing use of fossil fuels. If the Lysenkoist ‘science’ of AGW is not defeated then pressure will continue for adoption of policies which would kill billions of people, mostly children. Simply, the Lysenkoist AGW ‘science’ is intended to justify policies which would make relatively insignificant the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf H and Stalin.
Furthermore, we have the benefits of modern life as a result of science. The Lysenkoism of AGW ‘science’ is already damaging the reputation of all science. The further advance of science needs science to retain its reputation. And the future peoples of the world need the – not yet imagined – benefits that science has yet to provide.
But I recognise that for many it is the politics – not the science – of AGW which concerns them. You say
I understand and I agree with all of that. But, with respect, I fail to see why that requires a simple left-right divergence on the AGW issue. It only exists in the US: elsewhere people on all ‘sides’ of the AGW issue exist across the political spectrum.
If Republicans and Democrats want to debate, dispute and compete to enact policy then they will. But why drive away potential allies?
I think Senator Inhofe has a more sensible approach.
Senator Inhofe is most interested in the politics – not the science – because he is a politician. But he has done much study to become conversant with the science if only to refute silly claims about what the science says.
And Senator Inhofe is a right-wing US Republican Senator while I am a left-wing British socialist, but he has quoted me on the floor of the US Senate.
It seems to me that there are three important political principles which are relevant here.
1. As Machiavelli observed, enemies need to be destroyed but an attempt to convert them to friends is desirable before they are destroyed because it is better to have live friends than dead enemies.
2. One needs to keep one’s friends close and one’s enemies closer.
And
3. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I hope I have expressed my views of this as clearly as you expressed yours.
Richard
….patience…. madness…. method….
richardscourtney says:
August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am
I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.
———————————–
I go out to my archery club for an evening ( European time) and come back to abuse!
You leave in an impossible position. If I respond to your request for further discussion of the Stern Review , you will ignore it as the output of a “paid warmist troll” and my time will have been wasted. If I do not respond you flame me again. Again, my apologies for entering areas on which you seem hypersensitive.
Though you will probably not believe me I am here by choice. I choose now to discontinue this conversation.
Valerie Rawlinson says:
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way.
The word “sustainable” has been one of those adopted by politicans to be used in whatever way they like. Including in ways which are mutually exclusive with any definition in a dictionary.
If anything generating electricity using steam turbines (regardless of if the water is boiled by burning stuff or nuclear fission) is far more “sustainable” than wind/solar/waves.
For one thing maintanance costs are likely to be orders of magnitude lower and supply can be matched to demand. The latter being a rather fundermental point of electric power.
If the actual issue were fossil fuel usage then nuclear is the obvious alternative. Followed by burning waste materials. (Either as is or in the case of suitable waste feeding to methane producing bacteria.)
Ericgrimsrud presents a radiative explanation for atmospheric warming which was once believed to be the source of heating in terrestrial greenhouses. To quantify the argument, imagine a greenhouse without glass. If the incoming radiation is W, the interior must radiate W out.
Now add the glass. It will pass incoming and absorb outgoing radiation. Half of the absorbed radiation will be returned to the interior. So, the outgoing radiation will be reduced to W/2, and the surface will receive the original W plus W/2. The additional back-radiation will heat the interior until it radiates 2W, when the original balance will have been restored. (W in, 2W radiated from the interior, W back from the glass, W out, Page 18 of Global Warming by John Houghton, for example).
The Stefan-Bolzmann equation relates radiative energy to temperature. Radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. So, if radiation doubles, the temperature will increase by the fourth root of 2, or 1.19, or 19%.
So, does this actually happen? No, it does not. How do I know? Because 100 years ago R W Woods built two identical greenhouses, on of glass and the other of rock-salt, which does not absorb outgoing radiation. The two greenhouses reached almost identical temperatures, because they both eliminated convective cooling from their interiors.
But if the facts do not agree with the theories, so much the worse for the facts. The experiment is old and might not have been done properly. So, ericgrimstud, let us apply the same argument to your multi-slab atmosphere.
Substitute a singe slab atmosphere for the glass, and the planet surface for the greenhouse interior, and you get a surface temperature of 303K, which is reasonable if you allow for some direct transmission from the surface to space.
But, as you say, the atmosphere absorbs radiation rapidly over a short distance. Introduce a second layer, balance the flows, and the surface radiation becomes 3W. The temperature ratio to a bare rock becomes the fourth root of 3, and the temperature 335K. Three layers, equally plausible, produce a surface temperature of 360K.
If n is the number of layers into which you divide the atmosphere, the ratio of Tsurface to Ttop is the fourth root of (n+1). It is easy to prove, and is set as a problem in Grant Petty’s book on Atmospheric Radiation, Page 144.
So, as T and G asserted years ago, most of what is written about greenhouse global warming is nonsense. You will find your theory repeated in Eli Rabetts “rebuttal” of the famous T and G paper, with two layers in the atmosphere.
So how does the atmosphere warm the surface? Principally via the lapse rate, the increase of temperature with pressure, which is a function of gravity and specific heat.
Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot). You can observe the effect on a car temperature indicator by driving up a hill, at about 6 degrees per kilometre of altitude. It has nothing to do with radiation.
So why does any scientist think that additional CO2 will increase surface temperatures? Because of the “higher is colder” theory, as follows.
If we add CO2 to the top of the atmosphere, it will act as a kind of radiative insulation, impeding the escape of energy to space. The effective emission level – the average level at which the earth’s energy is radiated to space – will rise. The effective emission temperature, because of the lapse rate, will fall.
At the lower emission temperature, outgoing radiation will be reduced, and the whole system, including the surface, must warm (via the sun) to compensate.
This idea is plausible, and allows all the energy transfers involved to increase entropy, in accordance with the second law. However, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever to confirm the theory or quantify its effect. There is much to the contrary in radio-sonde and satellite data (UAH mid-troposphere, for example).
Entropic man:
I see you are still trolling. Your post at August 16, 2012 at 3:58 am misquotes me as saying at August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am
when I actually wrote
Those falsehoods which you refuse to justify are your lies about the Stern Report. But you use your misquotation of me as an excuse to continue to refuse to justify those lies.
You are one of the worst slimey trolls it has ever been my misfortune to observe, and I am now convinced that you are paid to conduct your despicable trolling.
Richard
Friends:
I write to explain why I disbelieve the assertion of Entropic Man that he is not a paid troll.
At the listed time of August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am I wrote my post which Entropic Man answered. The local time here in the UK was 9:04 am: n.b. I made my post early this morning.
Subsequently, about 3 hours later At August 16, 2012 at 3:58 am Entropic Man made his reply. That would have been 11:58 am UK time: i.e. about noon. But in that post he says;
Clearly, he is claiming he resides in Europe and returned to find my post after having been out for the evening. But my post was in the morning and he replied to it before the evening (wherever he abides in Europe).
Obviously, Entropic man is a fake. He claims to be in Europe but he is not. He claims to have made a post in the evening but he did not. And he claims to not be a paid troll and I don’t believe it.
Richard
ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm
“So let’s now consider that first layer of say 10 meters of the atmosphere immediately above the ground. In this layer, absorption would, of course, be occurring. Emission would also be occurring due to the presence of IR-active molecules – at all of the vibrational frequencies of the IR molecules. AND these emissions would be in all directions – including back downward towards to surface and upwards.
Now, lets consider the next 10 meters of air above that. It will also be absorbing some of the IR radiation coming from below – now coming from both the surface of the Earth and from that layer of air immediately below. And its IR-active molecules will also be emitting IR radiation of all directions. The intensity of those emissions will depend on the temperature of that air mass – as did those of the air mass and surface below it. The emissions from each air mass will decrease with a decrease in temperature.
Now lets consider the next thousands or so 10-meter layers of air above the previous one: same story as before, repeated again and again, until we reach an altitude where the air is so thin that most of the upwardly directed IR does then make it out into the universe.
(Another Time Out: In the troposphere, temperature decreases with increase altitude until at the top of the Troposphere (about 8 miles above where I live), the temp is about -50 C. Then above that altitude, in the stratosphere, temperature increases until it approaches Earth-surface-like magnitudes at its top. (this T increase is due to the absorption of incoming UV light by stratospheric ozone, O3 – which since it has 3 atoms will also be an absorber and emitter of IR radiation).”
That’s all well and good, what’s also important is the rate of energy transfer. For an equal photon flux(which it can’t be), 1 hour of incoming solar IR at .5u, would require 20 hours to radiate out at 10u (61F), and 26hrs at 13u (-58F). Since the average daily temperature increase in the is ~18F, and the average daily falling temperature is an almost identical 18F ( http://dkue3ufa3e1f8.cloudfront.net/files/images/Global%20Annual%201940-2010.jpg ), the scenario you describe is physically impossible. Here’s a graph ( http://www.science20.com/files/images/1950-2010%20D100_0.jpg ) of the difference between daily rising and falling temps for >23North Lat, you can see how the slightly different ratio of day/night changes the balance of rise/fall as the seasons change. As soon as night starts increasing, falling temp average is greater than the rising average. And yet averaged out over a year, they are almost identical.
“The magnitude of this so called “GHG effect” will increase with increases in the concentrations of the GHGs. The effect is essentially never “saturated” – as evidenced by the surface temperature of Venus (about 400C) which is only about 1/3 closer to the Sun.”
Venus also has ~300,000 times as much CO2 in it’s atmosphere as the Earth does. Plus, CO2 has a strong absorption band at ~4u (~850F), that will return a much larger amount of the energy of outgoing radiation. For the most part, Earth has no such temperature source. And in fact I think because of this, CO2 is most effective for a surface temp below ~40-50F, at which point Water takes over as the predominate GHG. This would explain why it takes so long for the planet to come out of ice ball stage, water freezes out, and it takes a long time for enough CO2 to build up in the atm, all it would require is the planet stay above ~-70F
to Greg House who posted on
August 15, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others?
=================================================
You “Of course”, Eric, is not a substitution for a scientific verifiable experiment. I did
Come on, Eric, there is no way around it. I am sure you have understood my “And please, no more explanations, experiments only“not ask you “do they?”, I asked to present… you know… Just focus.
=====================================================
OK, Greg, if you insist, let’s just do the experiment ourselves.
On a bright sunny day walk up to window in your house that is facing the Sun and open the drapes. Note if you instantly feel those visible photons being converted to thermal energy on your skin.
Now walk up to a stove of any kind that has been turned on. Hold your hand up say a couple feet away from the stove. Note which side of your hand feels warmer. Then block your hand’s straight line view of the stove with a hand-sized piece of paper held between the stove and your hand. Does your hand now feel differently? Record your results and then ask yourself if the IR photons being emitted by the stove are also convert to thermal energy upon striking your hand.
If you like actual temperature measurements instead, repeat the experiment using a colored solution (grape juice) for the window experiment and any solution for the stove experiment and record the temperature measured with a thermometer. Invariably I suspect that you will note that both of visible and IR photons will cause the temperature of the solutions to rise.
Hope I have “just focussed” here sufficiently well.
Eric
I
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:22 am:
“OK, Greg, if you insist, let’s just do the experiment ourselves. … the Sun …thermal energy…stove… your hand feels warmer. …Hope I have “just focussed” here sufficiently well.”
==============================================
Well, maybe not quite, unfortunately, but I am not saying you did not try (lol).
The hot Sun warms my skin, the hot stove warms my skin, very nice, thank you, but this is not the issue.
The warmists’ point is, that the colder hand also reduces the cooling of a warmer stove e.g. . This is what needs to be proven directly experimentally, as I said so many times, otherwise it seems to be a fiction unsupported scientifically.
So, no experiments proving that?
Greg House says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:42 am
The warmists’ point is, that the colder hand also reduces the cooling of a warmer stove e.g. . This is what needs to be proven directly experimentally, as I said so many times, otherwise it seems to be a fiction unsupported scientifically.
So, no experiments proving that?
—————————————————
Take a mug (a dark colour works best) with a thermometer in it. Place it well away from vertical surfaces. Hang a piece of paper alonside it, close enough for your hand to feel the heat Add hot water (boiling if your thermometer can take it) and take the temperature every minute for ten minutes. Do it again without the paper, as a control. Plot your measurements on a graph.
If the paper reduces the cooling of the water, that graph should show a flatter slope than the control. If not, the two slopes should be the same.
Let us know how you get on. In my teaching days I always encouraged my pupils to try things for themselves, rather than just take my word for it.
OK, Greg House, this is a better experiment that you need to do or at least consider.
Inside a stainless steel vacuum chamber at room temperature (about 25C), suspend a metal block that has a heating element and thermocouple embedded in it. Then pull a vacuum on the chamber.
Next heat the block to say 200C by passing a constant and controlled level of electrical current through the heating element. Let the system sit until you are sure the temperature of the block has reached a stable level.
Now wrap the vacuum chamber with heating tap and heat it up to 100C.
Watch the thermocouple’s reading of the block’s temperature. It will increase – even though the block is still surrounded by walls that have a lower temperature.
Why? Because the block was being heated by two sources. One is the resistive heating provided by the constant current source and the other is IR photons that are coming from all directions from the walls of the container – which in both cases was of lower temperature than the block. Clearly the warmer object is being heated by the colder walls. The hotter the walls the more IR heating of the central block.
I cannot do that experiment in my kitchen now, but know what the result will be having noted this effect on the inners of vacuum chambers that I used in my own research with mass spectrometers. So I’ll leave it up to you to either do it or look it up – somewhere in the ancient literature of physics.
to Fred Staples,
I don’t see the connection of what you said to my previous post. At the beginning you said
“Ericgrimsrud presents a radiative explanation for atmospheric warming which was once believed to be the source of heating in terrestrial greenhouses.”
Sorry, but there were no glass window the model I described so I don’t know what you are talking about. And later you say:
“Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot).”
Do you not realized that the mass of Venus is actually somewhat less than that of the Earth and according to Newton, the force of gravity on a planet’s surface is proportional to its mass.
If you had a point to make concerning any of my previous comments, sorry, but I did not catch it.
jjfox says:
August 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. “
It certainly does. The tails of the surface emissions spectrum extend into the range of any atmospheric emitter. Those emitters respond by abosorbing and re-emitting the radiation in random directions, some back at the surface. The surface temperature thereby increases, which extends the tail, creating more radiation for the emitters to absorb and partially reflect back to the surface, raising the temperature and extending the tail, creating more radiation… and so on in a positive feedback loop. The process continues until the amount of radiation escaping equals the amount coming in.
I realized the necessity of such a dynamic when someone on these boards brought up what seemed a quandary: if the GHGs in the atmosphere warm the planet, how did the planet ever get warm enough in the first place to excite the GHGs? The answer lies in the fact that the tails of the surface emissions spectrum, though decreasing rapidly, extend out theoretically to infinity, so even a small amount of emissions in the range of the GHG band will feed on itself to raise the temperature until such as time as equilibrium is achieved.
“Cooling slower is not the same as warming”
In a very real sense, it is. Because there is a continuous influx, and a continuous outflux, of energy. The planet will always seek a point at which the net energy flux, which is the time rate of change of incoming minus outgoing energy, is at equilibrium. But, if you extend the time to reach equilibrium, then the integration of the net flux, which is the retained energy, becomes greater, and that results in a temperature rise.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:56 am
“Clearly the warmer object is being heated by the colder walls.”
Here’s a test you might be able to try once it gets cold out.
Stand in the middle of a warm room, where at least one wall is an interior wall, and another wall is an external wall which has a large picture window that’s not covered with curtains(and this may not even be required, in my case the wall did have a picture window). Take your shirt off, and turn to face both the internal wall and the external wall.
My room was about 12×14, and you could easily feel which wall was which.
Bart says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:57 am
“But, if you extend the time to reach equilibrium, then the integration of the net flux, which is the retained energy, becomes greater, and that results in a temperature rise.”
The key is, this is a dynamic system, with continual inflow and outflow. It is analogous to turning on the water in your sink to full on such that, assuming your drain cannot handle the flow, will result in accumulation of water in the sink. The water will rise, and the resulting increase in pressure at the drain will cause the water to drain faster, until such a time as equilibrium is reached. If you now decrease the area of the drain, the water level will increase, until such a time as the pressure at the drain is high enough to reestablish equilibrium of inflow and outflow. Draining slower results in a rise of the water level, which increases the drain rate, and the process continues until such a time as the water drains as fast as it is coming in.
jjfox;
What critical details do you think I have overlooked?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are two.
1. You posited as your starting premise a planet with an atmosphere composed of radiatively inactive gases. In that scenario, the atmosphere would warm through conduction until it was in thermal equilibrium with earth surface. After equilibrium was established, the surface temperature would be 100% determined by the amount of insolation and would have a temperature commensurate with Stefan-Boltzmann Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law which is that P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with P in watts per meter and accounting for all incoming energy sources and T being in degrees K. The atmosphere, being radiatively inactive, would have an affect on temperature of precisely nothing.
2. In the latter part of your explanation, you compared a radiatively inactive atmosphere to one with a concentration of radiatively active gas such as CO2. Putting aside the critical detail discussed above, this is not a valid comparison for the purposes of the climate debate. We’re less interested in the difference between an atmosphere with and without trace amounts of a radiatively active gas than we are in the differemnce between an atmosphere with different amounts of a radiatively active gas.
Eric Grimsrud has provided a pretty good working explanation that addresses both these points upthread, and I would encourage you to review them. He’s missed some critical details of his own, but I’m focused right now on assisting Dr. Grimsrud in convincing Greg House of the folly of his reasoning, and shall leave those aside for another day or so.
Entropic man says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:28 am
Take a mug (a dark colour works best) with a thermometer in it. Place it well away from vertical surfaces. Hang a piece of paper alonside it, close enough for your hand to feel the heat Add hot water (boiling if your thermometer can take it) and take the temperature every minute for ten minutes. Do it again without the paper, as a control. Plot your measurements on a graph.
If the paper reduces the cooling of the water, that graph should show a flatter slope than the control.
=================================================
Paper reduces convection thus reducing cooling. If you mean that it is radiation from the colder paper too, you need to prove it.