Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at the Notrickszone, there’s much buzz over a new paper entitled Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity, by Robert Holmes. The Notrickszone article is headlined with the following quotation from the paper:
“In particular, formula 5 (and 6) as presented here, totally rules out any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed by the IPCC in their reports can exist in the real atmosphere.”
– Holmes, 2017
And here’s the abstract:
Abstract: It has always been complicated mathematically, to calculate the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with a thick atmosphere. Usually, the Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) black body law is used to provide the effective temperature, then debate arises about the size or relevance of additional factors, including the ‘greenhouse effect’. Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa.
This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters; the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density and the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law. It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.
Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas. In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.
Instead, it is a postulate of this hypothesis that the residual temperature difference of 33°C between the S-B effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression.
Dang … “adiabatic auto-compression” as a permanent energy source. Is it patented yet?
Please forgive my sarcasm, I just get tired of endless claims of endless energy … onwards. Here is a look at the various planetary atmospheres:
And finally, here is his math that leads to his mystery formula. From the paper:
Molar Mass Version of Ideal Gas Law Calculates
Planetary Surface Temperatures
The ideal gas law may be used to more accurately determine surface temperatures of planets with thick atmospheres than the S-B black body law [4], if a density term is added; and if kg/m³ is used for density instead of gms/m³, the volume term V may be dropped. This formula then may be known as the molar mass version of the ideal gas law. The ideal gas law is;
P V = n R T (1)
Convert to molar mass;
P V = m/M R T (2)
Convert to density;
PM / RT = m / V = ρ (3)
Drop the volume, find for density;
ρ = P / (R T / M) (4)
Find for temperature;
T = P / (R ρ/M) (5)
[VARIABLES]
V = volume
m = mass
n = number of moles
T = near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin
P = near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa
R = gas constant (m³, kPa, kelvin⁻¹, mol⁻¹) = 8.314
ρ = near-surface atmospheric density in kg/m³
M = near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass gm/mol⁻¹
Now, I agree with all of that. Well, other than the strange form of the last equation, Equation 5. I’d simplify it to
T =P M / (ρ R) (5)
But that’s just mathematical nitpicking. The underlying math is correct. That’s not the problem. The problem is where it goes from there. The author makes the following claim:
In short, the hypothesis being put forward here, is that in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law [11]. Then adiabatic auto-compression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin cannot be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not then work to accurately calculate planetary temperatures, as it clearly does here.
I’m sorry, but the author has not demonstrated what he claims.
All that Robert Holmes has shown is that the atmospheres of various planets obey, to a good approximation, the Ideal Gas Law.
… So what?
I mean that quite seriously. So what? In fact, it would be a huge shock if planetary atmospheres did NOT generally obey the Ideal Gas Law. After all, they’re gases, and it’s not just a good idea. It’s a Law …
But that says exactly NOTHING about the trajectory or the inputs that got those planetary atmospheres to their final condition. Whether the planet is warmed by the sun or by internal radioactivity or whether the warming is increased by GHGs is NOT determinable from the fact that the atmospheres obey the Ideal Gas Law. They will ALWAYS generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, no matter how they are heated.
And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases don’t do anything, as he incorrectly claims in the above quote.
Look, we could start up ten million nuclear reactors and vent all their heat to the atmosphere. The planet would assuredly get warmer … but the atmosphere wouldn’t stop obeying the Ideal Gas Law. The variables of density and temperature and mean near-surface atmospheric molar mass would simply readjust to the new reality and the Ideal Gas Law would still be satisfied. You could still use his Equation 5 version of the Ideal Gas Law to calculate the temperature from the other variables, regardless of whether or not the atmosphere is heated by nuclear reactors.
So I’m sorry, but the underlying premise of this paper is wrong. Yes, planetary atmospheres generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, duh, why wouldn’t they … and no, that doesn’t mean that you can diagnose or rule out heating processes simply because the atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Law. They will always obey the law regardless of how they are heated, so you can’t rule out anything.
Best of another sunny day to everyone,
w.
MY USUAL POLITE REQUEST: When you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT so we can all understand what you have an issue with.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK, gravity pulls the heavier, cool air down and that cooler air displaces the warmer air effectively pushing it up.
The driver here isn’t the Sun, it is the area where the air is being cooled enough to be heavier and pulled down, is it not?
In other words, if up to the Sun, all the air would eventually become the same temperature, but the heat is “lost in space” so down comes the cooler air.
Further, the energy supposedly gained by the falling air is lost as that air pushes the air it displaces up, is it not?
So, ask Schroedinger’s cat: is the system always in equilibrium or never in equilibrium?
“OK, gravity pulls the heavier, cool air down and that cooler air displaces the warmer air effectively pushing it up.”
No.
It is buoyancy.
Same as a hot air balloon, it rises because it has less mass/weight than the air it displaces and vicky verky.
It is Archimedes’ Principle, which states that the buoyant force on a submerged object is equal to the weight of the fluid that is displaced by the object.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/buoy_Archimedes.html
Gravity has done it’s work on the atmisphere and the “heat” that process causes dissipated eons ago.
Work done on the atmosphere is caused by the solar input and by Earth’s rotation.
Air is constantly in motion (thermals, baroclinic uplift, turbulence over ground, subsidence from regions of convergence aloft etc). When air moves up/down other air has to move down/up. It is this (as Nick Stokes says) that produces the “heat pump” that maintains the LR, this modified by LH release and the GHE but always tending towards -g/cp.
And why does mass matter? Gravity.
Try floating a boat in water on the ISS.
“And why does mass matter? Gravity.”
It does matter.
As I said, it sets the LR by virtue of compression.
Greatest compression at the bottom – molecules closer together – more collisions – higher temp.
The atmosphere is then in static balance (in the absence of ALL other effects).
What then moves depends on local temp changes ….. density changes > buoyancy.
Not gravity.
Air moves independent of the gravity field BUT within it.
Against it even.
Whilst it does that an equal volume of air moves down. Zero sum BUT with the maintenance of the LR.
Extrapolating it to space just illustrates your misunderstanding.
As the (hypothetical) balloon on ISS has the same weight whatever it’s temp and it would displace an equal amount of capsule air of the same weight so therefore is a zero sum.
tonyb, buoyancy only exists in gravity. Hence it is a pseudo-force in physics. Same for gravity, IIRC, though let’s not go there for now (grin).
Rushes to the cupboard, takes out the bottle of compressed CO2 for the soda stream….it’s like at 20 bars or something…it should be like RED HOT!!!!
Measures its temperature……..DAMN!
Exactly.
Anyone who says it heats up wgen you compress it should just be told that it cools when you let it expand, so the net effect is zero, just like a fridge.
But our atmosphere is not exactly like a bottle of compressed gas, is it? So I suspect your analogy is an attempt to simplify something that might be more subtle and complex than many believe.
More importantly, the gas law relationship really only works for true adiabatic processes when you are talking about compression/expansion cycles. As soon as heat can move out of or into your “system”, all bets are off.
Jerome, because insolation is integral to the existence of an atmosphere, as opposed to a layer of N-O etc. ice. Keep pumping if you want to copy the real effect.
Of renowned climate experts there would exist an overwhelming consensus in agreement with Mr Eschenbach, for reasons he and others have expressed. Why is it still a thing? Why doesn’t a pile of books radiate heat?
zazove February 6, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Because heat is net energy flow.
Piles of books radiate energy, however. You can verify that yourself with a stand-off thermometer …
w.
Yes of course but I meant ‘extra heat’ that comes from some gravitational pressure. Ie hotter than their surroundings somehow.
zazove you are strawmanning again. Now where are my matches…….grin
Another question: why only changes in atmospheric humidity affect changes in the vertical temperature gradient?
“Another question: why only changes in atmospheric humidity affect changes in the vertical temperature gradient?”
It doesn’t.
See mine and Nick Stokes’ comments on here.
Lol, all it will take to prove that wrong is to measure zenith temps with an IR thermometer over days with different absolute humidity.
In fact there’s a NASA paper explaining how to calibrate your IR thermometer to measure TPW.
micro:
By concentrating on experiments in your back-yard concerning atmospheric humidity and it’s known GHE does not mean that CO2 does not act as a GHG, and your “findings” are neither surprising nor applicable to the planetary atmospheric mass, where CO2 has a more dominant CO2 role.
It’s a massive fail, as I’ve tried patiently to explain to you in several posts over several Blogs.
There is a reason why we call your type a sky-dragon slayer, there are no sky-dragons and they don’t need slaying.
But please do carry on, you are harmless enough.
Tone, Co2 is as well mixed in my backyard as it is in Australia where I’m getting my net radiation data from (this paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL019137/pdf ).
You ever do any kinds of circuit analysis? Clear sky radiative properties as simple enough to figure out. It’s a lot like characterizing antenna on an antenna field, or transmission line characterization of striplines, and circuit boards, it’s just the radiative properties, the dialectic properties, stuff like that. It works the same on that level, it just follows SB statistics instead of Ohm’s law, but even simple transformers are just em wave generators magnetically coupled to an identical receiver. Same as 2 co2 molecules coupling a photon from one to another.
I did this professionally for 20 years, where I had to teach others how to use these tools, as well as being licensed by the FCC at 17 to operate Broadcast stations, big photon generators, designed to send photons to liked sized wavelength specific antennas.
Earthnull is showing that. I took notice of a puzzle recently when looking at the CO2 filter which shows that the colder areas are those with the higher CO2 concentrations. That shows the insignificance of CO2 versus wv.. Wv streams into an area, and temps raise 10s of degrees F. When the wv moves on or snows out, then temps drop once again, and that seems to concentrate CO2 in the colder areas, …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-258.75,66.32,672/loc=89.997,62.527
One of my neighbours lives in an old converted water mill. The mill wheel still works and he has coupled a small electrical generator to it. Now as I know the stream never stops flowing and the generator output is real energy this looks like free perpetual energy (practically). Where does it come form. Well obviously we know it is the potential energy of the water at the top of the wheel. So gravity drives it. Is gravity the source of the energy?
I say there is more to it. Gravity is the means by which the potential energy can be extracted. You wouldn’t be able to extract anything with gravity unless there was a mass there that could fall. So it’s not perpetual as the mass will fall and be gone. But then there’s more. The stream keeps flowing.
Why does the stream keep flowing and the mass which can fall never run out? Because it is continually replaced. By what? By the mass (water) that has fallen. But to get it back into the stream you have to do work on it. Where does that happen, where does the energy to get the water back up the top come from?
KER- CHING !!
The source of the energy is the SUN. The heat energy from the sun is converted into the potential energy of mass when it goes up, rises by e.g. water molecules in rising air. Gravity provides the means by which energy can be extracted from the higher mass.
So in the case of the water mill we are using gravity to extract energy from, ultimately, the Sun. It’s not that we are extracting energy from gravity.
Now you understand the water mill try extending the argument to the atmosphere and consider how the surface of the earth gets hotter when there is an atmosphere compared to the hypothetical no atmosphere rocky earth2. Remember gravity does nothing without mass but its a one way process (DOWN!). Gravity doesn’t do UP.
“Remember gravity does nothing without mass but its a one way process (DOWN!). Gravity doesn’t do UP.”
I think this is where you are going wrong with this your grace. Gravity is not a one way process. Seesaws go in both directions. Net energy zero minus friction. Energy in from space versus energy back out, net zero after billions of years of equilibrium. Lots of seesaws but no power.
Rudi
Rudi, thanks so much. I am about half way through writing a book and still had not really come up with a catchy title. Would you mind very much if I used it? I will give you a proper mention in the “thanks” and append your full name and (if applicable) all the letters you have after your name.
“Gravity is not a one way process. Seesaws go in both directions”
$19.95 at Amazon (est)
You have my blessing.
Avogadro says read Charles’s law.
I was hoping someone would point this out. They can start by stating what exactly they think they are measuring when they measure the ‘temperature of a volume of gas’.
Then they can describe what happens if you squeeze more molecules to that volume of gas all with the same average kinetic energy because that volume is at sea level rather than above sea level.
The problem with mathematicians is that they don’t really understand the logic of the gas laws. Or the importance of Avogadro’s hypothesis to Charles’s Law.
see what happens when skeptics try to change modes from doubting science to actually doing it?
you get sky dragons
doubt is not enough
Are you saying you agree with the Sky Dragon science?
This is beyond even your usual level of inanity, Mosher.
Oh the hilarity. English and psychology majors lecturing us on science.
Yes every real scientist who has ever done real science has always been right.
Are you aware that science constantly proves science wrong and that is the whole point?
Steven, get a grip. Are you saying that to be sceptical of a scientific theory shows something crazy about the doubter? I know you don’t believe that – you demonstrated intelligence and insightfulness once but since BEST you have become a security guard protecting virtually any and all turf, yes, event the stuff of your side’s equivalent of skydragons. I’m sure you also know that the dangerous warming proponents have a phalanx of empty-headed supporters, just as there are “non believers” who mindlessly dismiss the AGW propositon out of hand.
You know that there is, however, a highly intelligent group with scientific and mathematical proficiency and specialized knowledge that are the strength of this site. Anthony lets anyone have a say, so, yes there is always chaff which sometimes overwhelms the threads – but less so than in dangerous warming supportive sites which, these days, which put out much more snark than science from the supposedly scientifically “literate” core. I know that inside your mind you recognize that the thoughtful contingent here has had a very large beneficial effect on the actual science (it goes unsung, but thats not why such thinkers come here, anyway)
A lot of posters here need to study up on tephigrams, versions of which have been used by meteorologists for decades. This would help them understand the ideal and not-so-ideal laws of thermodynamics that control the atmospheric temperature in the convective troposphere up to radiative dominant altitudes, and help them understand where ‘lapse rate’ comes from. And it’s not OK to redefine well understood atmospheric convective thermodynamic effects with pseodo-scientific terms such as ‘auto-compression’….
+1
“Auto-compression” is a valid scientific term, most often encountered in mine ventilation literature.
Correct; ‘Auto-Compression’ is a widely used term in mine ventilation. We ventilation engineers calculate how hot the mine will get for the mine-workers by including this well-known effect in our calculations. Auto-compression starts at the tropopause and extends down to below surface.
Robert,
I thought you might be a mining engineer, given your use of that term.
My apologies to you mining engineers, it’s a term I have never heard despite decades of compression related engineering work.
“Auto-compression starts at the tropopause and extends down to below surface.”
Yes it does, which is why the Earth’s non GHE temp of 255K is fixed at around 8km presently and the -g/Cp relation extends down to the surface to realise 288K.
If you dig a big hole it would extend down that as well.
Why do you find that needs sky-dragon slaying physics to explain?
However the atmosphere doesn’t go extending the depth of the atmosphere whilst containing it’s volume, as we do in a mine shaft. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract, which is why we cannot apply Charles’ Law to it.
So “auto-compression” is a synonym for the “lapse rate”?
Yes Toneb, conceptually the same. And reviewing tephigrams and the thermo behind them is rewarding for those trying to understand atmospheric phenomenon.
You mean, just as it’s not OK to redefine radiative physics with the pseudo-science that the skeptics use?
It’s easy to lob bombs from our side of our favored paradigm, but maybe that other paradigm has some validity, too. Isn’t that exactly the problem with the alarmists– they stick to their favored paradigm come hell or rapidly-rising seas?
Maybe we should chill on the paradigms and try to understand what the other side is saying. They may be the dense ones, yes, or one the other hand and God forbid, we may be a little dense, too.
Pretty pictures on internet hype DO NOT make it so (ok, a former Army guy quoting a Navy bridge command myth, except the McCain did NOT make it so).
I thought this cute picture of the solar system, with its title, was a joke but now I see it is the ultimate truth of the matter. It’s a shame we have not yet reconstructed the temperature dial on the antikythera though. Quite important for interplanetary travel, I always thought it was odd that on Star Trek they never took an overcoat, hat and scarf with them into the transporter. Obviously they KNEW that if it had a breathable atmosphere at reasonably close to earth pressure it MUST be near earth temperature. Simples!
A comment about Pierre Gosslin’s NoTricksZone. Always an interesting read, but I find one has to be quite careful with the ‘sciency’ stuff. He and Kenneth Richards will post anything that is ‘skeptical’ irrespective of its quality. This post is an example of when that lake of basic climate science QC goes awry.
Since you have not provided any evidence, you are just blowing smoke. I have asked multiple times for you to provide the error in their maths, and you have not done it.
As willis said, there is no error in the math. The error is thinking that the math shows anything other than the ideal gas law appears universal.
… and it has been pointed out many times that their ‘maths’ is not being questioned – just the conclusions they erroneously draw from it.
As a chemical engineer, I use the ideal-gas law very frequently, but it alone cannot be used to demonstrate anything about whether gases in the atmosphere can trap heat.
To illustrate this point, let’s compare a point on land on the equator of the Earth during one of the equinoxes with a point on the equator of the Moon. If the weather is clear, the point on the Earth’s equator would receive about the same average radiation power from the sun during one Earth day as the point on the Moon would receive during one lunar day. If the point on Earth is in a desert area, the surface temperature might vary from about 280 K at night to about 320 K at the hottest part of the day. The surface temperature on the Moon varies over a much wider range, with a much lower night-time minimum and a much higher daytime maximum.
The reason for this is that the Moon has no atmosphere, and acts like a Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody, radiating away heat according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and receiving radiation from the sun with no filtering from the atmosphere.
The Earth’s atmosphere, during daylight hours, absorbs much of the radiation from the sun, particularly in the high-energy ultraviolet part of the spectrum, so that the point on the Earth’s equator does not heat up as much as the point on the Moon’s equator. At night, some of the IR radiation from the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere (particularly water vapor), but some of the heat is transferred to the atmosphere by conduction and convection, and the atmosphere’s specific heat prevents it from being cooled too much at night.
Also, since the Earth’s surface is about 70% covered by liquid water, there is always some evaporation of water into the atmosphere during sunlit hours (which cools the surface). If some of this water vapor condenses into clouds, this transfers heat to the atmosphere. Even on clear nights, once the temperature of the atmosphere reaches the water dew point, the condensing of water vapor into dew or frost heats the atmosphere, and the surface air temperature cannot decrease below the dew point.
The question that Holmes should consider is WHY do planets have the atmospheres that they do? This depends on the gravitational acceleration on the planet’s surface (which increases with the diameter of the planet) and the amount of radiation received from the sun.
Mercury has a weak gravitational field and receives much more solar radiation than the Earth, so any gas molecules on Mercury quickly reach their escape velocity (due to Brownian motion) and escape into space.
Venus has a gravitational acceleration similar to that of Earth, but receives twice the solar radiation as the Earth. Venus is too hot for water to exist as a liquid, and it would escape Venus’ gravity as a vapor, as would nitrogen and oxygen, but CO2 molecules are heavier and slower, and cannot escape Venus’ gravity despite the high temperature.
The Earth’s distance from the sun enables water to exist as a liquid, while its gravitational pull is strong enough to hold nitrogen and oxygen in its atmosphere. It should be noted that the noble gases helium and neon, which have lower molecular weights than nitrogen, are rare in the Earth’s atmosphere, while argon (whose molecular weight is higher than that of oxygen) is plentiful at about 1%. The presence of liquid water on the Earth’s surface is its main temperature regulator, due to the cooling effect of evaporation during sunlit hours, and condensation as dew or frost during nighttime hours.
The Moon’s gravity is only about 1/6 of that of the Earth, so even though it receives about the same amount of solar radiation as the Earth, any gases quickly escape its gravity, and it has no atmosphere.
The gravity on Mars is much weaker than on Earth, but Mars receives less than half the solar radiation as Earth. Mars is too cold to form liquid water, but its gravity is strong enough to hold a thin carbon-dioxide atmosphere, whose pressure is too low to absorb much IR radiation.
The outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) have much stronger gravity than on Earth, but receive much less solar radiation. They have thick atmospheres of mostly methane (which can remain in the vapor phase at temperatures down to -250 F), but do not receive enough solar radiation for IR absorption to warm their surfaces very much.
And yet after all that, climate scientists are claiming an existential threat from 1 to 2 additional molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules. Ludicrous in the extreme. History will eventually laugh a hearty belly-laugh at the likes of Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Santer, and all the other CO2 alarmist hucksters.
“Ludicrous in the extreme.”
Appeal to incredulity again.
Not a valid scientific argument.
The maxim “they know than you” is true.
“The surface temperature on the Moon varies over a much wider range, with a much lower night-time minimum and a much higher daytime maximum. The reason for this is that the Moon has no atmosphere.”
An dense atmosphere contains more heat, ie, it takes the same energy transfer longer to warm it up. The reverse at night. So of course the temperature swings are higher on the moon.
Steve Zell February 6, 2018 at 4:37 pm
Most of what you write makes sense, but not the above.
Although the atmosphere does play a role, the main reason is the surface material.
The lunar regolith has a low heat capacity and is a very poor conductor, so the surface warms up quickly during daytime. Day temperatures are close to radiative balance temperatures. Night temperatures not so. They are way above radiative balance temperatures. Should be ~3K, actually ~70-100K.
On Earth ~70% of the surface is water with a high heat capacity.
A full day of solar energy in the tropics is just capable of warming 10m water ~0,5K.
This is the main reason for the small difference between day and night temperatures on earth.
What amazes me in the discussion above is that the Hydrostatic Equlibrium our atmosphere is in isn’t mentioned at all afaik.
I have a question for those who can do the math.
We have ocean currents on this planet that distribute heat from the equator to the poles.
My understanding of the black body 255K calculation is that it likely does not take this into account, and that the 255K is the average for the entirety of the earth surface temperature.
If we remove evaporation from the ocean and the atmosphere completely, but we use the information about convection of the oceans from the hot tropics to the cold arctics, what would the average temperature of the Earth be?
My though on this is that radiation follows temperature to the 4th power. If the Tropics cool significantly and the rest of the Earth Warms modestly, wouldn’t the equations come to a different value than the 255K calculation presents?
A, I can do the math. But as AR3 said, doing the math of a nonlinear dynamic climste system (Earth) is a fools errand. I dont like fools.
rud, now, now, none of that here!
“If we remove evaporation from the ocean and the atmosphere completely, but we use the information about convection of the oceans from the hot tropics to the cold arctics, what would the average temperature of the Earth be?”
Cover the ocean with black plastic and Earth’s average temperature would lower.
Currently ocean average air surface temperature is 17 C and land air surface is 10 C, and tropical ocean warms the rest of world- due to ocean currents and evaporation.
Ocean is warms by sunlight passing thru a transparent ocean and absorbing the energy of sunlight. Black plastic would prevent this and water is poor conductor of heat.
The plastic on tropical ocean would get hot and radiate more energy into space and cause the ocean to absorb less energy. And tropical ocean wouldn’t warm the rest of the world very much.
Currently ocean area warms land area, with plastic it wouldn’t, so land area would have lower average temperature than 10 C.
I would guess the average global temperature would be about 5 C, rather than 15 C.
Sigh. CO2 deals with radiation.
Gravity makes the lapse rate.
Air moving upward against gravity trades kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy. Air moving downward trades potential energy for kinetic energy. No change in overall energy.
Temperature is a measure only of kinetic energy. You change that, you change temperature. That’s the lapse rate. Whatever heat you have, gravity will try to shuffle it downward.
Gravity don’t care about energy. (at least outside blackholes).
Buoyancy in a gravity field is a topic you should explore Mike.
And you were doing so well in some of your other replies.
So from temperature dependent qualities of the near surface atmosphere, the near surface temperature can be calculated. Gordon Bennett!
Wills
You said;
“And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases don’t do anything, as he incorrectly claims in the above quote.”
.
I do not rely entirely on the Ideal Gas Law in coming to this conclusion.
There are ten reasons as to why I state that more CO2 does not cause any measurable net warming in the troposphere; the gas law is only the final nail in the coffin, for example;
1) because every planetary body with a thick atmosphere has a clear thermal gradient, which always starts at 10kPa – regardless of the presence or not of GHG
2) recent papers show that convection dominates over radiative transfers in all atmospheres >10kPa – meaning that on Earth radiative energy transfers take a back seat in the troposphere
3) my knowledge of the physics of star-formation led me to believe that this aspect of gas thermodynamics had been neglected in our atmosphere.
4) growing evidence that the alleged ratio of forcing since 1750 (anthropogenic vs natural) was wrong
5) growing evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 after feed-backs was low, or even zero
6) growing evidence that factors other than CO2 drive climate change (clouds, climate cycles).
7) growing evidence that Venus was not hot because of the greenhouse effect of CO2
8) there is no empirical evidence, quantified in a published paper, that more CO2 causes any warming anywhere in the atmosphere
9) my knowledge of auto-compression indicated what the real reason for the residual temperature effect on planetary bodies was
10) Lastly, that a small input change of one gas (i.e. +0.03% of CO2) into the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not possibly change the three gas parameters enough to increase global temperatures by 3C, as alleged by the IPCC.
Robert Holmes February 6, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Indeed you do. You say that formula 5 (and 6), by itself, TOTALLY RULES OUT the possiblity that GHGs do something, viz:
Now, if you want to make an argument based on all your other considerations, fine … but that is NOT what you said in your paper.
Thank you for your willingness to fight for your ideas. However, your claim, that because atmospheres follow the Ideal Gas Law that THEREFORE the effect of CO2 is vanishingly small doesn’t pass the laugh test. And that is exactly what you’ve claimed.
w.
Wills;
I stated; ‘formula 5 (and 6) as presented here, totally rules out any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed by the IPCC in their reports’.
.
I stand by this statement 100%. This is in effect the null hypothesis – that natural factors such as cloud changes, atmospheric changes, albedo changes, solar changes and natural climate cycles still dominate the climate today.
What the IPCC claim is essentially your position; that man has taken over 97% of all the drivers which cause climate change, and consequently we are now living in the ‘Anthropocene’.
If you really believe this, then scientific evidence is needed; produce here a peer-reviewed published paper which quantifies any warming in the troposphere caused by our CO2.
“If you really believe this, then scientific evidence is needed; produce here a peer-reviewed published paper which quantifies any warming in the troposphere caused by our CO2.”
No you do the opposite. On that disproves it.
The science is empirical going back to Tyndall, Arrhenius and others ~150 years ago.
“Empirical” meaning repeated observation/experiment/theory, has not found it wanting.
I somehow think you haven’t either (sarc).
Toneb,
Complete bs. The science does not go back 150 years. You are just repeating the typical propaganda espoused by Weart and his revisionist history of global warming.
“Complete bs. The science does not go back 150 years. You are just repeating the typical propaganda espoused by Weart and his revisionist history of global warming.”
If by “bs” you mean what it often means here – the real world, then yes it is.
However most of us (thankfully) live in the above ground.
Certainly scientists do – as they have, as I said, observed/measured and theorised it for indeed ~150 years.
That you don’t want it to be true doesn’t make it so.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
That you want it to be true does not make is so, either. Just as I said, the article you posted was by Spencer Weart giving a revisionist history of global warming, with a huge dash of fantasy.
11) the majority of GCMs (or most) predict (an emergent phenomenon of their equations and tuning) a troposphere hot spot in the tropic at mid troposphere levels, based on a strong CO2 GHE formulation. None is observed in 37 years of satellite troposphere temperature monitoring while CO2 increased 23% since 1979. (332 to 408ppm).
“None is observed in 37 years of satellite troposphere temperature monitoring while CO2 increased 23% since 1979. (332 to 408ppm).”
How true it is. Yet Willis and Toneb carry on as if their pet hypothesis is true.
At this point in history, truly amazing.
Yet, being clever people, one day the realization will hit and we can all move on to accept that a tiny bit of warming, which we will never be able to measure, is nothing worth spending time and money on.
“Yet Willis and Toneb carry on as if their pet hypothesis is true.
At this point in history, truly amazing.
Yet, being clever people, one day the realization will hit and we can all move on to accept that a tiny bit of warming, which we will never be able to measure, is nothing worth spending time and money on.”
It’s not a “pet” hypothesis.
You have obviously not noticed that it is empirical science.
IOW no one has observed the (physics actually) to be wrong.
And by “no one” I mean people who are a damn sight cleverer than you, me and Mr Nikolov.
Shouting up out of your rabbit-hole a denial of it does not make it so.
What is “truly amazing” is the rampant D-K syndrome on display in this thread, all whilst trying vainly to slay non-existent sky-dragons.
joelobryan February 6, 2018 at 8:16 pm
Reply
sailboarder February 7, 2018 at 5:21 am Edit
sailboarder, if you weren’t so lazy you’d have looked to see what my “pet hypothesis” about the troposperic hot spot might be. I wrote an entire post on the lack of the “tropospheric hot spot” …
This in part is why I ask people to QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS. In this case, because you refused my polite request to quote my words and you didn’t do your homework, you end up looking like a total fool. READ MY WORK BEFORE YOU MAKE ASININE STUPID COMMENTS ON WHAT YOU IMAGINE IT TO BE!!!
Sheesh … why is this so complex for some folks?
My post on the subject of the LACK OF a tropospheric hot spot is here …
w.
Willis acts like he sees the “sky dragons” as a threat to his pet cloud formation. How about this twist: The “sky dragons” are not only compatible, they help explain the cloud formation Willis has observed. When the temperature gradient gets high enough, convection picks up suddenly. Near the equator at sea level I’m guessing this gradient tends to be associated with a narrow temperature range. Convection driven winds kick up waves, thus evaporation, thus cloud formation. The evaporation and cloud formation amplifies the lapse rate threshold on surface temperature.
hanelyp
Yes but it is nothing to do with the sky dragon approach.
I’ve tried to tell Willis many times that the conduction/convection explanation for the surface temperature enhancement is entirely consistent with his observations and that his observations are themselves a product of the effect of atmospheric pressure on the ocean surface due to the way that surface pressure affects the amount of energy taken up by the phase change from liquid to vapour in evaporation. Changing pressure alters the amount of energy needed to break the bond between water molecules.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained, so here goes:
Dang … “adiabatic auto-compression” as a permanent energy source. Is it patented yet?
Yep, it was patented shortly after the “CO2-slowed-cooling-that-makes-air-hotter-than-it-would-otherwise-be” … permanent energy source.
Please forgive my sarcasm, I just get tired of endless claims of endless energy … onwards.
You’re forgiven (^_^), and interesting, since the greenhouse theory, as I first saw it, did precisely this, with the claim of back-radiated heating, … until the claim conveniently changed to “slowed cooling”, … which amounts to roughly the same thing, when I considered it more closely.
I actually tend to agree that the author has not demonstrated what he claims here. In fact, I have an even bigger problem that might cause you (and others, I’m sure) even greater disagreement with me — namely that the two temperatures traditionally used to calculate that 33-degree difference are NOT comparable in the way that they are ordinarily compared. I do NOT see average near-surface air temperature as being the same “species” as black-body planetary temperature — these are incomparable — the subtracting of one from the other seems like a bogus stunt — similar to subtracting two oranges from three apples to get one apple. In my view, that number, derived THAT way, should not even be in the discussion. It’s a hoax. All it is … is a temperature difference. “So what?”, as you might ask — “it says nothing of the trajectory, etc., etc.” It says nothing about CO2 being an underlying cause.
Look, we could start up ten million nuclear reactors and vent all their heat to the atmosphere. The planet would assuredly get warmer … but the atmosphere wouldn’t stop obeying the Ideal Gas Law. The variables of density and temperature and mean near-surface atmospheric molar mass would simply readjust to the new reality and the Ideal Gas Law would still be satisfied. You could still use his Equation 5 version of the Ideal Gas Law to calculate the temperature from the other variables, regardless of whether or not the atmosphere is heated by nuclear reactors.
… an interesting thought experiment that makes me ask questions like, “How would ten million nuclear reactors of vented heat change density and mean near-surface atmospheric molar mass?” — I don’t know, but I wonder. If you know, then thanks for enlightening me.
They [planetary atmospheres] will always obey the law regardless of how they are heated, so you can’t rule out anything.
Yes, but will the SYSTEM of planets always obey the ORDER we see in different values of the law derived for individual atmospheres in the whole system? Why do we see the order in the different values that we see? It’s not just a law determining one value, then another. It’s a law determining an ORDERLY SEQUENCE of values in the system.
I’m supposing that if entirely different mechanisms were determining different planetary temperatures, then we would not see this ORDER that we seem to see.
Every one of Willis’ statements is wrong, but the nuclear reactor line is the most laughable.
Temporarily heating the atmosphere artificially in this way does not respond to Holmes’ argument. After such an infusion of heat dissipated, Earth’s climate system would revert to the natural status quo ante.
[“every one of Willis statements is wrong” – yet you offer not a single thing to say why or how. In my opinion: PUT UP OR SHUT UP -Anthony]
For “statements”, please read “objections to Holmes’ paper”.
Anthony,
I provided copious examples.
His totally ignorant claim that “auto-compression” doesn’t exist, for instance. Simply another example of his ignorance of the most elementary physics. No surprise, since he had never studied physics.
Why you let such a scientific ignoramus pollute your site, I don’ t know.
[You’re right, there’s an easy solution to “pollution” in the form of ad hom attacks too. Goodbye- Anthony]
It’s not ad hom to point out that Willis’ nuclear reactor argument is idiotic, just as most of the posuer’s drivel is.
Just ask Dr. Spencer.
[Saying the IDEA is idiotic, no that’s not ad hom, but saying this is: “Why you let such a scientific ignoramus pollute your site, I don’ t know.” Being an anonymous coward with nothing more than a handle while calling somebody names from the comfort of anonymity (translation: chicken) is also not in your favor. You aren’t arguing the issue, you are arguing the person, and offering nothing but insults as rebuttal. You’ve been on moderation for bad behavior here, and now with this, extended to “straight to the bit bucket” privileges. Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony]
Willis is right: “ The underlying premise of the paper is wrong”
However gravity does very much determine the lower surface temperature; for at 14.7 Lbs./sq.in. the vapour pressure of water is 0.2563 Lbs/sq.in at 15.56 C (288 K)..
Since evaporation takes place when the Partial Pressure of water falls below this; this determines the amount of water that is contained in the atmosphere and the cooling effect of the atmospheric Rankine Cycle. The Hydro Cycle.
Should the surface temperature rise due to the greenhouse effect or for any other reason; then this Rankine Cycle accelerates in exactly the same way your kettle does when you turn up the heat and so maintains a constant temperature, give or take the leads and lags.
(100 C for your kettle and 15.56 C for the earth.)
Simple really.
Does this mean all the proxies that show a global temperature up to 22 C are wrong? Or does it mean the atmosphere must have been different back then?
First of all I agree that no energy is created through “adiabatic auto-compression”. While I haven’t read the paper, I’m not aware of any known planetary atmosphere that doesn’t have some kind of GHG. This makes any claim of no greenhouse effect difficult to demonstrate.
But do we really need a greenhouse effect to determine the temperature of an atmosphere? One thing that GHGs do is absorb surface radiation and transfer that energy to the atmosphere as kinetic energy. This allows the atmosphere to contain more energy than an atmosphere without GHGs. This will expand the atmosphere. Since more energy will be absorbed at lower altitudes due to higher density, this will create a lapse rate.
That’s it. Notice I never mentioned back radiation. The lapse rate is all that is required to make the surface warmer than the S-B computation. There is also no need for any gravitational compression. The gravity produces the density of gases that leads to a lapse rate just by its existence.
The next question would then be whether back radiation makes it even warmer. I think the answer is yes for several reasons. However, you don’t need back radiation to create a warmer planet and you certainly don’t need “adiabatic auto-compression”.
Could the reason for there not existing (if that is so) any known planetary atmosphere without some kind of GHGs be that without those GHGs atmosphere has less ability to cool and has thus slowly warmed and expanded away to space? And for the same reason would it not be that an atmosphere without GHGs is capable to accumulate/contain more energy than an atmosphere with GHGs and thus better ability to get rid of accumulated energy/heat?
I refer to my comment(s) below.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2736856
Richard M – if you have a nice word with the mice they will design a planet for you of any size, pop it into any orbit and surround it with whatever mixture you like of gases with NO GHGs. It wont be necessary for you to tell them what lapse rate you want. You can just measure it OR work it out from universal physical laws and equations already known.
Try it in your head as a thought experiment first (the mice do charge a lot for planets).Pencil and paper are cheaper.
I’m no physicist so please forgive my stupid questions, but does greater atmospheric density due solely to pressure hold greater amounts of heat? It seems to me that the closer you move toward a solid from a gas the greater the capacity for absorbing and retaining heat as long as there is continual input of energy from some external source. If that’s the case, is the greenhouse effect enhanced with increasing atmospheric pressure? Can this explain the high temperatures on Venus for example without going into the actual volume or percentages of the gases? In other words if you have 2 bodies with the same volume of GHGs but vastly different pressures due to stronger gravity, does it affect the GHE?
the high surface temp of Venus can and is fully explained by its pressure without resorting to a GHE of CO2. Note: Venus also has no H2O in its atmosphere or surface. Such high temps long ago caused the dissociation of the H2O molecules into their diatomic atomic constituents and H2 escaped to space. O2 combined with minerals or formed stable CO2.
joelobryan
You are correct about Venus.
Folk need to rid themselves of the Jim Hansen idea that Venus is hot because of the GHE of CO2; even NASA still say its hot because of the GHE.
Venus – very hot but it’s not the greenhouse effect causing it. A little thought will bring even the non-expert to agree that Venus is not hot because of the GHE.
The greenhouse effect supposedly works by short-wave radiation hitting the surface and then being re-radiated as longwave, which is then trapped by the GHG.
First, very little of the sun’s direct radiation even reaches the surface of Venus due to its opaque atmosphere – papers say less than 20W/m2;
Jelbring, H. (2003). The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass. Energy & Environment, 14(2), 351-356.
Moroz, V., Ekonomov, A., Moshkin, B., Revercomb, H., Sromovsky, L., Schofield, J., . . . Tomasko, M. G. (1985). Solar and thermal radiation in the Venus atmosphere. Advances in Space Research, 5(11), 197-232.
.
Second, Venus has a long ‘day’ of 117 of our days, meaning the night lasts 58 Earth days. Yet there is no real difference in temperature between the day and the night.
How can the GHE ‘trap heat’ and work for 58 days without any sun?
Third, the critical pressure of CO2 is 7,380 kPa. The critical temperature is 30 C. In those super-critical fluid conditions, it’s hard to say whether Venus has an atmosphere or an ocean.
My calculations suggest that the ‘bottom’ 4km of the Venusian atmosphere is not even a gas – it’s a super-critical fluid. How can you have the ‘greenhouse effect’ without any gas?
Fourth, the specific heat of air is higher than CO2, so replacing the 90.9atm pressure atmosphere with a O2 & N2 mixture of the same surface pressure would see the temperature rise, not fall.
“How can the GHE ‘trap heat’ and work for 58 days without any sun?”
Appeal to incredulity.
Why shouldn’t it?
Do you not get to be hotter for longer if your house has better insulation?
Put enough CO2 molecules in the way of OLWIR then a lot doesn’t get out.
Meanwhile SW solar arrives at the surface on the sunlit side.
“The greenhouse effect supposedly works by short-wave radiation hitting the surface and then being re-radiated as longwave, which is then trapped by the GHG.”
It doesn’t have to hit the surface. All that is required is that the SW penetrates to some depth before it is thermalized (absorption). The heat has to get out, from whatever level.
“How can the GHE ‘trap heat’ and work for 58 days without any sun?”
The GHE doesn’t need sunlight to work. It just blocks heat radiated by a hot body. And Venus does stay hot during the night.
“How can you have the ‘greenhouse effect’ without any gas?”
You probably can, but it isn’t the issue. The question is whether GHGs impede the pathway for the heat to escape. Most of that pathway is clearly gas.
The specific heat is totally irrelevant.
The basic issue is, the surface of Venus is very hot, mean 737K. That surface radiates 16000 W/m2. That’s about 100 x the sunlight received. If nothing is blocking that radiation, how can it be sustained? And why doesn’t Venus look red hot?
“the high surface temp of Venus can and is fully explained by its pressure without resorting to a GHE of CO2.”
Then why does the temp of Venus as seen from space not correspond to it’s actual surface temp, but instead to it’s solar constant minus it’s albedo?
Why would the heat (from as you say) compression not be visible as viewed from space.
(given that you deny that LWIR is not *blocked* by CO2)
And then you would have the situation where more heat is coming out than went in.
Free energy!
So your bike tyre remains permanently hot after you pump it up.
After the work required to do it stops?
Work meaning pushing the atmosphere’s molecules together.
NOT the act of keeping them together.
The heat dissipates thereafter.
Try to conceive of the -g/Cp relation at work to make a LR.
On the other hand why are we not utilising *you* perpetual free energy, that is apparently available in presence of a gravity field?
It’s the density that matters, so no need for CO2, argon suffices.
“Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.”
https://goo.gl/Pq6FDG
The demonstration described in the paper I linked above shows also that CO2, even being slightly denser than argon, is able to shed away excess heat more efficiently.
“On the other hand why are we not utilising *you* perpetual free energy, that is apparently available in presence of a gravity field?”
Surely we are: As hydro-electricity! Also wind, solar and geothermal ‘free’ energy are also exploited.
Joel, there is the sulphuric acid formation and disassociation band , but that ends up net zero energy flux of course.
By converting gaseous Oxygen and solid Carbon (coal) into gaseous CO2 humans have added mass to the atmosphere. This will raise the temperature increasing the H2O content further increasing the mass of the atmosphere. We’re all doomed but not in the way we thought!!
If that were true it would be a tiny increase in mass and hence tiny effect on temperature. We’re also taking out O2 in all the rusting metal we’ve made, N2 in all the ammonia we make, etc. If you’re worried, just keep on eye on the air pressure, a measure of the mass of the atmosphere in a way, and if it hits new highs and continues to grow relentlessly, then you would have your proof.
“Surely we are: As hydro-electricity! Also wind, solar and geothermal ‘free’ energy are also exploited.”
True, but that is not “free” in the sense that we just tap into a gravity field and hey presto, free energy flows at every point, which is what this sky-dragon slaying concept does – that of constant work being done on the atmosphere under gravity, and so constantly heating it.
“My calculations suggest that the ‘bottom’ 4km of the Venusian atmosphere is not even a gas – it’s a super-critical fluid. How can you have the ‘greenhouse effect’ without any gas?”
Oh OK ……
http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Venera_Perspective.jpg
The classic view of the radiative GHE for planet Earth is that Earth’s atmosphere is largely transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance, whereas it is significantly opaque to the wavelength of outgoing LWIR.
That process cannot happen on Venus, because the Venusian atmosphere is not largely transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance. Despite Venus being much nearer the sun and hence having far more solar irradiance at TOA, at the surface there is only about 4 W/m2.
So we know that incoming solar is not directly heating the surface of the planet Venus, as it does on planet Earth, because there is less solar irradiance reaching the equatorial surface of Venus than reaches the surface of Antartica here on planet Earth, by a large margin.
Further, there is all but no diurnal range, ie., there is all but no temperature difference between the temperatures of the Venusian day, and those of the Venusian night, notwithstanding that the night on Venus lasts some 117 Earth days (about 4 months). We see a difference in planet Earth in the Arctic and the Antarctic when there is no sun for a few months.
And what about Mars? Mars in its atmosphere has about the same number of molecules of GHGs as does planet Earth. It has more than an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules, but of course less water vapour molecules. Despite having more molecules of GHGs, and despite these molecules being closer together, Mars has no measurable GHE.
In fact, if you were to stand at the equator of Mars, the temperature is around 20 degC at your feet, but 0 degC at your head. all those molecules of CO2 are not doing very much. Why is Mars so cold and why does the temperature drop so quickly in just 2 metres. According to NASA, it is because Mars has a thin atmosphere.
The Martian atmosphere is remarkably like that of planet Earth, except for non GHGs. The real difference between the two atmospheres, is that on planet Earth we have vast quantities of Nitrogen, Oxygen and other non GHGS leading to a massive atmosphere with thermal capacity and thermal inertia/lag. If one were to strip Earth’s atmosphere of all the non GHGs, one would have an atmosphere very similar to Mars with about the same weight, density and pressure.
NASA says (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/mars/in-depth/):
The heat easily escapes because the atmosphere lacks thermal mass, and thermal inertia. All those molecules of CO2 are doing nothing to impede the loss of heat. All these molecules of CO2 are nt acting like a blanket reducing the heat loss, and there is a drop of temperature of 24degC in just 2 meteres (24degC at your feet, 0 degC at your head).
If one reads the geo-engineering papers on Mars, they discuss making the atmosphere more massive so as to increase the temperature on the surface, they do not discuss the need for more GHGs.
Just because there are greenhouse gases. i.e. gases which can radiate energy in the thermal infrared range of wavelengths, and which are necessary to cool the earth, it doesn’t mean that the supposed greenhouse effect of 33degC is real – far from it.
That’s why even Gavin Schmidt admiitted the GHE was more of a thought experiment than an observable state.
Good post
Thanks
Good post
Thanks
I’ve been working on this for years and have explained it in detail on several occasions to Willis who failed to follow the logic.
Latest version here (though there are subsequent versions incorporated into the comments sections of several of Willis’s previous ) posts:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
The fact is that maintaining convective overturning within an atmosphere suspended off the surface against gravity requires energy, that energy cannot be radiated to space if convection is to continue and that energy causes a surface temperature rise above that predicted by the S-B equation.
No GHGs needed. If GHGs are present then convective changes automatically neutralise the thermal effect of any radiative imbalances.
Otherwise no atmosphere could remain suspended off the surface.
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 2:00 am
And we have another winner who is too good to follow a simple request to QUOTE MY WORDS. This allows him to spread falsehoods about what I have said and done.
Stephen, if you want to accuse me of something, then grow a pair and quote what I said. Hiding behind handwaving accusations merely damages your reputation, not mine.
w.
It isn’t an accusation, merely a reporting of facts that you are free to rebut as you wish.
You know my detailed proposition so if you still do not accept any component you can set out your remaining objections here and I will tackle them again.
To the best of my recollection without spending hours trawling through old posts the sticking point was your contention that the energy needed to lift an atmosphere off the ground was able to be dissipated without the atmosphere falling to the ground.
If that is an inaccurate representation of your position then please put me right.
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 10:22 am
If you had quoted something I said, THEN it would be a “reporting of facts”. But nooo, you’re too elevated a personality to deal with actual facts.
I can rebut facts, Stephen. But I cannot “rebut” your handwaving substance-free accusations.
Are you really that stupid, or is it merely stubborn recalcitrance? What do you not understand in the request that you need to QUOTE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU OBJECT TO?
w.
It is my proposition that you object to so it is you that needs to specify what I said that you think is wrong.
It was reasonable for you to expect to be quoted verbatim in the early days but now that your output is so voluminous it is no longer reasonable.
You should be prepared to restate your position as necessary and correct those who get it wrong.
Anyway, my post narrowed it down to a specific issue for you so let’s hear what you say.
Let me recap the bidding. You accused me of not being able to follow your logic, viz:
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 2:00 am
In response, I asked you to point to wherever it was that I had “failed to follow the logic”. A simple request. All you had to do was to point out the location where I did whatever you are accusing me of doing, so we can all get the facts.
In response, you’ve done everything except back up your unpleasant accusation with facts. You even go so far as to say:
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 11:04 am
Say what?
I have no clue where I might have “failed to follow your logic” as you have accused me of doing. And now I have to specify things? That’s insane. I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF, how on earth can I possibly “specify” anything?
Time to either put up or shut up, Stephen. Either point out where I “failed to follow your logic” so we can judge for ourselves, or I’m through with this nonsense.
w.
The sticking point we arrived at was that you asserted that the energy absorbed by an atmosphere could be dissipated away without the atmosphere falling to the ground.
Please address that issue. Did you intend to assert that or not?
SW, lets make it real simple. You lose.
The loser is the one who blocks progress by refusing to address an issue.
Once Willis accepts that the energy absorbed by an atmosphere during its formation remains present forever or until the atmosphere falls back to the ground he is in checkmate.