Gravity causing anomalous heating.

Posted: January 12, 2012 by tchannon in Astrophysics, climate
gah-1

Part of crude simulation, showing crustal effects

The discussions to do with a planet acheiving an anomalous temperature relative to a simplistic theoretic temperature have so far reached stagnation, a null result.

I am not surprised. All the candidates are linear, anything else being contrary to thermodynamics. If it heats up, it cools down exactly the same.

Gravity does introduce asymmetry.

Lets take the Earth, assume it has no atmosphere. The conditions are similar to the Moon except for a fast rotation (day instead of a month).

During daytime the surface will get pretty hot as the crust is heated, at night it tries to cool to deep space temperature, held back a little by daytime heat from the crust.

Now we put the atmosphere back.

During the day the atmosphere is heated by the crust, moderating the maximum crust temperature. At night there is less cooling as heat is returned from the atmosphere to the crust. By the morning we are back where we started.

That is not what happens.

During the day gravity driven convection, consequent winds, latent heat transfers much more heat into the atmosphere and mixes it, some lofted high. Peak temperature is lower still.

At night there is no reciprocal process, no heat source to drive convection or latent heat transfer. Thermal coupling is poor relative to daytime coupling.

I don’t know whether this asymmetry has the effect of jacking up temperature above the assumed theoretic but crude modelling suggests it may well.

Discuss.

Note: posted by Tim Channon, co-moderator.

Comments
  1. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Tim; the atmosphere is more transparent to incoming radiation and less transparent to outgoing longer wave radiation. So at once an atmosphere is different then a black body in a vacuum. Now add gravity and the atmosphere becomes a greater density at the surface, then at high altitude, an even greater difference between incoming to outgoing radiation. Real greenhouse effect, now add convection and turbulence. Now the greenhouse is very leaky! To this we add water and we have a leaky greenhouse with a major refrigeration cooling system in it. Any surface warming caused by gravity and changes in radiation caused by CO2 is too tiny to be worth more of anyone’s time. pg

  2. P.G. Sharrow says:

    NO offense meant man, forgot the smiley 😎 just meant gravity heating and CO2 GHG is very minor to almost zero. pg

  3. tallbloke says:

    The discussions to do with a planet achieving an anomalous temperature relative to a simplistic theoretic temperature have so far reached stagnation, a null result.

    I noted your comment on the solar thread. I think it’s a bit premature to say that Tim. Over on the Loschmidt thread we are just now discussing why it might be that the gravito-thermal effect tails off at near sea level pressures/densities. This leaves open the possibility that the effect is a lot stronger at higher altitudes.

  4. tallbloke says:

    I don’t know whether this asymmetry has the effect of jacking up temperature above the assumed theoretic but crude modelling suggests it may well.

    The Robert Brown thread on WUWT yesterday is worth a read. Someone on there mentioned a model which suggests a rotating planet will not exceed the S-B theoretical temperature IIRC. I’ll have a look for the comment – I think there was a reference.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/

  5. captdallas says:

    If gravity impacts climate, I think you have it the wrong way around. Changes in surface gravity would be noticeable and the heat of compression of the atmosphere due to those changes would be noticeable. However, since the Earth is part of an orbital system that is a part of the solar system, changes in the gravity WRT our neighbors could have an impact if entropic gravity is a valid theory, big question mark there. That would be cleaver to prove.

    There are oddities that may be connected to gravity, I have noticed that Venus and Earth seem to share a 65Wm-2 limit of sorts, The black body temperature of Venus is 184K @ 65Wm-2 and the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Antarctic is -89 C, 184K @65Wm-2.

    That may even have a shot at being accepted since photons at low energy, changing direction with emission, may have relative velocities approaching the speed of second sound, where they may be interchangeable, physically, with phonons. If that is the case, string theorists may sing your praises for providing a possible theoretical proof of gravitons.

    More likely, the low energy photons with varying relative velocities may provide energy for a chemical reaction of ozone with CO2. Which would be very entertaining. If that were the case, the Vostec ice core record would be an indication of the changing rate of that reaction with orbital cycles and not global temperature. Funny huh?

  6. Wayne Job says:

    Gravity strength and the volume of the atmosphere are the arbitors of the temperature.

    Increase either and the density increases, it is ultimately the closeness of the molecules that retain the heat for longer.

    It is not a greenhouse in any way shape or form. Outside influences of celestial nature and a variable sun are the drivers of our thermostats.

    Catastrophies aside our climate changes constantly to the cyclic nature of our solar system and our galaxy. The sinodic frequencies are evident in all studies related to climate and planet Earth.

    Chaos rules our weather but past and future climate is predictable from the sine waves, figure out all the frequencies and what causes them and their effect, you have climate.

  7. Ray Tomes says:

    About 20 years ago, a friend, Paul Stowe, proposed that absorption of gravitational energy caused planetary heating. Before the Neptune and Uranus fly bys, he was able to predict the temperatures of these planets based on his calculations which he did with Barry Mingst. You can find these two if you do a search. Somewhere I have their paper from early 1990s.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Wayne: Well said, and watch out for a new article on planetary cycles and solar activity in the next few days. Meantime, everyone interested should re-read this old one:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/

    Ray: You are a goldmine of useful nuggets – thanks!
    Everyone interested in cyclic phenomena should visit the site Ray is key contributor to.
    http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/

  9. simon abingdon says:

    @ Tim Channon, 12 January

    “At night there is no reciprocal process, no heat source to drive convection or latent heat transfer”.

    The effects of widespread night convection are easily observed (witness night thunderstorms caused by air mass collisions, orographic uplift, etc).

  10. Stephen Wilde says:

    Gravity does introduce an asymmetry but working via the Ideal Gas Law.

    The surface warms ANY atmosphere by conduction but the Ideal Gas Law directs that the lowest molecules become warmest by virtue of pressure and density.

    The consequence is that upward radiation and conduction are inhibited more than would have been the case if the whole atmosphere were at the same (cooler) average temperature.

    That gives a disproportionate feedback to the surface which has to rise to a higher equilibrium temperature in order to overcome that inhibition.

    In doing so the surface temperature has to exceed that predicted by the S-B equation.

    It also deals with the so called downwelling IR issue.

    IR sensors pointed at the sky are not measuring downwelling IR from GHG molecules higher up.

    All they are measuring is the warmth of the air molecules directly in front of the sensor and those warmer molecules (whether GHGs or not) have been warmed by operation of the Ideal Gas Law (which automatically causes warmer molecules to be found lower down in the atmosphere) and NOT by so called downwelling IR.

    There is no need to propose any downwelling IR at all. The warmth is already present in the lower molecules by virtue of the Ideal Gas Law working via pressure and density.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Tim, regarding your comment about caves on the solar thread: Over on the Loschmidt thread (which now has a link in the ‘most commented’ list in the left sidebar) Joe Born said:

    “If what you mean by “there doesn’t seem to be much of an effect in deep caves etc.” is that air temperature does not in general continue rising with decreasing altitude when you’re talking about caves, I know nothing more than the guy on the next bar stool, who might guess that cave temperatures are dictated by those of the enclosing soil or rock, which acts as a low-pass filter of surface temperature so that cave temperature tends to be the annual average of the temperature at the surface.”

    Apologies if I’ve misunderstood what you were getting at.

  12. Tenuc says:

    P.G. Sharrow says:
    January 12, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    @Tim; the atmosphere is more transparent to incoming radiation and less transparent to outgoing longer wave radiation. So at once an atmosphere is different then a black body in a vacuum. Now add gravity and the atmosphere becomes a greater density at the surface, then at high altitude, an even greater difference between incoming to outgoing radiation. Real greenhouse effect, now add convection and turbulence. Now the greenhouse is very leaky! To this we add water and we have a leaky greenhouse with a major refrigeration cooling system in it. Any surface warming caused by gravity and changes in radiation caused by CO2 is too tiny to be worth more of anyone’s time. pg

    Good post, PG. However, as Wayne says, it is the gravity gradient and number/mass/size of atmospheric molecules which dictate the maximum potential energy which can be held by the atmosphere. I agree that atmospheric composition, like the addition of trace amounts of CO2 have little or no effect on the energy stored.

    What does limit the energy in the atmosphere is the availability of photons. Molecules in the atmosphere are constantly bombarded by photons, both from above and below and the closer they are packed the more energy is transferred. Visible light from the sun has more energy than average and cause most of the heating during the day. At night it is the less energetic photons emitted by the ground which dominate.

    Water vapour is the wild card in all this as it’s ability to move heat around and change the amount of energy coming into and leaving the system is phenomenal. It also makes using temperature as a guide to what’s happening to climate a complete red herring!

  13. wayne says:

    tchannon, I see your point. You are not speaking of gravity doing any warming by itself, like compression, and not by gravity induced natural lapse rate necessarily, but the pull of gravity does allow there to be strong convection and by that any evaporation at the surface, as you said, also moves huge amounts of energy upward by convection, thereby cooling of the surface by that same amount. I agree. Without the density slope caused by gravity, it seems any convection would be much weaker.

    I have seen this effect when flying a sailplane. The convection low near the ground is usually very low. You might get a lift of +200 ft/min upward so you tighten into a spiral. As you lift and move from 800 feet to 5000 feet the pull upward accelerates and it’s not uncommon to have vertical lift near cloud base of 1000 to 1500 feet/minute upward. That is what I was trying to describe above. (and not doing a good job of it 🙂 )

  14. Joe's World says:

    Tim,

    I see motion is far from any considerations including the creation of convection/centrifugal force.
    Friction is speed induced and collision induced.
    Certain gases and liquids(pressure induced) stay cool when not being in the light of solar radiation.

    You still missed the velocity differences:
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations-2.pdf

  15. Joe's World says:

    Tim,

    The biggest mistake scientists have generated is that single calculation to generate that graph on an orb with many different abnormalities. This includes size differences, distance differences, velocity differences, atmospheric expansion difference. solar radiation penetration and reflection on a rotating body, Solar system forward momentum, etc.

  16. adolfogiurfa says:

    But…how the cooling happens?, if peacefully, through rain falling (water droplets loosing its charge, its energy, going from HOH to H2O, precipitating, being subjected, again, to gravity), if violently through hurricanes. But, just remember our experiences, not theories, experience..
    Charge, discharge….

  17. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Tenuc says:
    January 13, 2012 at 9:47 am

    Gravity definitely sets the point that all other variables act from. So gravity should be a part of any atmospheric calculation of any world. We may well find that micro changes effect local weather systems. pg

  18. tchannon says:

    Dissent is good, where ideas originate.

    My first take on the comments is few have understood, perhaps getting too into details.

    I agree there might be a direct gravitational temperature gradient but the evidence of it’s existence is tenuous. No-one noticing until today acts to confirm.

    The key I am getting at is how to break the concept of basic heat processes, which lead to the existing ideas about the earth.

    One breakout from that is the AGW stuff where a magical process involving selective radiative stuff has been invoked. To date I have never seen a coherent explanation, are always mental jumps..

    As an alternative I am suggesting a buoyancy driven process which behaves asymmetrically in time and happens to need gravity. The atmosphere is heated but is less able to cool, which has the effect of raising general temperature above the simplistic. Heating daily starts from a higher base.

    (simon abingdon: try offsetting the convective period from day/night period, will be a time delay, is a broad sweep of approximation anyway)

  19. Hans says:

    Tim,
    To me the intention of your post is unclear and the title does not make much sense. Gravity exists on every planetary body and just interacts with an atmosphere as it always has done. There is a lot of knowledge especially from Earth, Mars and Venus relating to impact of atmospheric mass, rotational rate of the planets etc. There are a number of reasons for convection to occur. If there is any anomaly somewhere it might be in the brains of they who are interpreting the physics wrongly or who don´t know much about the processes at work.

    You are saying:
    A. “During the day gravity driven convection, consequent winds, latent heat transfers much more heat into the atmosphere and mixes it, some lofted high. Peak temperature is lower still.”
    B. “At night there is no reciprocal process, no heat source to drive convection or latent heat transfer. Thermal coupling is poor relative to daytime coupling.”

    A. The dry adiabatic lapse rate that develops every day (below the cloud altitude before they cover all the sky) on sunlit land is not gravity driven. It is driven by solar power. It is also regional since it depends on the the land albedo. Birds know about this. An extension of this phenomenon is the land breeze ans sea breeze.
    B. Yes, there is another important process that enhance convection even on planetary scales. When an atmosphere is heated it expands. When it expands the top layer can freely move to the dark side where the atmosphere (pressore) is lower at equal altitude. The atmosphere just flows “downhill” to the dark side. This process is important on Mars with is low atmospheric mass per area unit and big density swings during both diurnal and seasonal itnervals. You could argue that the lack of heat source is the reason for this convection. Furthermore the flow of cold air from the cold side to the sunlit side will cause strong convective disturbances. On earth this type of flow is happening more between dark cold polar areas and equatorial regions than between day and night sides of the globe. MPHs can be tremendously powerful and they create blizzards when cold air suddenly move suthwards (northern hemisphere). The effect of MPhs might be best experienced in places like Melbourn, Australia which is fairly close to the areas where MPS are developing. They can develope also during summer. Ones I commented on an MPH that made the middle January day temperature fall to 8C in the middle of the summer. The physical processes creating MPHs and the motion of MPHs are faschinating topics to study.

    Professor marcel Leroux discovered and measured the impact of MPHs (Mobile polar Highs) and his pupil Alexis Pommier wrote a high quality 250 page thesis about them. Marcel´s work (several books) and Alexis´ thesis have been totally ignored by IPCC and other main stream climatologists. Pommier has not been able to get a descent work as a scientist and marcel unfortunatley died some years ago.

    Maybe I have misunderstood what you intended by this thread but there are for sure lots to learn before understanding planetary scale convection systems.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Posted at WUWT

    Apologies for the long comment, there’s quite a lot to deal with here.

    Nikolov and Zeller’s extended conference poster ‘The Unified Theory of Climate’ was originally posted at the Talkshop a day before it was posted here at WUWT. On my website Willis says of it:

    ” I find the work of Nikolov and Jelbring to be laughable. I cannot even understand Nikolov. I invited him to state the core of his theory in a few sentences, since his writing is unintelligible….. He talks about atmospheric sponges and bowls, I can’t make sense of it…..As a result, I can’t tell if Nikolov’s theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.”

    I ran a word search on the text but could not find any references to “atmospheric sponges and bowls”. Willis often complains that people argue against what they think he said rather than directly quoting him. I think he should follow his own advice and extend the same courtesy to others.

    I also republished Hans Jelbring’s 2003 E&E paper ‘The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass’ on which Hans Jelbring was kind enough to engage with Talkshop contributors.

    Willis didn’t place any comment on that thread but said elsewhere on my website:
    “Here’s the short proof, by contradiction. Jelbring proposes that a perfectly transparent, GHG-free atmosphere will raise the temperature of a planet’s surface well above the S-B temperature obtained from the average impinging solar radiation. (This is the situation of the Earth, for example.)

    But if that is so, and the surface is somehow warmed above the S-B temperature, and the atmosphere is transparent, then the surface must radiate more energy to space than it is receiving, which is clearly impossible. Q. E. D…..I said the same thing to his face—his theory breaks the laws of thermodynamics.”

    Once again Wiillis is doing what he tells other people not to do; arguing about what he thinks Dr Jelbring said instead of quoting him: Here is a brief excerpt from the beginning of section 2.1 where Hans Jelbring sets up the definitions for the model Earth in his 2003 paper. It is sufficient to dismiss Willis’ ‘proof’:

    “A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It
    neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space.”

    Hans Jelbring tells me he has never met Willis face to face. To help resolve this apparent contradiction Willis could tell us when and where he
    “said the same thing to his face—his theory breaks the laws of thermodynamics.”

    Perhaps Willis is speaking figuratively, and is referring to an interaction with Hans Jelbring on the old CS email list? Before banning himself from the Talkshop because I ‘banned Joel Shore’ Willis should have engaged directly with Hans Jelbring on the same page where the entire E&E paper is published. That would have been the more scientific (and courteous) thing to do in my opinion.

    Willis complains that I am preventing Joel Shore from expressing his scientific beliefs. This is incorrect. I won’t let Joel engage in the various very active and nicely undisrupted threads we have running at the moment but instead offered him a guest post where he could set out his scientific position formally on a thread of his own. It’s a strange kind of censorship which offers the ‘victim’ the microphone and points the way to the stage. According to Willis:
    “Joel may have a hundred reasons not to want to invest the time and effort in a guest post.”

    Joel himself says:
    “I’m not particularly interested in doing a guest post. I have my hands full just trying to respond to all the misguided people over at WUWT and, with classes starting again tomorrow, I won’t be able to allow this time sink to continue for too much longer.”

    Considering the much bigger loudhailer Joel has here at the biggest climate site in the world, it’s understandable why he would think it more important to spend his time here rather than on a website which gets around 1/20 of the traffic WUWT does.

    The benefit to the Talkshop is that it enables its contributors to continue calmly discussing the merits and demerits of the properly set out scientific positions in the papers kindly provided by:

    Nikolov and Zeller
    Hans Jelbring
    Gerlich and Tscheuschner
    R.P Sheehan
    Johann Josef Loschmidt
    Coombs and Laue
    Roman et al.
    Velasco et al.
    William Gilbert
    and
    Dean Brooks

    Cheers

    TB.

  21. colliemum says:

    @ tallbloke, January 14, 2012 at 10:35 am:

    I’ve been following these threads here and at WUWT, keeping my hands off the keyboard as I’m no physicist.
    Because I’ve kept on reading the thread comments, I do support your stand.

    Something both Willis and Joel Shore (and some others) have failed to notice is the extremely patronising, in places rude, tone they have been and are using towards those who disagree with them.
    It is not conducive to a good debate when some of the participants are being belittled for daring to bring contrary arguments.
    This reminded me of some unfortunate experiences in certain labs and seminars where one didn’t dare to ask questions for fear of being shouted down and labelled numbskulls in front of everybody. Once or twice, in the heat of the moment, is forgivable. Continuous barracking isn’t.
    And refusing to write a brief summary of the main debating points (J.Shore) because of preferring to ‘school’ us eejits – weellll ….

    Anyway – I have your back, as they say in military language1

  22. Hans Erren says:

    The gravity model may be valid for Venus, Jupiter and Saturn for the reason that the photosphere (the height where outgoing radiation emits) of these planes is sitting on the cloud surface. For Earth we have a double photosphere one on de ocean/land surface and one on the cloud tops, which complicates the simple gravity model dramatically for earth.

  23. tchannon says:

    Oops, two Hans. Hans Jelbring and now Hans Erren.

  24. david says:

    Wayne Job says:
    January 13, 2012 at 2:16 am
    Gravity strength and the volume of the atmosphere are the arbitors of the temperature.

    Increase either and the density increases, it is ultimately the closeness of the molecules that retain the heat for longer.
    ——————————————————

    A similar asssertion was made at WUWT.

    4. The thicker and denser the atmosphere, the higher the near surface atmospheric temperature will be.

    Willis responded…

    I don’t think so. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is g / Cp, where g is gravity and Cp is the specific heat of the atmosphere. The lapse rate does not vary with elevation, which means that Cp doesn’t vary with density, so I don’t see how a denser atmosphere would perforce be warmer.
    —————————————

    I am not certain Willis’s response makes sense to me. The lapse rate may be constant, but it is a constant VARIATION,which appears to be predicated on g and Cp. (IE, the greater the gravity, the higher the specific heat of the atmosphere) Any thoughts? What does “specific heat emanate from? If specific heat which is the heat capacity per unit mass of a material, then the more materials there are per volume, then the greater heat per volume. Therefore an atmosphere of more material, will have a higher specific heat content then an thinner atmosphere. The lapse rate will be the same in both atmosphers, just the starting point or temperature will be different.

    What am I missing here?

  25. tchannon says:

    Hans J.,
    Yes you are right I was strictly incorrect with the headline but it was deliberate.
    Reason: to keep the focus on gravity, a necessary component of the process.

    Without gravity there is no buoyancy, no weight, no convection, no sea breeze, no linear against altitude lapse rate, whereas the alternative is the radiative profile which does not and cannot exist on any planet. A heat source drives it.

    I decided to start creating a model in a domain I know rather well. This is very minimal, ignoring most of the whole process, if useful it can be extended. When I am doing this it is about doodling, clarifying my understanding. From this I realised a special case is needed, is not trivial. It then occurred to me such a process might actually exist because of different heat flow condition with and without a thermal flux. It is not a contiguous process, but classically in agw argument it is treated as though it is.

    I don’t know whether this is real or important but it might be an alternative to the usual radiative explanation. I realise there is a lot more going on, has to be ignored for the moment.

  26. ferd berple says:

    Mathematical proof that GHG cools the surface of planet earth

    In an atmosphere with GHG

    total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by GHG atmosphere + net energy emitted to space by surface(1)

    In an atmosphere without GHG (non radiating),

    total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by surface(2)

    Therefore this can be rewritten as:

    net energy emitted to space by atmosphere + net energy emitted to space by surface(1) = net energy emitted to space by surface(2)

    Which then becomes:

    net energy emitted to space by GHG atmosphere = net energy emitted to space by surface(2) – net energy emitted to space by surface(1)

    Since we know that “net energy emitted to space by GHG atmosphere” > 0

    We can rewrite this as

    net energy emitted to space by surface(2) – net energy emitted to space by surface(1) > 0

    Thus

    net energy emitted to space by surface(2) > net energy emitted to space by surface(1)

    Since we know that net energy radiated to space is a function of temperature, we can then say:

    Temperature surface(2) > Temperature surface(1)

    QED

  27. gnomish says:

    hey T.B. – willis is broken. he’s been censoring my posts on his thread because i raise questions he doesn’t dare face.
    and so, like the con who becomes a snitch, he’s achieved a pinnacle of self loathing.
    i know it as the dr. laura effect – but shakespeare remarked it as ‘she doth protest too much’.
    and that’s probably the reason he’s all on a rant and protesting – cuz he’s just become shamefullly guilty of what he accuses. like a con who becomes a snitch – he can no longer respect himself.
    i thought i’d let you know – but i’m not interested in shaming him further. i don’t have to live with him.
    too bad – he has some brilliant facets. he’s also a hypocrite. so many are, though, it doesn’t distinguish him. it just makes him rant at you about the thing he hates in himself.

  28. Anything is possible says:

    I am seriously starting to doubt whether it is actually practically possible for any planetary body to develop a mature atmosphere without it containing Greenhouse Gases, at least in trace amounts.

    Among the most common elements in the Universe are the four that are the constituents of the main GHGs : Hydrogen (1st), Oxygen (3rd), Carbon (4th) and Nitrogen (7th).

    Is it possible for a rocky planet for form without any of these constituent elements? Seems unlikely. Is it possible for a rocky planet to form a mature atmosphere without these elements combining somehow to form Greenhouse Gases? Not, it would appear, in our solar system – despite the incredible diversity of environments and atmospheres we have found, they all have one thing in common – the presence, even if only in trace amounts, of greenhouse gases. Interesting, to say the least. Any atmospheric chemists out there with a take on this?

  29. tallbloke says:

    Posted at WUWT:

    Willis says
    “TO CONCLUDE: I’m interested in people who can either show that my proof is wrong”

    I have shown Willis that his proof is wrong here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/#comment-863688

    It is an easy to understand demonstration that his assertion that Hans Jelbring’s 2003 E&E paper violates the laws of thermodynamics because of considerations regarding radiation to space is incorrect. I provided him the same demonstration in email yesterday. The demonstration consists of two lines from the very paper Willis attacks. They are:

    “A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It
    neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space.

    Willis has been unresponsive regarding this demonstration both in email yesterday and on this thread he subsequently posted here at WUWT.

    Joel Shore made similar accusations, also unsupported by fact, against Nikolov and Zeller. I have offered him a guest post in which to lay out his objections formally. This offer was declined.

    It is now a matter of public record that Willis has been formally alerted to the failure of his ‘proof’. I will record this on my website in a new post. Since Willis hasn’t responded to my demonstration of the failure of his ‘proof’ here, any whining about his inability to respond on my website due to his self banning will be met with the derision and ridicule it deserves in a place his snipping scissors cannot reach.

    I will not have people who ignore correct formal scientific points directly offered to them multiple times and who then continue to cast demonstrably false slurs against reputable scientists posting comments on my site. They can cry “censorship” all they like, but it doesn’t cut it with me, especially when they have censored parts of adverse comments here on this thread, and deleted others completely.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Hey Gnomish,
    an inpage search of the thread reveals no posts by you at all. You were using the same handle – right?

    I need to know because my last comment mentions the complete deletion of adverse comments. I need to be sure of my facts here.

    Thanks

  31. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Anything is possible says:
    January 14, 2012 at 6:26 pm ; you have got it! without water, liquid H2O, there is no class “E” planet. pg

  32. Archonix says:

    Just thought I’d pop over and say hi as one of the victims of Willis’s liberal pinking shears.

    As I’m not much on mathematics and ideal gas laws (just a lowly electrician guv) I’ll just say this: keep up the discussion. The idea of atmospheric motions being the primary maintainer of the earth’s “average” temperature seems more intuitively correct than anything else I’ve heard of and I look forward to it being validated by people smarter than I.

  33. tallbloke says:

    Hi Archonix, thanks for your support on that thread.

    Willis seems to be losing the plot bigtime.

    Archonix says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:27 am

    I found this thread somewhat interesting until I read tallbloke’s rebuttal just above. Willis is being disingenuous, setting up a strawman to knock down and thus not engaging with the actual theoretical model he claims to be taking apart.

    [SNIP: If you wish to accuse me of being disingenuous, quote my words or go home. I won’t stand for this kind of vague nasty accusation, that’s a slimy tactic. And if you believe a man like Tallbloke, who censors scientific opinion that he disagrees with, you are an idiot. -w.]

  34. Archonix says:

    Understatement.

    The problem as I see it is that his model is essentially pointless. By removing the ability for the atmosphere to radiate it takes out the one thing that’s necessary to understand how the earth’s atmosphere actually functions. His non-radiating atmosphere will eventually reach the equilibrium he’s mentioned – but, so what? It doesn’t have any bearing on what’s going on. Gases radiate energy; it’s what they do.

    The way I see it, in simplistic terms, is: you have a pressure gradient from top to bottom brought about by gravity. In Willis’s ideal model, that pressure gradiet becomes static and circulation ceases because there’s nothing inputting work to drive the system. However, in a real gas, that pressure gradient can’t remain static because the atmosphere radiates at the top, attempting to reach equilibrium temperature with interplanetary space, thus removing energy from the system. That causes gases at the top of the atmosphere to cool much more than they would when considering only pressure, causing it to them sink “faster” (I’m not equiped with the correct terms so… yeah) into the more dense atmosphere. That creates the work necessary to keep driving the system and prevent it reaching equilibrium. It also creates the work necessary to bump up the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere by compressing it a little more than willis’ ideal non-radiating atmosphere would.

    At least, that’s how I understand it. I’ve been wrong before, I don’t mind being wrong again. 🙂

  35. tallbloke says:

    I’ve been busy screenshotting what’s left of the ‘debate’

    Just posted this

    #
    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm (Edit)

    Wow, Willis’ censor’s scissors have been busy here in the last few minutes. Good job I screenshotted relevant posts.
    #
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 1:41 pm (Edit)

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Wow, Willis’ censor’s scissors have been busy here in the last few minutes. Good job I screenshotted relevant posts.

    Tallbloke, I said I would snip. I’m snipping. Don’t pretend to be surprised, it makes you look meretricious. Screenshot all you wish, I have nothing to hide.

    w.
    #
    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm (Edit)

    Willis.
    You have been wholesale deleting peoples responses to this thread to leave it looking like most people agree with you.

    At least I was clear direct and upfront about who was not being allowed to post at the talkshop and the reasons why. You have been removing comments altogether because they disagree with you. It’s all being recorded at the talkshop in real time. Any justification you thought you had for complaining about Joel being barred from posting is out of the window.

    There was scientific content in my first reply on this thread, and it also contained a reply about the situation with Joel. Your removal of it shows who the real censor is. You are doing yourself terrible damage here. Stop now.

  36. tallbloke says:

    John Marshall says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:47 am (Edit)

    Willis I cannot believe that you do not understand adiabatic heat gains due to compression. [SNIP- I specifically asked you to stick to elevator speeches and disproving my proof. -w.]

    joshua Corning says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:47 am (Edit)

    shot in the dark.

    [SNIP … I specifically asked people not to shoot in the dark. -w]

    Anyway i hope that helped.

    [It didnt. -w]

    gbaikie says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:51 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]

    Pete in Cumbria UK says:
    January 14, 2012 at 3:13 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]

    #
    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 3:31 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]
    #
    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 3:35 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]

    wayne says:
    January 14, 2012 at 3:57 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]

    richard verney says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:03 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]

    gbaikie says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:26 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. Stick to the topic. -w.]

    AusieDan says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:28 am (Edit)

    Willis,
    As a final comment tonight, may I suggest that you put aside all that you have learnt about greenhouse theory and just read the N&Z paper and see what it actually says.
    [SNIP: If you understand it, give us the elevator speech. If not, why are you posting? w.]

    Bryan says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:34 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]

    coturnix says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:57 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. And mice. Mice are cute. -w.]

    Andy West says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:06 am (Edit)

    [SNIP: read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. And mice. Mice are cute. -w.]

    Bill Illis says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:10 am (Edit)

    What is the physics explanation for why temperatures of a gas/star/planet increase as it is gravitationally compressed?

    Why does matter do this?

    I think the answer to this question will point to the answer about an atmosphere in gravitational equilibrium.

    Otherwise, in a non-GHG atmosphere, the molecules next to the surface will be colliding with the surface 8 billion times per second.

    Energy will be transferred from the surface to the non-GHG molecules in translational energy. These molecules then appararently NEVER lose their energy without colliding with another non-GHG molecule or the surface again. I don’t see how the atmosphere does not continually increase in temperature then. At some point, millions of years worth of solar energy will be locked up in the inert atmosphere.

    [COMMENT: This is total nonsense. I mean, there is not a valid scientific thought in it. I leave it in to give a flavor of the nonsense that I am snipping. Give me your elevator speech, disprove my proof, or stay schtumm. What in that is not clear? -w.]

    William says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:23 am (Edit)

    Let’s take a step back.

    [SNIP: No, let’s not. Read the instructions. Elevator speeches and disproofs only. -w.]

    And I’m only halfway down the thread…

  37. Archonix says:

    Mine aren’t even making it through at all now. Guess I’ll retire for a dram and a lump of hard cheese.

    Thanks for the chance to ramble my layman’s ramblings.

  38. tallbloke says:

    Archonix says:
    January 14, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    Understatement.

    The problem as I see it is that his model is essentially pointless. By removing the ability for the atmosphere to radiate it takes out the one thing that’s necessary to understand how the earth’s atmosphere actually functions. His non-radiating atmosphere will eventually reach the equilibrium he’s mentioned – but, so what?

    Sometimes a model which eliminates certain effects can be useful. This was the whole point of Hans Jelbrings model planet. It allowed him to isolate the gravito-thermal effect.

    Willis didn’t even link to his paper, presumably so people wouldn’t realise how he’s misinterpreted it. Then when I demonstrated his proof was false, he snips it, along with all other dissenting comments!

    And then Willis has the gall to say I’m a bad censor man for not allowing Joel to misdirect and dominate discourse here! Even after I offer Joel a guest post and publish his comments anyway!!

    Unbelievable!!!

  39. Stephen Wilde says:

    “However, in a real gas, that pressure gradient can’t remain static because the atmosphere radiates at the top, attempting to reach equilibrium temperature with interplanetary space, thus removing energy from the system. ”

    In a non GHG atmosphere Willis might well be right in that the lapse rate would indeed stabilise around the gravity induced lapse rate.

    However that gives him a problem because he has accepted the principle of a gravity induced GHE and that conduction from the surface would be the primary means of energy transfer.

    That puts him on the rack when one goes on to consider the radiative effects of GHGs in relation to his now admitted gravitationally induced GHE.

    I’ve put up a couple of posts on his thread to see how he deals with that issue..

  40. Stephen Wilde says:

    Here are my posts at WUWT for consideration here whilst I await the outcome of the moderation process and Willis’s responses:

    1) Willis said:

    “Since there is gravity, the atmophere will have a “dry adiabatic lapse rate”, which means that the temperature must drop with altitude. The atmosphere will warm until the bottom layer of the atmosphere has the same temperature as the surface, and has the dry adiabatic temperature profile above the surface. It will neither gain nor lose energy after that, and will be stable with no bulk motion.”

    Ok, you’ve accepted the gravity induced dry adiabatic lapse rate.

    And you seem to accept that the warming is from the solar irradiated surface and that the lapse rate is supported by conduction from the surface.

    That is then the baseline gravity induced GHE as per N & Z and the Ideal Gas Laws. Nice and stable and set by gravity and atmospheric mass alone.

    Then one introduces GHGs which have two effects.

    They absorb more energy due to their radiative characteristics.

    They then radiate 50% up and out of the system and 50% back down to the surface.

    The 50% sent upward reduces total system energy content because it is lost to space. That is a cooling process.

    The 50 % sent downward destabilises the gravity induced GHE but in turn provokes more convection and on a water planet energises the water cycle too.

    Now, convection and the water cycle are cooling mechanisms (evaporation has a huge net cooling effect of 5 to 1 – see latent heat of vapourisation) so that 50% sent downward must be all or mostly negated unless you can show otherwise and the N & Z data seems to show that the negation is pretty much complete.

    Which leaves the (admitted) gravitationally induced GHE firmly in control does it not ?

    Checkmate ?

    2) Willis said:

    “If there are no GHGs, the surface must radiate (to space, since there are no GHGs) the amount of energy it absorbs. Its radiation is fixed and unchangeable”

    You forgot something.

    The Ideal Gas Law means that the warmest molecules of air are at the surface.

    Those molecules are at a higher temperature than the average for the atmosphere.

    Thus they will inhibit upward energy transfer more than would be the case if the atmosphere were at a cooler average temperature throughout.

    That will give a higher surface temperature than predicted by the S-B equation.

    3) “That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing.”

    Which is why the equilibrium temperature rises intead ?

    I think these are critical moments for the entire AGW debate.

  41. tallbloke says:

    My thanks to Joe Born for this gracious comment – I wonder if it will get the ‘elevator speeches and disproofs only’ treatment…

    Joe Born says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:25 am (Edit)

    Like Willis, I found Nikolov & Zeller’s poster, well, inscrutable. And I confess to being appalled at how many arguments on this thread are so clearly based on violating conservation of energy.

    But anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with tallbloke’s evenhandedness on the one hand and Joel Shore’s often ill-mannered thread monopolizing on the other should be able to appreciate that, not blessed with the moderator manpower that Wattsupwiththat enjoys, tallbloke’s choice to segregate Joel Shore’s output in a separate thread was a reasonable solution to the problem, brought on by Joel Shore, of how to avoid intolerable disruption but preserve open discourse.

    I personally have benefited greatly from tallbloke’s blog, and I commend it to everyone’s attention.

  42. George says:

    I find the whole thing over at Anthony’s place to be quite embarrassing. I made some comments but started to get the feeling I must not have understood what he was talking about but in looking at the comments with which he was in agreement, it became weirder still. I haven’t even looked at that thread since last night. I got the feeling that people somehow believe that only a greenhouse gas will radiate when it is heated or something.

  43. ferd berple says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    Took me a minute to figure out what is wrong with this. It is in the assumption that “net energy radiated to space is a function of temperature”. It is, but for the surface it is also a function of the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere. That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.

    Ferd Berple says
    I’ve already accounted for that energy, by using “net” energy. The problem with your rebuttal is that you are double counting, confusing net with gross.

    To explain, here is the problem in diagram form:

    first some terminology:
    “==X==)” denotes energy flow from left to right, called X.
    “(==Y==)” denotes two way energy flow between right and left, called Y.
    “(==Z==” denotes energy flow from right to left, called Z.

    Here is the model I described,

    space (==A== surface (==B==) ghg atmosphere ==C==) space

    In my calculation, I’m only considering energy flows A and C. You are adding in flow B. However, flow B is meaningless and only serves to confuse, because it does not take part in the flow to space. It is only the flow to space that is subject to the equivalence, radiation in = radiation out.

    Therefore from above:
    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    However, on an earth with no GHG, atmospheric radiation to space = 0,

    space (==D== surface (==E==) no ghg atmosphere ==F==) zero radiation to space

    D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    However, since F = 0, this becomes

    D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    Therefore, since solar energy remains the same

    A + C = D (because F = 0)

    Since C > 0, for GHG atmosphere

    D > A

    Since D and A vary as 4th power of Temp

    Temp(D) > Temp(A)

    Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG ) atmosphere.
    QED

  44. Baa Humbug says:

    I only just made it to this thread (after a so far unsuccessful discussion at WUWT)

    I agree completely with the post.

    To simplify, warming by conduction is more efficient and faster, than cooling by conduction in the case of a gas above a solid surface.
    This is because a TEMPERATURE INVERSION is created at night time. This inversion blocks the parcel of air above the boundary, from reaching the boundary.

    We know this happens because we observe it on this planet, especially at the poles in winter and at coastal upwelling zones such as that along the California coast which used to cause those famous smog days in the 70’s and 80’s.
    So the statement

    “At night there is no reciprocal process, no heat source to drive convection or latent heat transfer. Thermal coupling is poor relative to daytime coupling.

    is true.

    The next sentence,

    I don’t know whether this asymmetry has the effect of jacking up temperature above the assumed theoretic but crude modelling suggests it may well.

    No, it does not jack-up the temperature OF THE SURFACE above the theoretic, but it does jack-up the temperature of THE ATMOSPHERE above the theoretic.
    I would hazard a guess that the temperature of the atmosphere would approach that of the equator at noon.

    regards

  45. tallbloke says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Willis says:
    [Tallbloke, first give us your elevator speech about Jelbring’s hypothesis. Until then, I will not believe you understand it well enough to “prove” anything. You have not shown that my proof has “failed” as you claim, record it on your website or not.

    No Willis, before we can move on to a discussion of the science, you need to acknowledge that Hans Jelbring defined his model planet as one which does not radiate to space, and therefore your allegation that his model breaks the laws of thermodynamics because of radiation to space considerations fails. No-one needs to understand the rest of the paper to see this simple point of logic. So acknowledge it, apologise to Hans for blackguarding him for the last eight years, and then we can move on.

  46. tallbloke says:

    By the way Tim, sorry this thread has been used as a scratchpad, I’ll move this stuff when I write up the events of the evening on a new thread.

    [ sorry SORRY, look scruff I don’t give a Yorkie’s leg fancy, ah, you are in Yorkshire, umm… Norfolk police terrier, doesn’t matter Rog it’s the nature of a crazy time, not an important thread –Tim]

  47. Crossposted from WUWT

    Willis is considering a highly idealised case, but for that highly idealised case (perfectly IR transparent, and therefore non-radiating, atmosphere and uniform constant surface illumination, thermal equilbrium established) his argument is obviously correct.

  48. malagaview says:

    tallbloke says: Willis seems to be losing the plot bigtime.

    Just read his WUWT response [at 2:22pm] to Hans Jelbring and have to say BIG TIME is an massive understatement.

  49. tallbloke says:

    Archonix says:
    January 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm (Edit)

    [SNIP: If you wish to accuse me of being disingenuous, quote my words or go home. I won’t stand for this kind of vague nasty accusation, that’s a slimy tactic. And if you believe a man like Tallbloke, who censors scientific opinion that he disagrees with, you are an idiot. -w.]

    Well, Willis, since you took out the substantive part of my post and then called me an idiot I really have nothing more to say to you on the subject except, as you have opened that door: you are an arrogant, insufferable ideologue who refuses to countenance the possibility that other ideas may be better than your own. You have constantly belittled and attacked anyone who disagrees with you, characterise your opponents as ignorant fools, accuse them of the very tactics you use against anyone whoholds a differing opinion to your own and act as if you’re God’s own gift to the internet. In short, sir, your condescension ill behoves a scientist as you claim to be.

    Consider this a formal protest at your behaviour, your arguments and your continued presence on this site.

    Graham Dawson

    [Reply] Bravo Graham!

  50. tallbloke says:

    Jonathan Jones: Welcome and thanks for dropping by.

    My beef is about the way Willis has treated Hans Jelbring, which is nothing short of disgusting.

    Also, Willis seems to think that his model disproves the possibility that gravitational compression of the atmosphere is having an effect on surface temperature. That I disagree with.

  51. gnomish says:

    in 2 threads, T.B.
    yes. same nick.
    the ‘defund ipcc’ and the ‘rant against tallbloke’ ones.
    i can’t reproduce them but they were very strictly on topic.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/the-new-hollywood-blacklist/
    (my comments there are typical – i’m not a climatologist)
    i enjoy clint eastwood movies and watching predator drones vaporize talibans. i keep hoping to see a climate scientologist head on a post. that’s why i visit this kind of site. it’s the schadenfreude, too, i suppose. it’s gone beyond parody as the catastrophe salesmen scramble to close out before the market hits bottom.
    best wishes to you but it’s time for me to leave teh parteh. i’ll watch but i won’t play.
    and winning is different than fighting. srsly.
    gnomish, out. and i don’t even remember the password for the email i used – i once had over 300 of them cuz i worked with some coders back when pirates were loud and proud. so bye.

  52. tallbloke says:

    Looking at the tail end of the thread, I’m guessing a grown up has come along and taken the scissors off Willis. It might be safe to post again now.

  53. Willis’s argument only strictly applies to the exact situation he discusses. But in that situation it is a rock-solid argument. I haven’t really followed the wider debate you are referring to, but as regards this exact argument there is no doubt that he is correct and a lot of people are simply making fools of themselves by challenging it when they clearly don’t understand the first thing about the underlying concepts.

    Sure Willis is annoying at times. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t right.

  54. tchannon says:

    In reply to Baa Humbug,

    In the simplistic case, yes, an inversion is implied.

    In practice these are rare, or are they?
    The most notorious is likely to be in the main global temperature datasets, the coldest grid cell of all, a month at (I think) Fort Yukon. That said, on a different thread here Ben, who knows about real aeronautical conditions pointed at the very widespread nocturnal low level wind above a stagnant ground layer, which I discovered is documented for many places including the Sahel. (in that case it showed that GCM style models fail)

    Try Figure 2 from this paper http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-333.pdf which show day/night.

    About half way down this text a lot is said about lapse rate oddities
    http://www.preservearticles.com/2011111217131/what-do-you-mean-by-lapse-rates.html

  55. tallbloke says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm (Edit)

    QUOTE MY WORDS. I have no recollection of saying anything of the sort, I don’t know the context, I don’t know if you understood me, I haven’t a clue what you are referring to. STOP THIS VAGUE ACCUSATORY BULLSHIT AND QUOTE MY WORDS.

    I can imagine Hans Jelbring is probably thinking similar thoughts so if you don’t want to have the link to his paper I provided on your thread because you think I’m placing it to drive traffic to my site then copy his paper and upload it here and link it in the headline post so people can judge what he is saying for themselves instead of having to trust your VAGUE ACCUSATORY BULLSHIT

    Thank you.

    TB.

  56. George says:

    “erfectly IR transparent, and therefore non-radiating”

    That’s the part I am having trouble getting my head around. Something can be perfectly IR transparent, yet still radiates when it is heated. EVERYTHING radiates. IR transparent does not mean “therefore, non-radiating”. It means it does not ABSORB radiation, it does not mean it does not EMIT radiation.

    Sodium chloride is transparent to IR but if you heat up a block of salt it will certainly radiate IR. It won’t absorb any, but it will, by golly, radiate it.

  57. George says:

    In other words, if I have a block of pure sodium chloride and I place it 2 inches above a hot plate in a vacuum, it will not heat up from the radiation of the hot plate. If, however, I place it ON the hot plate so that it is heated by conduction, it will heat up and radiate IR. Heat it hot enough and it will glow red hot.

  58. George says:

    The atmosphere, even an IR transparent atmosphere is in physical contact with the surface of the planet so it will be heated by conduction. I must be missing some fundamental part of the model because I’m just not getting the part where the atmosphere won’t be heated by conductive transfer and radiate that heat (cooling the surface of the planet as it does so).

  59. tallbloke says:

    Ed Fix says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:37 pm (Edit)

    Willis, I believe your proof contains a couple of fundamental errors.

    I haven’t read the Nikolov and Zeller or Jelbring papers in any great detail, and I haven’t read the comments here, so I don’t know what others have already posted. However, I do understand a bit about S-B radiation, as well as gravitational heating, starting from first principles. So here’s my first draft of an “elevator speech” about gravitational heating and S-B radiation of an atmosphere. I haven’t spent a lot of time refining it, so at this point, the elevator would have to be in a tall building.

    I’ll start by stating a couple of assumptions. First, by non-GHG atmosphere, I mean an atmosphere that is perfectly transparent to electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths. Second, we need to decouple heat and temperature. One way people tend to confuse themselves is by thinking of heat and temperature as the same thing. They’re not. Heat is the kinetic energy of the molecules within a body–either their average velocity in a fluid, or vibrational amplitude in a solid. Temperature is not a measure of energy by itself, just as voltage alone is not a measure of electrical power. It’s a measure of the intensity or concentration of the heat energy within the body. A large body containing a given amount of heat energy has a lower temperature than a smaller body containing the same amount of heat energy.

    Now to your errors:

    1. “But when the temperature of a perfect blackbody planet rises … the surface radiation of that planet must rise as well.”

    No, that’s incorrect. As the temperature of a S-B radiating body rises, the peak of its radiation spectrum shifts to shorter wavelengths. This says nothing about the total energy radiated. You are conflating heat with temperature. The energy emitted by the filament of a 25 watt incandescent bulb at 6000K (if you could build such a thing) would be MUCH less than that emitted by the sun, but have the same spectrum. And if you could build a 25 watt bulb with an 8000K filament (a materials problem, not a theoretical one) it would have a higher temperature S-B spectrum, but no increase in total energy emission. So, yes. It is possible to emit lower energy at the same temperature, or the same energy at higher temperature.

    2. You have ignored the fact that even a non-GHG atmosphere is itself a S-B radiating body. Even absent the property of intercepting outgoing longwave radiation, it gains heat energy by conduction, through contact with the planet’s surface. The atmosphere then re-radiates that energy through S-B radiation, but some of it goes back to the surface to be re-absorbed, converted back into heat until it’s transferred to an impinging air molecule again (speeding it up a bit), or radiated as S-B radiation. The overall effect is to slow the radiation of the earth’s heat into space (even without the greenhouse effect), and that necessarily raises the temperature of the atmosphere and the surface. It doesn’t, however, increase the amount of energy radiated–just changes the temperature and spectrum. The S-B radiation of an amorphous body of gas is how we can measure the temperature of gas clouds in interstellar space.

    As for gravitational heating, here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a transparent tube in interstellar space (no gravity), 200 km long, one square meter cross sectional area. Fill this tube with some amount of an ideal gas at 0K. That is, each molecule of gas in the tube is motionless. Without gravity, everything remains motionless WRT the tube.

    Now instantaneously put an earth-size planet in contact with one end of the tube. All the gas begins to accelerate toward the planet (now the bottom) end of the tube. There will be collisions between gas molecules. That means pressure must increase at the bottom as it decreases at the top. The ideal gas law PV=nRT tells us that with increasing pressure the temperature of the gas will rise. This increased temperature causes the gas to begin emitting S-B radiation.

    If no extra energy is imparted to the gas from the surface of the planet, the gas will eventually all settle to the bottom end of the tube, back at 0K. However, the gas’ temperature did rise, and EM energy was emitted. The planet doesn’t have any less gravity than it did before, so where did the energy come from? I don’t know. If you want to say that violates conservation of energy, I can’t dispute it. Maybe if we really knew what gravity is, we could answer the question.

    However, if we continuously add 240 W at the bottom of the tube, the gas will reach some equilibrium. When a falling air molecule collides with the bottom, and gets a little extra kick as it rebounds up (conduction heating) gravity still continuously accelerates it back down, therefore continuously keeps the temperature elevated. The fact that energy radiated must equal insolation doesn’t mean the temperature near the ground can’t be above the S-B temperature.

    Gravitational heating is real. Does it violate conservation of energy? I dunno.

  60. Bryan says:

    Sorry to use your site as a posting board but has Willis lost the plot?

    I put one post up on his recent thread on WUWT.
    It was on topic and up for several hours before being ‘snipped’.

    This has only happened to me once before; on Skeptical Science (big surprise)!

    There was a mass snipping at the same time.
    Can moderators pass a comment then return to snip much later?
    What does that tell us about the intention of the snipers?
    Joel Shore and Jim D comments passed through unsnipped.

    Willis appears to think that the 33K greenhouse effect is sacred and any question of it amounts to sacrilege.

  61. tallbloke says:

    George: Good points, thanks.

  62. tallbloke says:

    Hi Bryan, post away, you are very welcome here.

  63. tallbloke says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:07 pm (Edit)

    Willis sez:
    That’s it? You’ve run out of real points

    I didn’t run out of them so much as have them deleted by your censor scissors.

  64. George says:

    “You are conflating heat with temperature.”

    Yeah, I tried to make that point very early in the thread, too, but it seemed to have sailed past everyone and I got yelled at by Willis for being “off topic”.

  65. ferd berple says:

    I’d like to post a more complete version of my proof showing that using the radiative transfer model, surface temps on an non ghg planet would be higher that with a ghg atmosphere, but I’m not able to post.

    I believe this supports the gravity model.

  66. tallbloke says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:21 pm (Edit)

    Alec Rawls says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Willis wrote:[SNIP: No, you cannot use my thread to drive traffic to your site. Nice try though. -.w]If this were Willis’ site, I would have no problem with this response to Tallbloke’s censorship of his views at Tallbloke’s Talkship Turnabout is fair play, as the saying goes.

    I haven’t censored anything said by Willis or Joel on my site. It’s all there. I won’t provide links since Willis thinks I’m trying to boost my hit count by doing so, but check the end of the suggestions page and the post about Joel Shore and scientific discourse, it’s all there. Every word said by both of them.

    I have told Joel he’s not going tto get the opportunity to disrupt the various relevant gravity threads, but offered him a guest post in compensation for this. Willis then banned himself in protest.

    By the way, I like the idea of a talkship. When Mickey Mann makes me rich I’ll consider this further. 😉

  67. tallbloke says:

    Ferd, feel free to post it here.

  68. ferd berple says:

    ferd berple says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.

    I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with Willis that my origional proof was incomplete.

    To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,

    space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space

    I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.

    I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:

    space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space

    Flow C takes part of its energy from the flow from the surface to ghg (flow H), plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:

    H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C

    Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:

    (result a) H < C

    Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:

    space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space

    D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    However, since F = 0, this becomes

    D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    and from above:

    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    Therefore we can say

    A + C = D

    and from (result a) above

    D = A + C > A + H

    therefore

    D > A + H

    Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp

    Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)

    since

    Temp(D) = surface temp of planet with non GHG atmosphere
    Temp(A+H) = surface temp with GHG atmosphere

    Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
    QED

    While I agree with Willis that the inclusion of H has allowed the surface temperature of the GHG surface to come closer to the surface temperature of the non GHG planet, the GHG planet still has a lower surface temperature.

  69. ferd berple says:

    I just posted it but it disappeared, ???

  70. ferd berple says:

    maybe it is too long?

  71. tallbloke says:

    Jose Suro says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm (Edit)

    Dear Willis,

    I have no dog in this fight, I’m just a bystander. But you obviously do, and it seems so in a bad way. I don’t know or care who bit you on the ass, but by the timbre of your responses they struck a nerve. Some of your comments are excerpted below, all quoted as you prefer. I always enjoyed your writings and mostly agreed with the content, but you’ve come off the rails. Sorry that you’ve lost it emotionally…. Your responses belittle you and that is the sad part, and you can never tale any of it back, it’s out there forever.

    Please clip this response as this is a personal message. What’s important is that you re-read these quotes below, maybe after a couple of beers. This is all you in the mirror, and it’s not pretty. Feel free to contact me directly if you feel like lambasting me as well. My name directs to my website and my email.

    Best,

    J.

    “That’s it? That’s my crime? You are busting me because I called ten to the minus eighth tiny? You are a waste of bandwidth, sir. I specifically requested that people not bother me with this kind of petty nit-picking, and yet here you are.

    Come back when you have something of substance to say, and my advice for your optics would be to leave off the “OMG”, it makes you sound like a Valley Girl.”

    “Alexander, the amazing thing about you is that your bull is so convincing I always have to shake my head. Here’s what Wikipedia says about what they call the “Stefan-Boltzmann law”, complete with hyphen:

    The law was deduced by Jožef Stefan (1835–1893) in 1879 on the basis of experimental measurements made by John Tyndall and was derived from theoretical considerations, using thermodynamics, by Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) in 1884.

    Go away, sir, your impudence knows no bounds. You haven’t a tenth of the knowledge you claim.”

    “Why is it that when a charming fellow like you make some idiotic statement that clearly violates conservation of energy, they feel they have to finish it off by insulting my understanding? Medica, cura te ipsum …”

    “PS—I note that you have not given us the elevator speech for your “theory of gravitational enhancement”. Until you rectify that egregious omission, why are you opening your mouth about your theory? I do love that your theory claims that you can’t have a GHG-free atmosphere, that’s a new one for me.”

    “Tallbloke, I said I would snip. I’m snipping. Don’t pretend to be surprised, it makes you look meretricious. Screenshot all you wish, I have nothing to hide.”
    “Because either you can tell us, simply and clearly, how your “Jelbring effect” is supposed to work, or you are worse than useless and should just audit the discussion because you have nothing to add.

    This is crunch time, Hans, this is where the rubber hits the road. There’s enough heat already, give us some light. Give us your elevator speech about your grand theory that will revolutionize science. Explain your stupendous ideas clearly in a few well-thought-out sentences. You’ll never have a better or larger audience for your words.

    You and I have spent hours on this topic. I still don’t understand how the “Jelbring Effect” works. So fight my ignorance, let me know clearly and cleanly just what happens first, and what happens next, see my example of an “elevator speech” in the head post.
    Or walk away, I truly don’t care, Hans. This kind of stuff hurts my head, which I should have examined for posting this thread …”

    “The problem was not your error. We all make those.

    It was that you were acting like a jerkwagon about it, insulting people for their stupidity when you were the one being stupid.

    And the problem is not that you made a fool of yourself, it’s not all about you, really. The problem is that you insulted everyone, and you still haven’t apologized for that, only for your “it’s all about me” mistake …”

    “I do love people who start out by saying they don’t profess to any real knowledge, and end up by telling me that what I’ve said is impossible …

    TimC, you are right. You don’t even have enough knowledge to ask intelligent questions. I don’t wish to be cruel, but in such a situation, just listen and learn, OK?”

    “Unfortunately the link where people can actually see what Hans Jelbring said in his 2003 paper was lost in the carnage of Willis’ censorship spree. Here it is again:
    [SNIP: No, you cannot use my thread to drive traffic to your site. Nice try though. -.w]”

    “God damn it, Leonard, QUOTE MY WORDS. I have no recollection of saying anything of the sort, I don’t know the context, I don’t know if you understood me, I haven’t a clue what you are referring to. STOP THIS VAGUE ACCUSATORY BULLSHIT AND QUOTE MY WORDS.
    Is that so hard to understand?”

    “Is stupidity catching? I provided chapter and verse from the IPCC showing that all gases will NOT absorb and emit at all frequencies, and you come back without a cite at all and tell us in essence ‘They do too radiate’!

    No, kiwi, they don’t. Hie thee to a textbook, your slip is showing.”

    “The point is that you were a dickhead about it, insulting me, and insulting the other posters for “following my lead”. Nor did you apologize for acting like a prick, you only say “sorry I made a mistake”. That’s why I said “go away”. You insult people, then you pretend there was no insult.”

    “Well gosh, Alexander, if you don’t like the site then … I hate to say it, but in that case here’s a novel idea—go away. I will not blow in your ear and pat your tummy and pretend to be your friend when you come in here to tell us all what absolute jerks we are and you lambaste people for following my lead. You want someone to blow in your ear, you’ll have to apply to another thread. Here, on the other hand, you might actually learn something. Up to you, I’m not banning you.”

    “Dissatisfied with being able to ban people and post whatever you want on your own website, you now want to tell me what we should post on this website? … TB, you’re losing the plot. I have no responsibility and no desire to spread Jelbrings ascientific BS around, that’s up to you and him. If folks here want to find it I have faith that they can, their google-fu is strong …
    I notice you still haven’t provided an elevator speech explaining H&N’s theory, which certainly fits with my belief that you don’t understand it any better than I do … yet despite not understanding it, you ban people for saying it violates conservation of energy.
    How does that work again?”

    “I swear, some people just don’t know when to quit. BZZZZZT! Sorry, wrong. Next contestant, please.”

    “That’s it? You’ve run out of real points and are reduced to simple insults? Disappointing, but OK, I’ll play if that’s what you want, although I’d prefer to discuss the science.
    Here’s one from my childhood, an insult for a cowboy:

    You’re all hat and no cattle!

    Gosh, isn’t this fun? Your turn …”

  72. tallbloke says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    January 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    I’ve closed the other two threads on this subject since they were getting a bit ragged and Shore-worn, and directed everyone here to this thread.

    Lol, nice one Anthony. Sorry to hear you had to close two threads though on such an important topic though. The Shore effect in action.

  73. tallbloke says:

    So, it looks like the takeover at WUWT is more or less complete. Joel has caused the two Nikolov and Zeller threads to be shut down, and now the refugees are being directed to the tender ministrations of Willis ‘Elevator speech or disproof’ Eschenbach.

    We’ll be happy to hear from those who find Willis’ “free speech at length for me, but only brief little missives from thee” style too hypocritical to handle.

  74. tallbloke says:

    Ferd, sorry, just rescued it from the spam can. Dunno why it went there.

  75. ferd berple says:

    Mathematical proof that GHG cools the surface of planet earth

    terminology:
    ==X==> denotes energy flow from left to right, called X.
    denotes two way energy flow between right and left, called Y.
    <==Z== denotes energy flow from right to left, called Z.

    In an atmosphere with GHG
    (1) space <==A== surface(r) ghg ==C==> space
    total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by GHG atmosphere + net energy emitted to space by surface(r)
    (2) A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    In an atmosphere without GHG (non radiating),
    (3) space <==D== surface(n) no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
    total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by surface(n)
    (4) D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    However, since F = 0, this becomes
    (5) D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    Assume that in (1) above the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, and the net energy flow is positive from surface to GHG atmosphere. (1) can then be rewritten as:
    (6) space ghg ==C==> space
    Flow C takes part of its energy from the flow from the surface to ghg (flow H), plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:
    (7) H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C
    Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:
    (8) H < C
    from (2) we have:
    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    And from (5) we have
    D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    Therefore we can say
    (9) A + C = D
    and from (8) we have
    H A + H
    Therefore
    (11) D > A + H
    Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp by S-B
    (12) Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
    Since
    Temp(A+H) = surface(r) temp with GHG atmosphere
    Temp(D) = surface(n) temp of planet with non GHG atmosphere
    Therefore, because of (12) the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
    QED

  76. ferd berple says:

    aargh,the post got messed up by html. will substitute LT and GT and try again.

  77. ferd berple says:

    Mathematical proof that GHG cools the surface of planet earth

    terminology:
    ==X==> denotes energy flow from left to right, called X.
    <==Y==> denotes two way energy flow between right and left, called Y.
    <==Z== denotes energy flow from right to left, called Z.

    In an atmosphere with GHG
    (1) space <==A== surface(r) <==B==> ghg ==C==> space
    total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by GHG atmosphere + net energy emitted to space by surface(r)
    (2) A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    In an atmosphere without GHG (non radiating),
    (3) space <==D== surface(n) <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
    total energy incoming from sun = net energy emitted to space by surface(n)
    (4) D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    However, since F = 0, this becomes
    (5) D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    Assume that in (1) above the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, and the net energy flow is positive from surface to GHG atmosphere. (1) can then be rewritten as:
    (6) space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space
    Flow C takes part of its energy from the flow from the surface to ghg (flow H), plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:
    (7) H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C
    Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere,
    that:
    (8) H < C
    from (2) we have:
    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    And from (5) we have
    D = solar energy in = radiation out to space
    Therefore we can say
    (9) A + C = D
    and from (8) we have
    H < C
    Therefore
    (10) D = A + C > A + H
    Therefore
    (11) D > A + H
    Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp by S-B
    (12) Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
    Since
    Temp(A+H) = surface(r) temp with GHG atmosphere
    Temp(D) = surface(n) temp of planet with non GHG atmosphere
    Therefore, because of (12) the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
    QED

  78. tallbloke says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Willis, how come everyone else is expected to stick to elevator speeches but you get to publish long self pitying diatribe? Now that Anthony has redirected the refugees from the “Shore worn” N&Z threads here, you need to relax, and relax the rules.

  79. Wayne Job says:

    That posting by Willis trying to prove the outcome of a hyperthetical using imaginary gases is the equivalent of trying to solve how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

    The solving of scientific endeavors in the real world should be enough, the quagmire of quantum physics with its invented imaginary particles to cover an ever increasing list of improbabilities should be a warning to all scientists.

    All things real tend toward simplicity and harmony, full understanding of any topic shows this to be the nature of the universe.

    Stay out of squabbles TB the science is more important than that.
    P.S. You have enough crap happening already.

  80. Tallbloke, I am on yourside. Willis has a few points wrong. I have put before that by definition and in the workings of Stefan & Boltzmann a black body has a surface. A gas does not have a surface so the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship DOES NOT APPLY TO A GAS. Prof. Hoyt Hottel (late Prof. of Chemical Engineering at MIT) with others in experiments showed that the absorption and emission of gases was related to the partial pressure (ie density of the individual gas) and the path length ie pL in association with the emissivity (relative to a black body) over the whole spectrum.
    Further, you will know that if a gas absorbs radiation it does not necessarily increase in temperature. It can gain momentum and expand. When a gas expands it cools. Many things are occurring at the same time. No one has figured out all the complexities. I appreciate the attempts at a unification theory but these appear not to cover all the modes of energy transfer. For a start there are four modes of heat transfer 1/ conduction (in solids), 2/ convection in fluids, 3/ phase change (between solids and fluids) 4/ radiation (in a vacuum or low density gas). Then the there is radio-active decay or the conversion of mass to energy. electrical energy, magnetism, momentum and potential energy (relative to gravity)
    When reading some of the post and comments Miles Mathis article concerning the Stefan-Boltzman constant came to mind. He related it to gravity.
    I have put before that Nobel prize winner WE Lamb Jr has written articles that massless “photon” do not exist. Other work supports that e-m flux is in waves. No one has said that gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves or radio waves is anything other than waves. Waves can be cancelled has been shown for a long time with radar and radiowaves and is now shown by research on stealth weapons for light.
    While not going along with everything Miles Mathis writes the following is interesting NEW PAPER, 1/10/2012. Photons, stacked spins, and the silver mean family at http://milesmathis.com/updates.html There could be something in the repetition of “golden ratios”

    Forgot the link the Mathis’ Stefan article http://milesmathis.com/stefan.html [added –Tim]

  81. Baa Humbug says:

    tchannon
    January 14, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    Thanx for the links.

    The gist of Willis hypotheses is that a non-GHG atmosphere cannot increase the theoretic maximum temperature of the surface.
    My contention is that that may or may not be true, but it is true that the atmosphere (as opposed to the dirt/rock surface) will most certainly reach higher than the theoretic temperature.

    The reason is, warming by conduction is ALWAYS more efficient than cooling by conduction (in a solid gas relationship). This is due to the temperature inversion phenomenon. It doesn’t matter if inversion is common or rare (though as we observe in Antarctica, inversions are very common)

    So, if the atmosphere warms via conduction, whatever level it reaches given the circumstance, cooling via conduction (once insolation stops at night) will never return temperatures to the original level.
    Given that, the next question is, when will this ‘accumulation of heat’ stop? The answer is, so long as there is warming via conduction, it will continue. Warming by conduction will cease once the temperature of the atmosphere is equal to the temperature of the warmest part of the surface. On a sphere that happens to be at the equator at noon or whenever the sun is directly above.

    Willis persistently focuses on averages which misleads him. If he were to start at the equator, figure out what’s happening there, then widen his focus towards the poles, it’ll all become clear.

    I believe this discussion about a planet with non-GHG atmosphere is clearly and unequivocally profound to the Green House Warming Hypotheses.
    Maybe that’s why there is such a dogged resistance to it.

    my regards

  82. George says:

    If he were to start at the equator, figure out what’s happening there, then widen his focus towards the poles, it’ll all become clear.

    But he isn’t talking about one sun, he is talking about a sphere that is irradiated equally at all points by a spherical array of tiny suns, or something. In other words, nonsene, in my opinion.

    The only point I was trying to make is that when the sun heats the surface, the surface will warm. SOME of that heat will be transferred to the atmosphere (which cools the surface a bit) and that warmed gas then begins to convect. It will eventually radiate the heat so from space, yes, Earth will radiate all the heat that it receives, but that radiation will NOT all come from the surface! Some of it will come from the gas that was heated by the surface and convected and radiates the heat from possibly thousands of feet up. The atmosphere will become convective. It was stated that an IR transparent gas wouldn’t emit IR … which I took to be nonsense.

  83. markus says:

    Willis has a new book out titled;

    How to make friends and influence people.

  84. david says:

    Is Willis saying that if I am suspended in space, and a stream of 8,000 degrees N2 jets by me at say 10′ away, (nothing but the vacume of space between me and the gas) I will feel nothing and my thermometer will register nothing, but if that stream of gas IS COMPOSED OF CO2 and jets past, again with 10′ of the vacume of space separating me from the gas, I will feel emense heat from the radiating CO2, but none from the non radiating N2?

  85. George says:

    “I will feel emense heat from the radiating CO2, but none from the non radiating N2?”

    Yeah, that’s about the gist of what I was reading. Or thought I was reading.

    For example:

    “A gas which absorbs no radiation also emits no radiation. It has an emissivity of zero”

    “perfectly IR transparent, and therefore non-radiating, atmosphere”

    Well, that might be the case if the gas is at absolute zero and never comes into contact with anything. I mean PHYSICAL contact. In an atmosphere on a planet, the atmosphere will be in physical contact with the surface and will warm by thermal conductivity. They are apparently assuming that radiation is the ONLY mechanism of heat transfer. Radiation inside of the atmosphere is the minority heat transfer mechanism. Conduction and convection play a larger role. It doesn’t matter if the atmosphere absorbs radiation or not, it will heat due to physical contact with the surface of the planet and once it heats, it WILL radiate. The whole thing is nonsensical unless you have an imaginary planet where the atmosphere is suspended above the surface by a vacuum somehow. It’s just nuts.

  86. ferd berple says:

    I’d appreciate hearing back from anyone willing to walk through my post of
    Ferd berple says:
    January 15, 2012 at 2:27 am

    I cleared up the points Willis and a few others had and the result still comes out the same. The crux of my approach was to not try and calculate the specific amounts of the various energy fluxes. Rather to simply deal with them as inequalities, as it is much easier to say if one flux is larger than another, even if you can’t say by how much. This allows you to deal with the uncertainties and arrive at an answer that would otherwise be impossible to resolve.

  87. mkelly says:

    cementafriend says: January 15, 2012 at 4:06 am

    I have asked Mr. Shore several times what emissivity to use for CO2 and he always evades. At 1 atm and 288K CO2 has an emissivity of about .02 if I read the charts correctly. By this atmospheric CO2 would have to be very “hot” to radiate back down enough energy to heat dirt.

    From my tablet so forgive any spelling errors etc.

  88. Konrad says:

    Sorry to do this, but I thought it best to cross post here while Willis is in RC censor mode at WUWT.
    From WUWT –

    Willis,
    Do I have a simple “elevator explanation of the N&Z hypothesis”? Yes. Are you getting it? No.
    Not until you apologise to Roger and many others.

    Much as I enjoy your valuable and entertaining posts at WUWT, I believe you are wrong….again. Although as far as I can see , only for the second time.
    You were wrong about the effect of incident LWIR on water that is free to evaporatively cool. I took the time to conduct several easily repeatable empirical experiments to check your claims, and despite all your BS (blackboard scribbling) the empirical results showed that LWIR slows the cooling of materials that do not evaporatively cool far more than those that do. The T/K diagram is fundamentally flawed, and with some microwave safe cling wrap (LDPE) you can see it for yourself.

    I believe you are making the same mistake this time. BS. Blackboard scribbling. This limits you to what others believe they know. Drop the mouse and back slowly away from the keyboard. Do the actual empirical experiments and sod the “thought experiments”. I have in previous threads laid out simple experiments to conduct. Pick one. Do it.

    An ancient Chinese proverb – “Tell me and I will forget. Show me and I may understand. Let me do it and I will know.”

    (cross posted to Talkshop while Willis is in RC censor mode)

  89. Konrad says:

    Yep,
    the fool tried to censor,

    here’s what he allowed to be posted;
    ///////////////////////////////////////////
    Konrad says:
    January 15, 2012 at 12:59 am

    Willis,
    Do I have a simple “elevator explanation of the N&z hypothesis”? Yes. Are you getting it? No.
    Not until you apologise to Roger and many others.

    [SNIP: Well, I guess we’ll never hear your brilliant elevator speech if that’s the case. I gave my apology to roger above, that’s done, not sure why you bring it up again but that’s it. w.]
    /////////////////////////////////////////////

    Interesting that he snipped before anyone got to read about his epic fail over the oceans 🙂

  90. tallbloke says:

    Some excellent comments overnight, many thanks to you all. I’m now intrigued by how much N2 and O2 radiate compared to 0.039% co2.

    Lazy Teenager says they don’t radiate at all. Ed Fix says

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    …you claim that non-GHG gases radiate in the IR, so you’ll have to rebuild the parts of your theory that depend on that incorrect claim.

    Willis, you’re conflating absorption with emission. Any body, solid or fluid, emits electromagnetic radiation with a spectrum determined by the S-B relationship. A body’s transparency spectrum is independent of its emission spectrum. They’re separate processes.

    A transparent body of gas, however, is different from a solid body in that we can see EM radiation emitted throughout the volume, not just at the surface. Specifically, at those wavelengths where the gasseous body is transparent, we see the emissions from the entire depth at full intensity. However, at those wavelengths the intervening gas can absorb, we see a notch in the intensity spectrum. Carbon dioxide happens to absorb a wavelength of EM near the peak of the earth’s overall S-B radiation spectrum (about 15 micrometers), but it re-emits S-B radiation in a smooth spectrum depending on its temperature only. Just like any other body of matter.

    So I reiterate, an atmosphere containing a greenhouse gas gains heat both by conduction through contact with the surface, and by absorbing the earth’s (and the surrounding atmosphere’s) S-B radiation at some wavelength, while a non-GHG atmosphere is transparent to all EM wavelengths, and gains heat energy only by conduction. Both, however, emit their own S-B radiation in a spectrum determined only by their temperature.

    Come back when you have spent the time refining it

    I may do that at some point, but I’ve spent far too much time on this today already.

  91. tallbloke says:

    willb says:
    January 14, 2012 at 8:24 pm (Edit)

    @Willis Eschenbach
    Here is my best shot at an elevator speech explaining the N&Z “greenhouse effect”. The N&Z effect works as follows:

    • The sun transfers energy via radiation to the earth, warming the earth.

    • The surface of the earth transfers energy into the (non-GHG) atmosphere through conduction, heating the atmosphere.

    • Earth’s gravity causes an altitude-dependent temperature and pressure lapse rate to form in the atmosphere. The atmospheric temperature and pressure drop as altitude increases with the temperature ultimately dropping to that of deep space (~3K).

    • Atmospheric gases heated conductively at the earth’s surface then convectively rise through the pressure lapse rate.

    • As the temperature of the atmosphere drops towards that of deep space, the rising gases transition through a number of phase changes (e.g. gas => liquid => solid-a => solid-b). At the occurrence of each phase change the atmosphere releases latent heat in the form of radiation.

    • Some of the radiating energy from the released latent heat is directed downward through the gaseous, IR-transparent atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth.

    • As a result of absorbing that latent heat energy from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the (non-GHG) atmosphere.

  92. tallbloke says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    January 14, 2012 at 8:47 pm (Edit)

    Roy Spencer is wrong.

    I didn’t think I would say that about a basic physics idea, but he is incorrect when stating “If the atmosphere cannot absorb/emit IR, it would become isothermal, and all convection would cease. ”

    It would become isentropic, not isothermal. At equilibrium, both the temperature and the density will decrease with altitude. This is the required condition for the stopping of convection, not being isothermal. This is directly related to the idea of “adiabatic lapse rate”.

    See http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atphys.htm
    or
    http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf

  93. Konrad says:

    Roger,
    That is of course an interesting point you raise about the emissions of energy from N2 and O2. How do Dr. Spencer’s satellites measure atmospheric temperatures? EM emissions from O2 molecules, that’s how. IR regardless, N2 and O2 are radiating in the lower microwave frequencies, and this is what the satellites measure.

  94. Tenuc says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 15, 2012 at 9:52 am
    “…Here is my best shot at an elevator speech explaining the N&Z “greenhouse effect”. The N&Z effect works as follows:…”

    Very good, Rog, but don’t forget that as photons hit the atmosphere they are scattered by it, and transfer KE.

    Any doubters should ask themselves why the sky appears blue, but reflected light is white (clue, we can only see light which is ~normal to our retina, all other visible light photons are invisible until reflected back to us in a ~normal orientation).

  95. Ronaldo says:

    Ed Fix says:
    January 14, 2012 at 4:37 pm (Edit)

    Ed, thanks for this insight. It clearly explains the problem. I think your final question can be answered as follows.
    When you put the earth at one end of the tube, the gas molecules at distance h from the earth achieve a potential energy of mgh (massXgravitational constantXdistance).

    It is the conversion of this potential energy into kinetic energy which appears as heat in the gas via its specific heat.

    This energy has not come from nowhere, it is the force X distance needed to put the earth at the end of the tube.

    Someone please contradict me if I have got this wrong.

  96. tallbloke says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 15, 2012 at 2:54 am

    Willis sez:
    a “gedanken” experiment in German, they were a great favorite of Albert Einstein for the same reason that I use them—to simplify complex questions so that they can be understood.

    There is utility in gedanken experiments, and also danger. Things can be simplified to the point of meaninglessness wrt the real world you hope to gain insights into via the thought experiment. Another danger is that having appeared to prove something via such an experiment, insights of real value in longer than elevator speech length tracts may mistakenly get rejected a priori and without proper consideration.

    As Hans Jelbring pointed out to Willis above, there is no elevator version of his peer reviewed 2003 paper. It isn’t overly long, but clearly longer than Willis is prepared to countenance. If Willis had read it carefully in 2003, he wouldn’t have made the error of thinking that his own gedanken experiment falsifies it.

    Willis said to me above:
    [Tallbloke, every post can be claimed to have scientific content, including yours. I said that I would snip things that were off-topic, which your post most assuredly was. If you (or anyone else) think your post contained actual science that has been deleted incorrectly, then post the scientific part again and we can discuss it. -w.]

    Thank you. It’s a disproof of your assertion that Hans Jelbring’s paper is falsified by your argument that:

    “The proof is by contradiction. This is a proof where you assume that the theorem is right, and then show that if it is right it leads to an impossible situation, so it cannot possibly be right.

    So let us assume that we have the airless perfectly evenly heated blackbody planet that I spoke of above, evenly surrounded by a sphere of mini-suns. The temperature of this theoretical planet is, of course, the theoretical S-B temperature.

    Now suppose we add an atmosphere to the planet, a transparent GHG-free atmosphere. If the theories of N&K and Jelbring are correct, the temperature of the planet will rise.

    But when the temperature of a perfect blackbody planet rises … the surface radiation of that planet must rise as well.

    And because the atmosphere is transparent, this means that the planet is radiating to space more energy than it receives. This is an obvious violation of conservation of energy, so any theories proposing such a warming must be incorrect.

    Q.E.D.”

    But in Hans Jelbring’s paper, the model planet by definition does not radiate to space. At the beginning of section 2.1 in his paper he states:

    “A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It
    neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space.”

    Your ‘disproof’ of Hans Jelbring’s 2003 paper therefore fails.

    QED

    Now, Willis, somewhere in the foregoing mess of comments and deletions, you asserted that my argument is incorrect, but you did not in any way shape or form say anything to back up that assertion. So let’s have the discussion you offer above, and you can start by enlarging on your rejection of my argument.

    Cheers

    TB.

  97. Stephen Wilde says:

    Incredible and disgraceful. I submitted a clear and as far as I could see an incontrovertible elevator speech and Willis just deleted the lot.

    “Stephen Wilde says:

    January 14, 2012 at 10:19 am

    The contributor known as wayne previously summarised my position on this issue which has been in my mind for several years as a very important aspect of the climate debate.

    Willis did not address wayne’s version so here it is in my words:

    [SNIP: vague, wandering, unscientific, and off topic. -w.]”

    It was approximately as follows:

    “The heat within the flames of a campfire would increase with more molecules (increased air
    density) around the flames because the heat energy is moved away more slowly
    due to the higher number of molecular collisions.. So the density of the air
    around the campfire increases the temperature gradient from fire to
    observer. In effect the denser atmosphere obstructs radiation leaving
    conduction relatively more important. Conduction is a slower process than
    radiation so the temperature within the flames rises

    In exactly the same way the denser the Earth’s atmosphere the hotter the
    surface becomes and the steeper the temperature gradient upward because
    space remains at the same temperature but the surface gets hotter. Just as
    with the campfire the solar energy hitting Earth’s the surface is moved away
    more slowly because the role of slow conduction is enhanced relative to that
    of fast radiation as a result of the greater atmospheric density.

    Density of the air at the surface is a result of the strength of the
    gravitational pull of the entire planetary mass and the mass (not
    composition) of the atmosphere.

    So, indirectly, through pressure and then density, gravity does determine
    the lapse rate and it is mass dependent and not composition dependent so
    Oxygen and Nitrogen are involved despite being relatively non radiative.
    Oxygen and Nitrogen participate fully in adding to the process of conduction
    in its competition with radiation.

    The ability of increased conduction to slow down radiative energy loss is
    what relegates radiative processes to a secondary role and explains why it
    is gravity rather than radiation that sets the lapse rate.

    Gravity and density alter the balance between fast radiation and slow
    conduction. If one reduces radiation and increases conduction the heat
    content and temperature will rise given the same energy input.”

    I think it sidesteps a lot of the problems if one regards density as
    shifting the balance from fast radiation to slower conduction giving a rise
    in equilibrium temperature as a consequence.

    After all, no atmosphere means an immediate turnaround of energy i.e.
    radiation straight in and straight out pretty much instantly. As soon as one
    adds an atmosphere capable of CONDUCTION which includes non GHGs then the
    conduction takes away from the efficiency of the radiation process by
    slowing energy dissipation down which is what then leads to the higher
    equilibrium temperature. The denser the atmosphere the more conduction takes
    place before the radiative energy can be released to space and the higher
    the equilibrium temperature rises.

    So, radiative processes are not in control because they are subject to
    interference from density and the consequent increase in conduction.

    Convection and the water cycle then act to try to reduce the slowing effect
    on energy dissipation of more conduction but can never get back to the
    efficiency of raw, in/out, radiation.

    Neat isn’t it ?”

    The only reason I can think of for deletion of that post is that I was insisting in subsequent posts that he respond to it.

    Obviously he either could not or would not (or both).

    A formal complaint to Anthony might be appropriate.

  98. Berényi Péter says:

    I am quite confident the Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect is tiny on a model planet with absolutely transparent atmosphere (along the entire EM spectrum) and where the surface is held at uniform & constant temperature, and most importantly, it should be independent of the medium.

    Otherwise a perpetuum mobile of second kind could be constructed. It is absolutely unlikely that climate science of all disciplines would be the one to come up with such a beast, because the 2nd law is based on much more general principles than that, so it would bring down the entire superstructure of modern physics with it in a spectacular crash.

    However, I am still interested in effects of pressure on surface temperature using a bit more realistic models. What about testing all the standard models (from one dimensional ones to full GCMs) with a different atmosphere, with that much N₂ added that surface temperature is increased to 2 atm, twice its current value? Otherwise all components of the climate system are left untouched, including salinity, surface area and volume of oceans, insolation, GHG contents of the atmosphere (in absolute quantities, so they would get diluted) and everything else.

    Would surface temperature change in this case or could it remain the same? If it changes, would it increase or decrease? How much? Why?

  99. colliemum says:

    I haven’t posted the following on Willis’ thread, nor am I going to – not for fear of being snipped, but because I can’t play ball there, following Willis’ “rules”.

    I’m a non-physicist with only a slight grasp of the concepts bandied about, but am very willing to learn and listen. However, if a thought experiment is so hard to understand that many comments from people with a huge amount of physics are getting snipped because they apparently didn’t get it either, then that original thought experiment seems to be too complicated to follow, if not useless.

    Thought experiments, the way I understand them, are vehicles to demonstrate a phenomenon by cutting back on all other assumptions which would go into explaining an aspect of reality here on our planet. So at least, to my mind, a certain parallel with our planet should be there, no?
    If a complicated thought experiment is presented, then all and any attempts at refuting it ought to be allowed in a debate, no?
    Else there’s no learning process.

    I shall refrain from commenting in depth about the snipping on that thread. I will say that the tone of the snips was obnoxious, that the way people were labelled as stupid, unlearned, even ‘idiotic’, was uncalled for and counter-productive for those of us who wanted to learn something.

    Finally, I think the thought experiment was useless if all that was required by Willis was a refutation or explanation in ‘elevator speech’ of N&Z and Hans Jehring’s papers.

    I’m not a happy bunny on this fine Sunday morning …

  100. Stephen Wilde says:

    I am also still awaiting responses from Willis on the following points:

    1) Willis said:

    “Since there is gravity, the atmophere will have a “dry adiabatic lapse rate”, which means that the temperature must drop with altitude. The atmosphere will warm until the bottom layer of the atmosphere has the same temperature as the surface, and has the dry adiabatic temperature profile above the surface. It will neither gain nor lose energy after that, and will be stable with no bulk motion.”

    Ok, you’ve accepted the gravity induced dry adiabatic lapse rate.

    And you seem to accept that the warming is from the solar irradiated surface and that the lapse rate is supported by conduction from the surface.

    That is then the baseline gravity induced GHE as per N & Z and the Ideal Gas Laws. Nice and stable and set by gravity and atmospheric mass alone.

    Then one introduces GHGs which have two effects.

    They absorb more energy due to their radiative characteristics.

    They then radiate 50% up and out of the system and 50% back down to the surface.

    The 50% sent upward reduces total system energy content because it is lost to space. That is a cooling process.

    The 50 % sent downward destabilises the gravity induced GHE but in turn provokes more convection and on a water planet energises the water cycle too.

    Now, convection and the water cycle are cooling mechanisms (evaporation has a huge net cooling effect of 5 to 1 – see latent heat of vapourisation) so that 50% sent downward must be all or mostly negated unless you can show otherwise and the N & Z data seems to show that the negation is pretty much complete.

    Which leaves the (admitted) gravitationally induced GHE firmly in control does it not ?

    Checkmate ?

    2)
    Willis said:

    “If there are no GHGs, the surface must radiate (to space, since there are no GHGs) the amount of energy it absorbs. Its radiation is fixed and unchangeable”

    You forgot something.

    The Ideal Gas Law means that the warmest molecules of air are at the surface.

    Those molecules are at a higher temperature than the average for the atmosphere.

    Thus they will inhibit upward energy transfer more than would be the case if the atmosphere were at a cooler average temperature throughout.

    That will give a higher surface temperature than predicted by the S-B equation.

    3)
    Willis said:

    “That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing.”

    Which is why the equilibrium temperature rises intead ?

  101. Baa Humbug says:

    konrad says:
    January 15, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Roger,
    That is of course an interesting point you raise about the emissions of energy from N2 and O2. How do Dr. Spencer’s satellites measure atmospheric temperatures? EM emissions from O2 molecules, that’s how. IR regardless, N2 and O2 are radiating in the lower microwave frequencies, and this is what the satellites measure.

    MSU is Microwave sounding units. So they use microwaves not infrared…so I understand.

    [ the use of “IR” as some magical special thing is risky when actually any wavelength is valid, is energy. As I understand it the sensing is on modulation, not direct but I might be wrong, various texts seem to contradict on this — Tim]

  102. Tallbloke 11:01,

    If your summary of Jellbring is correct (I make no comment on this, but simply assume it for the moment) then Willis’s argument does not apply to it. However it also means that Jellbring is assuming that the upper atmosphere is a better IR emitter than the planet’s surface. Which is totally non-physical, as a GHG-free atomosphere has an emissivity of essentially zero.

    So if you’re right then Jellbring’s ideas are wrong. Sorry.

  103. Baa Humbug says:

    George says:
    January 15, 2012 at 5:24 am

    If he were to start at the equator, figure out what’s happening there, then widen his focus towards the poles, it’ll all become clear.

    But he isn’t talking about one sun, he is talking about a sphere that is irradiated equally at all points by a spherical array of tiny suns, or something. In other words, nonsene, in my opinion.

    Yes he is George, but I have every right to ignore that because at the earlier Moon/Mistress thread there was only one source of radiation. We had a couple of respectful back n forths but when I provided details and links about temperature inversions and outlined an analogy he stopped responding without a word. I thought he may have missed my post among the myriad so I posted a polite request that he respond. He didn’t and I wasted quite some time waiting. He could have dismissed me if he wanted to cease engagement, at least I would have known where I stand but he didn’t.
    So I ignored the silly many suns and persisted with my argument to no avail even after yet another polite request that he respond.

    One must remember that the whole purpose of these thought experiments is for us to understand complex problems better. But the thought experiment must relate to the problem at hand. In our case it is the GHG theory of a gas heating a surface by using the surfaces own energy..bullocks.
    Understanding what would happen with a non-GHG atmosphere shows the GHG theory as the nonsense that it is.

  104. Stephen Wilde, I am interested in your ideas but it seems that there is a difference of terminolgy between yourself and engineers. Conduction occurs in solids. Here is the definition in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook (which has been published and revised since 1934) and been used and reviewed by tens of thousands of Chemical Engineers -“Conduction is the transfer of heat from one part of a body to another part of the same body, or from one body to another in physical contact with it, without appreciable displacement of particles of the body”. Heat conduction is similar to electrical conduction and can be modelled by electrical circuits.
    What you discuss about about conduction is called convection. There are two types of convection a) natural convection in which the Nusselt number is a function of the Prandtl and Grassof numbers. “Density differences provide the the body force to to move the fluid”
    b) forced convection which analogous to momentum transfer and involves fluid which is already moving such as winds. Here the Nusselt number is a function of the Prantdtl and Reynolds numbers.
    I have mentioned before the so-called climate scientists have no understanding of heat and mass transfer because they have never looked at the vast amount of experimental work by chemical engineers.
    There is an interesting quote from Einstein in one of Miles Mathis’s articles “There is another class of men who come into the temple to make an offering of their brain pulp in the hope of securing a
    profitable return. These men are scientists only by the chance of some circumstance which
    offered itself when making a choice of career. If the attending circumstance had been different
    they might have become politicians or captains of business” Seems appropriate for Climate scientists but one could add “crooks or gangsters”

  105. tallbloke says:

    Jonathan Jones says:
    January 15, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Tallbloke 11:01,

    If your summary of Jellbring is correct (I make no comment on this, but simply assume it for the moment) then Willis’s argument does not apply to it. However it also means that Jellbring is assuming that the upper atmosphere is a better IR emitter than the planet’s surface. Which is totally non-physical, as a GHG-free atomosphere has an emissivity of essentially zero.

    So if you’re right then Jellbring’s ideas are wrong. Sorry.

    Thanks Jonathan. My summary was simply two lines directly quoted from Hans’ paper. If you read the rest of the definitions for his model, it stipulates that the surrounding shell is perfectly insulated. I think that if the g/Cp relationship desribes a real physical effect involving gravity, then convection will occur in an isentropic atmosphere and that may (I’m still thinking about it) vindicate Hans’ theory.

  106. Bill Illis says:

    I’ve been asking the question about why matter heats up when it comes under gravitational compression.

    Now this is a real phenomenon. All Matter heats up when it falls through a gravity field. It is the reason why stars exist, why the centre of the Earth is hot, why gamma rays come flying off matter as it enters into a black hole.

    All matter has stored up gravitational potential energy (I guess effectively gained when it escaped the infinite gravity field of the big bang object). Over time, it has lost some of that when it entered a galaxy gravity field, then gained it back again when it was exploded off a supernova and then lost some again when it entered the gravity field which became the solar system.

    But this potential energy actually gets converted into heat energy when the object falls back into a gravity field.

    How much? A large amount really, at least measureable.

    GPE = Mass X Gravity X Height

    Take a 10 kg object 100 kms from Earth.

    It will actually gain energy equal to 9,800,000 joules as it falls to Earth.

    This would be equivalent to how much sunlight a 10 kg object would get in a couple of days, so not a huge amount, but enough that it cannot be ignored. Its not just friction that causes meteorites to heat up. Why this happens depends on us figuring out how gravity actually works.

    A brown dwarf star will heat up to a few million Kelvin in its core and then cool off over a few billion years through infrared emission. It takes time for all that energy to migrate its way out of the core and be emitted to space. The Earth’s core has not cooled off very much over time (but it also has radioactive energy heating it).

    How that affects an atmosphere which is stabilized in the Earth’s gravity field, I haven’t figured out yet, but step one needed to figured out first.

  107. Will says:

    Hi Roger,

    I have been subjected to this endless censorship at WUWT for over 2 years. Each time I provided information which contradicts the false assertions of the head poster it is usually deleted.

    The Eschenbach/Watts double act are particularly prolific in this respect. So much so that at one point, a month or so ago, I completely lost my rag over it and called them both cowards and told them to go F*** themselves. Now I rarely get my posts past the mods and when I do they are usually later removed.

    I predicted early on in this thread in a post directly in response to Watts (deleted), that as long as they continue to support logical fallacies the situation can only get worse for them. I have been subjected to this treatment for over 2 years and as more and more people ask pertinent questions, their only option will be to censor more and more posts

    [snip] – lets leave ascription of motivation out of it.

    So now to a relevant post which for obvious reasons Eschenbach/Watts have censored.

    “Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    “No, you can’t add them to the list, my tall friend, because they don’t radiate in the infrared frequencies. I gave the standard scientific explanation above as to why that is.”

    Your standard explanation is straight out of the IPCC AGW fraud manual. Are you serious?

    The conditions claimed to be responsible for the inability of O2 and N2 to absorb IR (i.e. that they do not posses permanent dipole moments) is also the case for CO2.

    CO2 does not have a permanent dipole moment either. All these molecules can however achieve a dipole moment via ionisation/polarisation. That is O2, N2 and CO2.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/diph2o.html

    Under such conditions all three molecules absorb and emit IR.

    The only atmospheric molecule that I’m aware of that has a permanent dipole moment is water vapour.

    P.S.
    I will be forwarding this and all my other deleted posts to every interested party.”

    Eschenbach is referencing flawed, incorrect IPCC literature to support his fallacious position in this head post.

    The clues to the fallacies of logic to which Eschenbach/Watts and those who propagate the “GHE” hypothesis cling, is that firstly, dipole moments are not specific to IR and secondly, molecular asymmetry is required for a permanent dipole moment to exist. Such as is the case with water.

    Not O2, N2 and NOT CO2.

    Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide all exhibit molecular mirror symmetry until they undergo polarisation via ionisation.

    The main point being here that O2 and N2 do indeed absorb IR. Just as is the case with CO2 they simply need to be subjected to ionisation in order to do so.

    As ionisation is constantly occurring under the solar zenith, at least 25% of our atmosphere is constantly absorbing and being heated by direct solar EMR.

    Diurnal shape and bulge in upper atmos. (on astro archive)

    This raises the temperature of the atmosphere over most points on Earth to above ground temperatures. This can be observed in the radiosonde data and can be directly measured.

    There is a huge difference in temperature between the ground and the air at 4′ above the ground. The ground can be as much as 7º C or more cooler than the atmosphere at 4′ at midday in the Northern hemisphere at this time of year.

    The point made further up by Ba Humbug is only partially correct. There are indeed temperature inversions over the poles, but they are not caused by air heated by conduction with the ground. They are caused by direct heating of the atmosphere by incoming solar EMR because the temperature of the air in the inversion is higher than the temperature of the ground surface material.

  108. Tallbloke 1:15,

    I think the model you are describing corresponds to modelling the atmosphere as being free of GHG except that it mysteriously assumes that there is a perfect black body layer at the top of the atmosphere. (It also assumes that the earth has no emissivity, which is evern more mysterious).

    Taking it at its own terms we can make a few naive predictions. The top of atmosophere can be treated as a Stefan-Boltzman emitting surface, and so at equilibrium reaches essentially the same temperature as a bare black body earth would (actually very slight lower as the surface area is larger, but that effect is small). The GHG free atmosphere in contact with it will be at the same temperature as the SB layer, and the rest of the atmosphere will adopt some sort of temperature profile, presumably given by some minor variation of the standard lapse rate. Thus the temperature of the lower atmosphere, and so the earth’s surface, will be higher than the SB temperature.

    Is this correct? Within the model, possibly, but in terms of reality obviously not, as the two mysterious assumptions mentioned in the top paragraph are complete nonsense. Does it explain warming without GHGs? Well only if you assume that the black body behaviour of the top of atmosphere layer arises from something other than GHGs, such as a layer of black paint.

    As I said before, you may be misinterpreting Jellbring. But if you have summarised him correctly then his theory is nonsense.

  109. Stephen Wilde says:

    cementafriend.

    Thank you for helping me to move towards better terminology but does it affect my meaning ?

    I was using ‘conduction’ in the sense of heat energy passing from one molecule to another via contact or proximity. Why is that exclusive to solids ?

    That is clearly different to radiation which can leapfrog instantly across many molecules which have little or no absorption/emission capability such as Oxygen and Nitrogen.

    Convection seems different again since it generally involves bulk movement of molecules in relation to their surroundings.

    So, is it really wrong to consider that there is a conduction type process even within gases and liquids ?

  110. Will says:

    Hi Roger

    My comment -13978 is missing, Did it not meet with your approval?

    Regards

    Will

    [Reply] Went straight to spam, not sure why. I’ll need to pick through it carefully, but it looks interesting, so most of it will get through.

    [ reason found, expect Rog will fix it –Tim]

  111. Will says:

    Thanks Roger,

    You are welcome to email me directly if you wish.

    Cheers,

    Will

  112. tallbloke says:

    Hi Will,

    I only tok out the ascription of motivation. For obvious reasons I want to keep it as factual as possible and maintain as good relations with WUWT as possible – OK?

    Now, I am very interested in what you say about N2 and O2, but the obvious questions are:
    At what temperatures?
    How potent compared to water vapour?

    Here’s Willis’ response to Crosspatch, complete with IPCC blurb:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 11:23 am
    Crosspatch and others keep claiming that oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases, for example saying:

    crosspatch says:
    January 14, 2012 at 12:39 am

    “1. The non greenhouse gas atmosphere is a perfect conduction insulator to space, it can’t radiate its heat out.”

    What? Everything with a temperature radiates. I don’t care WHAT a substance is, it will cool. It will cool until it reaches equilibrium with its background.

    I don’t know why, but some folks seem to think that all things radiate at all temperatures. They don’t.

    Here’s the deal, Crosspatch and others. Nitrogen and Oxygen are diatomic molecules. Basically, they are transparent to IR, neither emitting nor absorbing infrared energy. They might radiate at high temperatures like in the sun, I don’t know.

    But at the temperatures that we are talking about, all of the radiation is in the infrared, a frequency where oxygen and nitrogen neither emit nor absorb radiation.

    Here’s the IPCC on the subject, emphasis mine:

    Gases are the simplest type of molecule, and they only vibrate in very particular ways. Vibrations in a gas molecule are like vibrations of a piano string in that they are fussy about frequency. This is because, like a piano string, a gas molecule will only vibrate at its “ringing” frequency. The ringing frequency of an oscillator made of weights and springs depends on two things: the amount of weight on the ends and the strength of the spring holding them together. Heavy weights will have enough inertia to keep a bond growing in the wrong direction for longer than will a pair of light weights, so the frequency of the vibration will be slower. If the spring is very strong, it will reverse the velocity of a vibration more quickly, and the frequency of the oscillation will be higher. Vibrations in chemical bonds depend on the mass of the nuclei and on the energy penalty for having the nuclei too close or too far apart: the springiness of the chemical bond.

    However, the vibrations of many gas molecules, such as the major gases in the atmosphere oxygen and nitrogen, are invisible to the electromagnetic field. They don’t shine light or absorb infrared light; we say they are not infrared active. Oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gases, because they are transparent to infrared light. These molecules are invisible because when you stretch one, it doesn’t change the electric field. These are symmetric molecules, made of two identical atoms whose electric fields just cancel each other out. Neither atom can hold the electrons any more tightly than the other. In general, symmetrical molecules with only two atoms are not greenhouse gases.

    So no, Crosspatch, the idea that you have that all things absorb and radiate in the IR range is simply not true. A non-GHG atmosphere will radiate only the most minuscule amount in the IR, an amount that is way, way, way below the 1 W/m2 levels we’re talking about. Sure, over the next billion years that would cool them … but in terms of our questions, they do not radiate in the IR.

    w.

  113. tallbloke says:

    Jonathan,

    I have emailed you latest comment to Hans. Who better to answer than he?

    Cheers

    Rog

  114. […] Comments Stephen Wilde on The Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal …tallbloke on Gravity causing anomalous…P.G. Sharrow on Magnitude 7.2, Van, Turkey, de…tallbloke on Gravity causing […]

  115. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Gravity is a manifestation of an energy field of matter. This manifestation causes warpage of the atomic structure and results in that structure attempting to restore it’s preferred shape by movement (acceleration). Whether the structure is at rest or in motion, under the effects of gravity there is additional energy present.

    ANYTHING THAT IS UNDER THE EFFECTS OF GRAVITY HAS ADDITIONAL ENERGY PRESENT.

    Now molecular packing caused by gravity will concentrate the energy present and result in higher indicated temperature.

    Idealized conditions of a mind experiment might be fun but are a waste of time if they ignore real conditions that might invalidate them.

  116. Stephen Wilde says:

    PGS

    “ANYTHING THAT IS UNDER THE EFFECTS OF GRAVITY HAS ADDITIONAL ENERGY PRESENT.

    Now molecular packing caused by gravity will concentrate the energy present and result in higher indicated temperature. ”

    That is how I’ve understood it all my life but the level of disbelief at WUWT is astonishing.

    Even from our friend and fellow contributor Dr. Brown.

  117. Tallbloke 4:55, fine, but please make clear that this is my interpretation of your summary, and not based on the original paper.

  118. George says:

    So no, Crosspatch, the idea that you have that all things absorb and radiate in the IR range is simply not true. A non-GHG atmosphere will radiate only the most minuscule amount in the IR

    That’s my sockpuppet name. My real name is George.

    I didn’t say everything absorbs radiation in the IR, but it will radiate in the IR if it’s temperature rises. Like I said earlier here, you can have a block of sodium chloride which is transparent to IR but if I heat it to 300 degrees on a hot plate. It will still radiate in the IR though with lower emissivity than a block body, to be sure.

    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/354/1678/349.full.pdf+html

  119. tallbloke says:

    Jonathan, to be honest, I’m not sure now what ‘summary’ you are referring to. All I offered Willis as a refutation of his ‘proof’ was two lines from Hans’ paper:

    “A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It
    neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space.”

    I simply pointed out to Willis that a proof which relies on issues around radiation to space doesn’t apply to a model which by definition does not radiate to space.

  120. Will says:

    Hi Roger,

    The easiest way to explain it is as follows.

    A gas in LTE of a temperature higher than that of the ground, cannot be heated by absorbing IR emitted by the cooler ground.

    The same is the case for Roy’s “back radiation”. IR will be absorbed and instantly re-emitted without causing an increase in temperature, if the IR has the same or a lower flux density that the absorbing substance, i.e. if the absorbing substance is already warmer than the emitting substance, 2nd Law (entropy).

    If you had a 1 ton block of frozen CO2 it would be radiating lots of IR at the equivalent temperature of 194 K. But this IR emitted by a 1 ton block of CO2 could not melt a frozen cube of water that only weighed 1 gram.

    This is why Roy’s “back radiation” is nonsense.

    This is the trick employed to claim that O2 and N2 do not absorb IR.

    Here is that same trick being employed by Eschenbach:

    “Basically, they are transparent to IR, neither emitting nor absorbing infrared energy. They might radiate at high temperatures like in the sun, I don’t know”

    The truth is far simpler. The gases at LTE above a cooler surface will not appear to absorb IR if they are observed at or above the temperature of the emitting surface for the reasons I give above.

    Further, consider an open fireplace in your living room.

    All the CO2 and heat by convection/conduction is sent up the chimney. The only way such a fireplace heats your living room is by heating the air via radiation. Take out all the furniture and paint the walls white, it still warms the room.

    CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than O2/N2/Air. Therefore when mixed at LTE the CO2 component can only heat more slowly and cool more quickly than O2 and N2. This is easy enough to demonstrate with a simple experiment.

    A trace gas, particularly one with a lower specific heat capacity than the main body of gases, cannot determine the temperature of the main mass of gases.

    Finally there is no such thing as a substance that is transparent to IR. Not even sodium chloride,

    Neither are there any substances which are opaque or “block” IR.

    All such notions can be shown to be fictitious.

    Cheers

    Will

  121. George says:

    We can create imaginary planets in imaginary universes all day long but I’m not sure what good this does in describing Earth. We can measure Earth, it’s right here.

  122. Hans says:

    Jonathan Jones says:
    January 14, 2012 at 11:14 pm
    Crossposted from WUWT

    “Willis is considering a highly idealised case, but for that highly idealised case (perfectly IR transparent, and therefore non-radiating, atmosphere and uniform constant surface illumination, thermal equilbrium established) his argument is obviously correct.”

    Correctly, Willis is considering a model (thought experiment) which is quite OK. If that model atmosphere should be possible to treat scientifically all assumption has to be exactly declared which they aren´t in my opinion.

    If so, the model atmosphre might be of value since some derived properties might support un understanding of real atmospheric conditions on earth or on other atmosphere bearing planets. In other words observational facts might partially verify that the assumptions in the model atmosphere are useful for understanding nature as it is observed.

    Willis model atmosphere is so far out that I cannot see any use of it in this respect. His model atmosphere is, in my opinion, worthless (not applicable to reality) if convection and conductive processes are ignored and I don´t know (and obviously others don´t know) based on all confusion about just this issue. It doesn´t help that Willis refuse to answer comments that he does not like.

    There are several other objections to make before Willis model gets interesting. So will you please declare if you have included the processes mentioned above in your thought process when you state: “his argument is obviously correct.”

  123. tallbloke says:

    Will, thanks,
    hearthplace fires clearly radiate at a much higher temperature than the Earth’s surface. Coals glow, flames are a high temperature plasma. How applicable is this example. How much does the water vapour content of the air in the room matter in terms of the conversion of radiance to sensible heat?

  124. Will says:

    Roger,

    “hearthplace fires clearly radiate at a much higher temperature than the Earth’s surface”

    Exactly my point above.

    ” How much does the water vapour content of the air in the room matter in terms of the conversion of radiance to sensible heat?”

    How much does water vapour contribute to cooling?

  125. Hans says:

    Berényi Péter says:
    January 15, 2012 at 11:31 am
    “I am quite confident the Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect is tiny on a model planet with absolutely transparent atmosphere (along the entire EM spectrum) and where the surface is held at uniform & constant temperature, and most importantly, it should be independent of the medium.
    Otherwise a perpetuum mobile of second kind could be constructed. It is absolutely unlikely that climate science of all disciplines would be the one to come up with such a beast, because the 2nd law is based on much more general principles than that, so it would bring down the entire superstructure of modern physics with it in a spectacular crash.”

    Interessting comment. When skiing in the Swedish mountains I observed the temperature difference from the top to the lift station (1100 m vertical hight) of 6 C. Is it a perpetum mobile to connect a copper wire and use this temperature difference to produce heat? The theoretical STATIC temperature difference in my model atmosphere (E&E article,2003) is h g/Cp Centigrade. This is according to the second law of thermodynamics which correctly applied has to treat energy/mass unit and not the concept temperature as is done in most English handbooks. Gravity is included in the correct interpretation of energetic equilibrium in the atmosphere and has to be. Most meteorologists should know this fact since it is proved by soundings over and over agian.

    Anybody keeping track of the temperature decrease when moving upwards in an aeroplane knows that it mostly is -60 C at an elevation of 10000 m. The atmosphere acts according to the second law of thermodynamics when trying to adjust to the lapse rate of -9.8K/km. The US 1976 standard atmosphere temperature lapse rate is -6.5 K/km.

    A constant atmospheric temperature is not stable as you state. It will decay to constant energy/mass unit if isolated which is equivalent to a lapse rate of -9.8 K/km.

  126. Hans says:

    colliemum says:
    January 15 11:44

    “Thought experiments, the way I understand them, are vehicles to demonstrate a phenomenon by cutting back on all other assumptions which would go into explaining an aspect of reality here on our planet. So at least, to my mind, a certain parallel with our planet should be there, no?
    If a complicated thought experiment is presented, then all and any attempts at refuting it ought to be allowed in a debate, no?
    Else there’s no learning process.”

    Agree to 100%

  127. Will says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 15, 2012 at 11:50 am

    “Vince Causey says:
    January 15, 2012 at 6:14 am

    I’ve been wondering about the assertion that N2 and O2, being non GHG’s, can neither absorb nor radiate IR radiation. I considered a scenario of a cloud of N2 in space, of sufficient mass to be gravity bound into a ball. Let’s say this ball of gas becomes heated, either by gravitational compression or by the application of energy from some temporary external source.

    The question I would like to pose to anyone interested, is if this gas ball cannot radiate IR, then in what way can it loose heat into space? If there is no way for the gas to loose energy, then the only conclusion is that it must remain at that temperature for ever. This is of course, an absurd conclusion to reach.

    Thanks, Vince. Why is that conclusion absurd? There’s no physical law that I know of that says that things are required to radiate until they reach absolute zeros.

    w.”

    Absolutely priceless!

    [Reply] Will, apologies, this came in just after I left to pick up my lady from the train station. I don’t know why your comments are dropping into the bit box – it’s a wordpress thing.

    [ I’ve alerted Rog to why, see if a fix can be done –Tim]

  128. Hans says:

    Jonathan Jones says:
    January 15, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    Tallbloke 11:01,

    “If your summary of Jellbring is correct (I make no comment on this, but simply assume it for the moment) then Willis’s argument does not apply to it. However it also means that Jellbring is assuming that the upper atmosphere is a better IR emitter than the planet’s surface. Which is totally non-physical, as a GHG-free atmosphere has an emissivity of essentially zero.
    So if you’re right then Jellbring’s ideas are wrong. Sorry.”

    I treat the energy situation in a model atmosphere in my E&E article 2003. The results from that treatment is based strictly on first principle physics. It is either correct or wrong. I would welcome that anyone can prove the reasoning wrong. It hasn´t happened in 8 years and Willis has constantly refused to comment what is written. As you all know his science has to be executed in an elevator a methoid that is unknown as a scientific method.

    These results are verified well by observations in a number of planetary atmospheres such as Venus, Titan, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune and partially in earth´s atmosphere.

    I am not assuming anything about the upper atmosphere being a better IR emitter than the surface. It is a fact (observational evidence) that most IR emission to space on earth is from the upper troposphere but the emitters are ice particle, droplets, salt crystals, rain droplets (clouds) and even atmospheric greenhouse gases sometimes. Willis way to stubbornly choose to treat a gas atmosphere without greenhouse gases is just a way to avoid a serious treatment of real physical processes that do dominate in the troposphere. He is promoting IPPC ideas of how to describe the atmosphere falsely.

  129. Berényi Péter says:

    Now, it is pretty easy to do a back-of-the envelope calculation about the effect of doubling surface pressure by addition of an appropriate amount of some non-GHG, like N₂, to the atmosphere. Let’s say current average surface temperature is 15°C. As CO₂ were diluted by this process, above the 1 atm pressure level we only had half of it. If climate sensitivity is 3.5°C/doubling of CO₂, average temperature at this level would drop to 11.5°C. However, in an atmosphere with twice its current mass this pressure level would be about 5 km above the surface. With standard environmental lapse rate of 6.5°C/km it would imply a surface temperature of 44°C. If climate sensitivity is smaller (due to strong negative feedbacks), let’s say only 0.5°C/doubling of CO₂, it would be 47°C.

    Now, either way, it is pretty hot. And it is achieved by strictly maintaining non-condensing atmospheric GHGs at their current level.

    Therefore atmospheric pressure does have a warming effect and climate sensitivity (to GHGs) plays only a minor role in it.

  130. malagaview says:

    Hans says: January 15, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    It is a fact (oservational evidence) that most IR emission to space on earth is from the upper troposphere but the emitters are ice particle, droplets, salt chrystals, rain droplets (clouds) and even atmospheric greenhouse gases some times.

    Thank you.
    I think oservational evidence is critical in science.

    These results are verified well by observations in a number of planetary atmospheres such as Venus, Titan, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptun and partially in earth´s atmosphere.

    Thank you.
    oservational evidence wins every time.

    He is promoting IPPC ideas of how to describe the atmosphere falsly.

    The IPPC [and its acolytes] seem to specialise in bogus models, cherry picking and suppression.

    Will says: January 15, 2012 at 1:42 pm
    Thank you for your insghts and links.

    Your standard explanation is straight out of the IPCC AGW fraud manual. Are you serious?

    My jaw dropped when I saw the reference to the IPCC and thought it was a joke.

  131. P.G. Sharrow says:

    A few months back Willis bragged that his mother was some kind of a functionary in the U.N. and he spent time in many different places and cultures. There is more to this cat then meets the eye.pg

  132. Hans 7:20pm, convection and conduction cannot possibly affect Willis’s argument. And so in answer to your question ‘if you have included the processes mentioned above in your thought process when you state: “his argument is obviously correct.”’ the answer is yes.

    That’s the whole point of Willis’s argument. It cuts through all the complexities right to the core of the issue. Sure there’s plenty of fun to be had arguing (as Paul Dennis is doing) about the exact temperature structure of the atmosphere in this system, but none of this affects the core argument in the slightest: a totally transparent atmosphere cannot affect the equilibrium surface temperature of a black body planet under constant uniform illumination.

  133. Will says:

    malagaview says:
    January 15, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    Long time no see.

    “Thank you for your insghts and links.”

    As always, a pleasure.

  134. malagaview says:

    Jonathan Jones says: January 15, 2012 at 11:00 pm
    That’s the whole point of Willis’s argument.

    I have no idea what THE POINT is.

    There seems to be a shortage of black body planets in the solar system… there also seems to be a shortage of planets under constant uniform illumination in our galaxy… and I will be surprised if the universe contains an example of this type of planetary body where “the atmosphere” is thermally equivalent to “not having an atmosphere”.

    It cuts through all the complexities right to the core of the issue.

    It just avoids dealing with the real world and real observational data from our solar system.

  135. Stephen Wilde, there are many theories how the energy transfers and how electric, magnetic and gravity forces work on a quantum scale. I am trying to learn when I have time. Engineers work on a larger scale. They make measurements, design processes and equipment from experience then make more measurement to check design/experiences and then update or correct their knowledge.
    Measurement and experience indicates that air (or CO2) is an insulator with regard to heat and electrical conduction. A double pane window loses considerably less heat than a single pane due to the insulating air layer between the panes. In the narrow gap between the panes the air (or CO2) is held on to the surfaces in boundary layers which do not move. In bulk air or the atmosphere there is always movement. With natural convection molecules are heated in the boundary layer at the surface they rise because of density difference., and are replaced by colder molecules (note heat is always transfered from hot to cold). The rising molecules can entrain other molecules through an exchange of momentum.
    In forced convection (by a wind) there is already movement which reduces boundary layer thickness and increases heat transfer. Most people will know about cooling your hot soup or cup of tea by blowing on it. A fan blowing air over you will keep you cooler. The forced air movement also increases heat transfer by phase change (evaporation) because of the lowering of the partial pressure of water vapor at the surface.
    It should be noted that measurement shows that for surfaces at normal temperatures (less than 50C) heat losses by forced convection exceed that by radiation. At the sea surface, where there is also heat loss by phase change (evaporation), radiation is only a small part of the heat transfer.
    Interested in your theories about chemical reaction such a ozone production. I think if you get your terminology right you may be able to sort out one of the climate complexities.
    regards

  136. tchannon says:

    This site might be of interest, notice the image they use.
    http://www.entropylaw.com/

    (I have no idea who owns the site etc.)

  137. […] has responded here and here. The end result has been that WUWT has apparently transmogrified into Climate Progress, after […]

  138. Hans says:

    Jonathan Jones says:

    January 15, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    “Hans 7:20pm, convection and conduction cannot possibly affect Willis’s argument. And so in answer to your question ‘if you have included the processes mentioned above in your thought process when you state: “his argument is obviously correct.”’ the answer is yes.

    That’s the whole point of Willis’s argument. It cuts through all the complexities right to the core of the issue.”

    Thanks for you answer. It begs the question if there any practical use of Willis model and the core issue? Omission of the impact of convection and conduction makes his atmospheric model almost useless when applying it to the real world. He does not support his model with observational evidence. Curiously though he seems to accept that his model atmosphere will have an adiabatic temperature lapse rate tf I have understood him correctly but he doesn´t state why. it seems that he has acceptid the STATIC lapse rate that I derived in my E&E paper. How can he do that and at the same time insist ont the important impact of carbon dioxide (390 W/m^2 average back radiation). It just doesn´t make any sense at all. Please, explain to me if there is any other “core issue” than missleading readers of the WUWT blog and distruct attention from scientific relevant questions.