tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937701726196626615.post7874027746343343224..comments2022-06-22T08:39:10.478-07:00Comments on A Skeptic's Guide to the Greenhouse Effect: The hypothesis of Jelbring and the rebuttal by Erren and DietzeAndershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15294862989593516422noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937701726196626615.post-63130754837756794062022-06-22T08:39:10.478-07:002022-06-22T08:39:10.478-07:00A: You want me to believe in a greenhouse gas effe...A: You want me to believe in a greenhouse gas effect?<br />Q: Just show me your evidence. Show me the evidence which converted you from skeptic into a GHGE believer.<br /><br />Dare I say - you were never a skeptic on this?Jack Eddyfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937701726196626615.post-54720267430650310362014-05-03T14:46:52.307-07:002014-05-03T14:46:52.307-07:00Doug,
I haven't read your paper so I can't...Doug,<br />I haven't read your paper so I can't comment on it. I don't agree with what you say in your post.<br /><br />I didn't read anything that assumes the atmosphere would be isothermal if the GHG's are gone. In fact the quote attributed to Erren et. al. says the opposite:<br />"Upper layers would be cooler because the vertical component of the thermal molecular speed is reduced. This "gravity lapse rate" may be similar to the lapse rate g/Cp that Hans J uses"<br /> <br /><br />What they are saying is the temperature of the surface would be simply computed from reflectivity and the emission coefficient of the surface and balancing incoming radiation from the sun, with outgoing radiation. They are assuming the albedo and emissivity is unchanged, so the surface temperature would be 255K. The adiabatic lapse rate would then be applied to this surface temperature to get a temperature profile.EADLER2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17947925370864935807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937701726196626615.post-30036263331005024992013-01-08T20:35:47.687-08:002013-01-08T20:35:47.687-08:00You miss the point altogether. See my paper "...You miss the point altogether. See my paper "Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms."<br /><br />The point you miss is that the assumption that the atmosphere would be isothermal (all at 255K) if it were 20% pure oxygen and 80% pure nitrogen is totally dependent upon assuming that the First Law of Thermodynamics can be violated by a parcel of air rising adiabatically. The laws of physics are not violated, hence the assumption of 255K is wrong, and calculations show it is more like a case of 300K being cooled to 288K because the wet lapse rate is less.<br /><br />Doug Cotton<br />Doug Hendersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18402239699600122336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937701726196626615.post-18245088617711548192011-07-13T14:49:59.275-07:002011-07-13T14:49:59.275-07:00Hi Anders,
Just a quick note. The part of Jelbrin...Hi Anders,<br /><br />Just a quick note. The part of Jelbring's paper you quote above is not his 'central hypothesis'.<br /><br />It's just passing a restatement of the well known (century-old) calculation for the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Which doesn't depend at all on radiative heating or absorption - is in fact entirely independent of it.<br /><br />So it's kind of hard to see what your point is.Alien Technicianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06067794376743683491noreply@blogger.com